Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 3 on Health and Human Services

Welcome to our last hearing before our May revise. Today should be super quick. Blink of an eye. We will be out of here. We are just doing a hearing for follow-up issues that we've talked about throughout the past couple of weeks.

I appreciate the departments that provided some follow-up via email, which is why we are going to be removing issue number two on the update of transfer of some grants over to OYCR and we will just be doing issue 1, 3, and 4. I will now ask OYCR to come on up.

We will start with California Health and Human Services Agency on OYCR and the data on SYTF data update. Welcome, LAO, Department of Finance.

Good morning. May I begin? Good morning, Madam Chair. I did want to note that with me today is Christian Lucchese. He is a research and data too, with our office OICR and he'll be helping me today with the presentation.

I'd like to begin by thanking our legislative partners for their tremendous support in the data associated with AB-102. We also thank our county probation partners for the data submissions and look forward to continued partnership with them as we all move towards a shared vision in this juvenile justice space.

We are excited to present this first inaugural report of AB-102 data. By statute, counties reported the data to OICR for fiscal years 21 and 22 and fiscal years 22-23. We look forward to one additional year of reporting per statute that will include fiscal year 23-24 information.

Here are the goals of the report and what our team strives to do with the analysis. One, provide statewide snapshot of data on the progress of SB-823 realignment. Two, understand who's being sent to secure youth treatment facilities, also called SYTFs.

Three, opine on the presence of statewide net widening and four, provide feedback on where we see progress and where we see areas of concern. Slide three, we begin to look at some limitations, overarching limitations in four specific areas.

AB-102 data is reported on a fiscal year, which limits the ability to compare other systems that are based on other reporting cycles. This inaugural round of data collection only includes two fiscal year, so we cannot really run longitudinal determination trends.

We have some comparisons with DJJ data, but often their data, it is reported on the calendar year and more on the fiscal year. So that is the best data we have. But it's not apples to apples. There's a de-identification limitation.

OICR is part of the California Health and Human Services Agency, which has strict data de-identification procedures when releasing public data. This will come into play a lot with the AB-102 data. Many counties have very low numbers to report, which presents challenges in the analysis. We cannot share data counts less than 12.

There's a net widening analysis limitation as well. Net widening occurs if more youth are incarcerated in the SYTF than would have been incarcerated at DJJ prior to closure. Again, the reporting cycle for DJJ was on a calendar year and AB-102 is a fiscal year.

This presents challenges for determining net widening since we do not have an exact time frame for comparison. However, comparing DJJ commitments to SYTF commitments is still our best measure to determine if there is net widening occurring and what the role of SYTFs and other system partners play in that.

It should also be flagged that COVID-19 pandemic and associated depopulation of facilities impacts the specific analysis and the trends significantly. And lastly, with regard to the data disparity gap analysis that tells us the relative likelihood of a particular outcome to each AB-102 data point for youth of color compared to white youth.

For this analysis, the reporting period also presents a limitation due to the calculation procedure. County-level analysis is limited due to counties which only had white youth and counties which had no white youth in their AB-102 reporting. Some county-level counts are so small that it created very large rates that are not representative.

Slide four, takeaway findings, are one, the over-representation of black youth statewide. As we have seen across the nation for decades, black and brown youth are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. This is flagged as something we need to work on and improve statewide. We will review brief data that demonstrates this issue.

We have found that there is no statewide net widening, one of the most important findings that we have since the DJJ closure, and it is significant. This is very positive. There was a fear that the closure of DJJ would unintentionally result in counties incarcerating more youth within the SYTF.

The data is showing us that SYTF commitments in fiscal year 22-23 are 18% lower than the DJJ commitments in 2019. Overall, less youth are being incarcerated since the Administration closed the statewide youth prison system. Another takeaway is the increased use of less restrictive programs.

This data shows that judges and probation departments are stepping youth out of restrictive settings, the highest restrictive setting into less restrictive settings to complete their baseline commitments. Another takeaway is that SYTFs are being used for the most serious crimes.

The data shows us that youth are being kept in the juvenile justice system even for very serious crimes, rather than being sent to adult court for prosecution. This is developmentally appropriate and supported by the values of our agency, in addition to being a public safety best practice. And lastly, data transparency.

Reports like this increase data transparency and data-driven policymaking. Another key value of OICR and CHHS. Slide five is an overview of the overrepresentation of Black and Brown youth.

Black youth aged 14 to 25 only make up 5% of the California population in calendar year 21-22 but made up 30% and 25% of the population in the SYTFs in 21-22 and 22-23 respectively.

Latino youth aged 14 to 25 made up 50% of the state's population in calendar year 20-21, and in fiscal year 21-22 and fiscal year 22-23. Latinos made up a little over 60% of the SYTF population. The data from AB-102 shows persistence of racial disparities and the overrepresentation of youth of color.

In slide six, there is a more of a drill down with specific counties. As you can see, the disparities persist and Los Angeles County, Placer County, Santa Clara County, and Shasta County. I'll remind you that this data should be interpreted with caution.

Some county levels are so small, fewer than 12, that it created a very large rate that may not be wholly representative. We do not report Asian American and Pacific Islander and Native youth for this same reason, because the frequency counts are so low and the percentages would not be representative.

But nonetheless, it is clear that across the state, more needs to be done to reverse the trend for Black and Brown youth. Slide seven shows the statewide net widening. The AB-102 report includes this analysis.

OICR examined the total DJJ commitments by calendar year from 2017 through 2021 and then compared the AB-102 SYTF commitment data by fiscal year. And as you can see in this chart, from 2019 to 2021, DJJ commitments decreased, a change driven by statewide carceral depopulation due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Prior to the pandemic, DJJ commitments were trending up, so the SYTF commitment uptick between the two fiscal years suggests a bit of a post pandemic rebound, and we should have expected to see that.

Even with the increase in SYTF commitments between fiscal year 21 and 22 and fiscal year 22-23. We can see that fiscal year 21-22 commitments are still 29% lower than 2019 pre-pandemic pre SB-823 DJJ commitments. Similarly, in fiscal year 22-23, SYTF commitments are 14% lower than 2019 DJJ commitments.

Overall, the data does not show evidence of net widening throughout the state.

However, OICR has flagged San Bernardino County for net widening due to a 43% increase between the total DJJ commitments in 2021 and the total SYTF commitments in fiscal year 21-22 as well as 55% SYTF commitment increase from fiscal year 21-22 and fiscal year 22-23. A total of 23 youth were committed to DJJ in 20-21.

In fiscal year 21-22, 33 youth were committed to the SYTF and we also see another increase in SYTF commitments in fiscal year 22-23 to 51. OICR has reached out to the San Bernardino Probation Department about these findings to help hypothesize as to what might be happening and offer help and support to curb the trend.

In a deeper analysis, OICR hypothesizes that these increases are actually due to systemic issues within the county court system, potentially related to transfer hearings. District attorneys file motions to send youth to the adult court in lieu of considering them for juvenile court disposition.

And in San Bernardino 22-23, we saw 157% increase in transfer hearings ordered, increasing the 23 the previous year to 59. Further exploration is necessary to determine other factors contributing to these increases, and in fact, if net widening is actually occurring. In slide nine, we look at the use of less restrictive placements or programs.

Looking at that number, this shows that we started the process in fiscal year 21-22. As you recall, judges were not allowed to send kids any longer to DJJ in July of 2021. There was not a lot of momentum yet with the LRP use in that first year, less than 12.

However, what we see in the next year is that there was a significant increase in the use of less restrictive programs. We're seeing that the following year there were 100 use transferred to less restrictive programs. We hope in the future to see this number grow.

OICR is offering funding opportunities to increase the visibility and ease by which we can move youth into LRPs. We're actually funding 10 counties in helping them set up less restrictive programs. We're also working with CPOC to keep a running list of less restrictive programs in the counties throughout the state.

In slide 10, we see that this chart details the count of offense for youth committed to the S YTF in fiscal year 21-22 and fiscal year 22-23. Assault, homicide, and robbery were the offenses most prevalent for this population.

This data shows a willingness to keep youth who have committed the most serious offenses, such as homicide, in the juvenile system, which is consistent with youth development and community safety. In slide 11, the realignment of the juvenile justice created by SB, well, this is closing, created by SB823 is well underway, as you can see.

The data from the report shows the persistence of racial disparities and the overrepresentation of black and brown youth within our criminal justice system.

Similar to trends across the nation, net widening will need to be monitored as the process of realignment continues, and we will work closely with all our juvenile justice stakeholders to address both of these issues. The AB-102 data also exposes great promise.

Although we have a small number of counties that we will continue to explore solutions, it is promising to see that net widening is not a statewide trend, and data also shows a demonstrable willingness to keep kids local. We again saw the increase in stepping kids to less restrictive programs.

Thank you again to our legislative partners for their commitment to data transparency within the juvenile justice system. OICR continues to provide data driven policy recommendations and technical assistance to work hand in hand with probation and other stakeholders for the betterment of our youth, our families, and our communities.

Thank you so much. LAO, any comment?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Orlando Sanchez, with the LAO. We have no general comments on this, but happy to take any specific questions, and I'm here with my colleague as well. Thank you.

Mix it up.

Joseph Dallas, Department of Finance. No additional comments at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, let's jump into some questions. I'm really excited to see that there is no, well, we don't see a statewide net widening. That's really promising to see that. And I'm glad that you're going to be checking in and you've provided some TA to San Bernardino to find, hopefully, a solution to address that trend that we see there. In regarding to.

And I think you're 100% right in how it's not apples to apples, because the data we're getting is from a fiscal year versus the calendar year. And I think we should address that and just match it so that we get data on the calendar year so it's easier to greater transparency. Right?

So that's, I think, that's an easy part on our end, but I'm wondering, there's a lot of data that is reported to BSCC on a more frequent basis. For example, in their detention profile, they get like monthly or quarter updates. If we're looking to hopefully do some course correction.

If we do see a trend that is worrisome, wouldn't it be better to do course correction sooner rather than later? And I'm wondering if, we've had conversations about collecting this data on a more frequent basis.

So, Senator, I think what I'm hearing you say is that there is publicly available data that is collected by BSCC, and are you asking if OICR intends to use that in their analysis?

No, so we know that counties already have to send additional data to BSCC on a more frequent basis. This collection is more on an annual basis, and sometimes the course correction may come too late because we see trends 12 months into a trend.

Whereas if we collected this data, AB-102 data, on a more frequent basis, that our technical assistance or course correction can actually have a little bit more value because we can course correct sooner rather than later. So I'm wondering if we're looking into matching the frequency that counties report to BSCC to how frequent they report to OICR.

Well, I think anybody who is in the work of data transparency and system improvement would agree that frequent regular quality data is critical for course correction.

Getting it annually is a kind of a look at what has happened versus being able to go ahead and begin to drive corrections in a way that is a systems correction kind of like building the plane while we're flying it, more scenario.

So again, I think we are very pleased with being able to receive the AB-102 data, and we're hopeful that at some point that we can have more frequent quality data coming from the counties.

Okay, do the counties collect recidivism data?

My understanding from the county JJRBG plans, and I do have my data person here, is that my understanding that. Can you answer that question, Christian?

Yeah, there we go. It is not required through JJRBG, through recidivism. I know that some other forms of reporting, it's included based on the county choosing to include it, but there is no requirement through grants or reporting that I have seen where it is definitive.

Like recidivism needs to be reported based on this timeframe, based on these requirements, and in a certain format.

But do you know if the counties on their own are collecting this data for perhaps something else?

I believe they should be. I've heard some county meetings talk about that being a report out from probation to courts or from probation to juvenile justice coordinating committees. And so I believe it is a circulation within, like administratively to do daily checks, but not reporting out to different committees or other avenues like that.

It's also my understanding from meeting with each of the counties that that is one of the data points that they all agree is essential and aspire to collect.

Okay, would you, Christian, Director? Is there any other data point you think would be helpful for us to collect?

Well, I think in the spirit of course correcting, I think comprehensive system milestone data points is important. For example, how many kids are detained? How many kids are released at the first hearing. What is the average length of stay? What is the recidivism data?

Again, just looking at kind of the back end data, it doesn't really help us do that thorough overarching policy around diversion, around prevention, how many misdemeanors are being detained, how many violations of probation. So there's a lot of data points that would help actually drive policy if those were to be collected.

And I do know that when I was in Santa Clara County, we did collect all of that data and published an annual report. We do look at all the county annual reports. Our county coordination unit keeps a running tab on which counties publish this information on their own. So there are counties that are already collecting this data.

Thank you. In regards to the less restrictive placement 100, that's a big jump. It's phenomenal. But not all lrps are created equally, and each county is defining LRPs in a different way. Your thoughts, Director, on having a better breakdown of LRPs? Because, for example, just, you know, I always speak about what's in my backyard.

So, Camp Kilpatrick is considered an LRP, but it's still an SYTF, but it's an LRP. So it's being added to that data. So are we looking at potentially having that actual breakdown so we can have a really better understanding? Like, are these homes and communities, or are these still programs ran by probation? Or, I mean, they're still gonna be, but you know what I mean.

Yeah, I mean, I think that's the ideal to understand where exactly the continuum of care is landing for the kids. And this is a continuum of care. We have a very high restrictive settings in the juvenile detention centers and then camps and ranches that are being designated as less restrictive programs.

Not placements, but programs offer opportunities for furloughs, offer opportunities for raising animals, for vocational programs. So things that perhaps aren't necessarily allowed at that highest restrictive place. But certainly LRPs are not created equal, but they are expected to have a less restrictive programming model.

Yeah, I agree with you. You know, some really great programs that are step downs were phenomenal. I think it'd be really great for us to capture the actual placements just to see if there's any skew within there. And then in talking about adult transfers, and help me understand here, because I think I'm just struggling with this data.

I saw the majority of the cases that are transferred to adult cases are homicide and attempted homicide. But the majority of the cases that are not transferred to adult cases are homicide and attempted homicide. So I guess I'm struggling to understand.

If we're having 50% here and 50% here, how do we then look at that same exact number for systemic change, policy change? Should I be reading this in a different way to better understand?

Well, I think there's a number of things happening. 14 and 15 year olds cannot be transferred to adult, so they're going to be rehabilitated at the juvenile justice level. Also, there's even if, again, if we look at the trajectory of adult transfers, there's still going to be.

For example, what I know is that in 2019, there were 64 adult transfers, and then the AB-102 data tells us in 2023-22, there's 35. So we're still seeing a consistent decline. And that. I don't have that in this.

I pulled this out separately, Senator, so you don't have this chart, but I wanted to be able to answer this question.

And so I think what we're saying is a combination of perhaps we could dig into the age a little better, but there are still kids that are older that are being kept in the juvenile justice court after a motion to transfer to adult court is filed.

For example, out of the 53 transfer motions that were filed in San Bernardino, there were only seven hearings. So those cases settled. So it's hard for me to believe all 53 of those cases were 14 and 15 year olds. So I think that. I think we need.

We have that number?

Of the age breakdown of the ones that are transferred or stay?

Do we have that number?

We do, of the transfers, but it's not connected to the offenses, so we won't know if those are connected.

Okay. Thank you. And then just. I think I should know this. Can you just for my education, 707(b), compared to Penal Code 2090, what are the difference? 290 I mean.

Yeah, the 290 are the sex related crimes that used to require a sex registration. So it's a kidnapping, rape, sexual assault, anything that involves the sex offenses. And 707 b is the other typical serious offenses like murder, robbery, not related to sexual assault.

Okay. In the report, it was noted that for counties that only had white youth, we didn't collect that data because it was compared to youth of color.

I'm interested, though, in seeing in the counties that only have white youth, if there is in fact anyone being transferred to adult cases and if there's data that shows that if it's all white youth institution, they tend to, are we going to see the same numbers that we see in other mixed counties, or are we going to see just every single white youth in that county trending to LRP's and so forth.

So I'm Christian. I don't know if you have that data you're able to show, but like, I think that will show us a lot to see how we different youth are being treated when it's just mixed or just one background.

Yeah, the data should be able to be analyzed and we can do a follow up.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. Department of Finance. Question for you. We provided approximately $3.5 million for capacity building for the counties to put this data together and submit to us. Two questions here. One, do we know how each county utilize this?

And two, because we provided this capacity building, they should be able to now provide this data without additional funding because they built it and now they just have to send it up. Would you agree with the second part?

Sorry, sir, can you repeat the second part?

I'll do the second part. Yeah, we already provided the funding. They should have their capacity built, and now it should be, you know, I shouldn't say, I don't want to say easier, but maybe easier to be able to just send up the data to us without having to continuously appropriate 3.5 million for them to send it up.

As if we're buying for the data. We're paying for the data.

I would say obviously the appropriation made it, assisted in this process. I'm not sure if this is a, you know, I can't definitively say if it's a one time fix for the problem. So we can get back to you on that for more analysis.

In terms of, I believe what your first question was a 3.5 million of, do we know how exactly the county spent the dollars? I don't have that breakdown with me today, unfortunately.

But if this is information you and your staff would like, we can work with your staff to get this breakdown of how that money was used within the counties.

Yeah, that would be great. Just for us to be better prepared in conversations with the counties. You know, this is data that we should collect, and I don't want us to have to pay for this data every single time.

So if the 3.5 really built the system, then we shouldn't be able to collect this annually without additional support. Any questions from my colleagues?

I was just going to ask. Thank you for the presentation. I'm sorry I missed part of it, but, and I know it's not under your purview, but I'm hoping, like, who is collecting the data about recidivism rate, about successive programs? That's being collected somewhere, I'm assuming after AB 102.

My understanding is that now the counties must also include in their county plans program evaluation or program progress, I think is what it's described as. So now the counties will be telling OICR about program progress. That's going to look different. It's not going to be uniform because it really can't be.

But we will do our best to distill program success. With regard to recidivism, my understanding is that no one is collecting.

It is not many counties report it in their county plan. It is not a requirement. And around the progress reports, that is just what has been done since, what has been implemented since the previous year's plan. So it's not progress around the specific actions of the county.

So I don't believe DOJ collects for citizens, but I'm going to turn to Christian.

They don't report it and they're like juvenile justice in California review. No.

So I know, again, as a county actor, that was really critical for us to know if our programming was effective, especially our ranches and our camps. And so that was something that our collaborative did collect. So to my knowledge, it's not.

But I don't know everything, and I'm happy to research that a little bit more and get back to you.

Thank you. Because I would just say just to Madam Chair for future work, I think this is a glaring problem. I was not a huge fan of us closing dj. I thought there was a lot of great programs in there. I know in my district we had a couple programs. They did good work, they did good outcomes.

And I think moving to a new model, we need to know, because we were talking before about being able to measure at better times. We don't even know if the effectiveness of the whole program intervention is working without some kind of evaluation. So I think that's a glaring issue that we need to address.

There needs to be a better form of evaluation if this plan is working. And if it's not, then how do we adjust for it? Kids are at stake 100%.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, obviously the state must have some role in this, or you wouldn't be sitting there and we wouldn't be sitting here listening to you.

And I realize there may be some differences from county to county, but there has to be a common set of metrics that we can put in place so we can compare the effectiveness of county programs from the north to the central to the south.

And if we're not directing, if this is not a directive relationship, we can at least make, you can make some suggestions.

We can make some suggestions to the 58 counties, if they all have these programs or whichever ones do, because it's almost impossible for us to bring 58 counties in here and talk to them about their recidivism rates or what their programs look like or how effective they are.

And, but you can help us put together a common set of metrics. And if normally this is sort of a permissive relationship between the state and the counties, I don't remember.

It seems to me, I thought I heard before that it sort of was we could make at least something directive so we get some data back so we understand what's going on down at the county level with respect to juvenile justice and recidivism and rehabilitation. I don't know if that makes sense.

I think that's what my colleague was getting at. We're not going to be around to help you with that. And my amazing Subcommitee chair here will be, and she can perhaps put that together and we can watch from our sofas and see how it gets implemented.

Well, I'll be reaching out to you in your hopefully second, your next role.

I mean, I do want to state that I think counties are willing to partner in this area. I think that there's a lot of motivation and hope that this realignment will work. So I don't want to have, you know, leave you with this sense that probation is not cooperative because they are extremely cooperative.

It's a matter of kind of looking again at what we need to make sure that we're all boats are rising and we have other county stakeholders like county offices of education and Behavioral Health that will be serving these youth now, sometimes up to seven years in the facility.

So it's really more of a four to five parenting situation. So I just wanted to make sure that we have been really pleased with the partnership.

No, I was just going to say I think all that's great, but that's our hopes and dreams, right. And we just need to make sure that the data and the outcomes, the interventions that we're doing match those hopes and dreams. We just asked the voters to approve a new bond.

You might recall 20 years ago we passed Prop 63 and said, the state's not going to do it anymore. The counties are going to do it all, and every county's different, so you all should do it different. And then we came back here 20 years later and said, that didn't quite work out. Right.

That didn't quite work out. So we have to, like, back up and this is going to be more of a directional relationship between the counties and the state. And I just hope, I would just really hope that we've learned from this 20 years experiment we had with Prop 63.

Now to Prop one and going forward with this issue, that we don't recreate the same kind of quagmire and people's lives are at stake. Right. And people die. Hope we learn from our past mistakes.

And if I may, since you all are the ones that are going to have to crunch the data, because people like me are going to be sitting up here answering the questions.

I mean, if you want to be able to respond to us, you're going to have to crunch the data and be able to respond as to recidivism and program effectiveness.

You all actually should be specifying what data elements are reported up from the county, and if you can take dissimilar data and crunch it together and deliver a product, that's fine. But I suspect you'll find that you need some commonality in the data reporting to enable you all to do your jobs.

And that's what I'm suggesting, and I don't know how to do it. And if we need to help it in the six minutes or six months that I have left and that Senator Eggman has left, we'll try to do that in the context of the budget Subcommitee. If not, then we'll leave it to others.

But that's just a suggestion from my standpoint.

Yeah. Which is, you know, we definitely need to match the calendar data collection. That's something we can look into and love to do that. I do think we need to add additional data points to be collected. I think the recidivism part is so important. You're absolutely right. You know, is this really working? Are the fire camps working?

Animal ranches? Are they really helping kids not come back? And I agree with everything that you're saying. We've had a wonderful two year journey so far. Director, we'll continue to work on this. I have one last question. It was on page four of the agenda.

We see some data, some numbers, but there's one section, section c, number of youth transferred from SYTF to LRP. That is, that is taken out because for privacy. Less than 12 youth.

If we're just looking at numbers, if this is just going to be a number, how do we think that their privacy is going to be, or that we're going to know which kid we're talking about?

This is an issue that CHHS holds very near and dear. There's HIPAA issues, FERPA issues, confidentiality issues. And this is how it's designed under health and human services not to reveal numbers less than 12. You're asking how can it be somebody be identified if it's just a number? And I think that's a good question.

But I think if we were to reveal numbers less than 12, we also have to be prepared to reveal counties. It may not just stay with a statewide aggregate.

I think it's a slippery slope and that if there are a discussion that you want to have on this exact topic, I am happy to go back to our folks and set up a meeting so we can talk about this very topic.

Yeah, that would be good. So this is something that is applied to all HHS?

Yes. Not necessarily to DOJ and CDCR, but we are looking at a health lens now. We are trying to have all the same barriers and ability to protect our youth's identity because we're hoping ultimately that they're treated as youth who are going to be resilient enough to be successful and to move off of that pipeline to prison.

And so it's just another way that we're trying to, I think, destigmatize as well.

Do we have counties that have less.

Than 12 youth in SYTfs and things like that? Yes. Okay.

Is there a different way that we're approaching providing course correction or Ta in those counties?

I mean, we, so we know the counties, right? And so, and we have a whole unit called the county liaison unit. And so they will become familiar with what's happening in their county. And that's where we get into very specific assistance with, say, Native American youth and culturally responsive programming.

So we will know the information and we will be the body to provide the technical assistance.

Okay, thank you so much. Department finance. Just those follow up questions, if we can get a response to that.

Yeah, no problem.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Moving on to issue three, we'll be talking about the Child Welfare Services, the calsauce platformative response and engagement system update. No, it's not. Cares, cares.

There's cares, there's CalHEERS, there's CalSAWS. There's a lot fiscal, you know. Okay. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for having me here. So, I'm Cynthia Tocher. I am the Deputy Director for Child Welfare Digital Services under the Office of Technology and Solutions Integration.

Per the agenda, there were two questions, so I'm going to respond to both of those. So the first, in regards to how much we project to spend in May 2024 and June 2024, we are looking at in May, roughly 17 to 24 million, and then in June, 24 to 32 million.

And for May and June, these ranges are based on when pay points are planned for completed work activities. You know, when work is completed and invoice can vary, which is why we've provided a range with regards to both of these months and as pay points can move based on actual completion of the activity.

And so the amounts for May and June are based on the planned activities for those months. Regarding the second part of the question of cost to pay invoices for work completed earlier, there is approximately 89 million pending invoices or awaiting state acceptance to invoice. And all of these costs will be paid out of the current year appropriation.

Okay, thank you. Last night we got the updated information and so forth. Okay. So correct my math here if I'm doing this wrong. Actual expenditure is 56 million, but you have pending approval up to April of 89 million. So that's a total of. Accounted for 145 million of the potentially 200-130 to 200 million.

Now, I see the projected expenditures for May and June, which is almost times four of what's been your average so far. The average has been 6.2 million per month since July of last year. What's going to be different? You know, 6.2 million. And you're jumping from to 17 to 24, 24 to 32 million spent in the last two months. What do you anticipate is going to be the difference that you'll be able to meet that is higher.

So I think with the, with the two, the 56 and 89, it comes out to, I think around 13 million or I can't remember exactly per month. But I do understand the question. One of the differences.

I didn't add that part. Yeah.

So it just depends on what numbers you're looking at. Right. So when you look at that, I do understand because it's about a 456. You know, there's a jump there. I said one of the key things is we put in a new construct of contracts.

So it caused some delays in invoicing, you know, for the early part of the year. But predominantly it's right now at this point in time, which showed in our original project schedule from our SPR a couple of years ago, this is probably the peak amount of work.

We have more work streams happening right now, starting, well, January, we added even more. And so we have more work, more pay points actually occurring right now than we did at the beginning of the fiscal year or last year. So it's really how the work peaks and ebbs and flows.

The additional 70 million was provisional upon satisfactory progress. This is the first report we've gotten that was supposed to start in January of monthly progress and so forth. So we are five months behind. Lao question to you is, would you say we've met satisfactory progress to be able to provide the additional 70 million?

So Brian Metzker, Lao the definition of verified satisfactory progress had three components in the provisional budget Bill Language. The first was demonstrated progress towards completing product milestones for CWS cares. In early April, we received a progress demonstration that showed us that several milestones had been completed and that end user testing had been done for those.

And so I would say for those milestones we saw satisfactory progress. The second component of the definition was related to user adoption and the user adoption plan that was put into place and whether or not they were satisfactorily communicating with and helping end users to understand how they would adopt the system when it was completed.

I can't speak to that now. I haven't looked at that plan. So that would be something I'd have to take back. The third component, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe it was, and, sorry, I have it here it is incorporation of relevant end user feedback into actually developing the product milestones that I believe has been satisfied. There's been end user system testing that has been done.

They have taken feedback from the end users and incorporated their stories, the things that they found that need to be incorporated into the system to make it work going forward. They are working on incorporating that into the project schedule and the milestones that are to be completed.

So I would say at least for two of the three, they have shown satisfactory progress is about that last one about user adoption and communication that I would have to see. But I think the one further point there is just that this is something that Department of Finance is also supposed to be considering, and we're supposed to be receiving a provisional notification letter that shows that they agree that that is the case as well. And that is something that we have not seen. So we're still waiting that letter.

Kha, Department of Finance so I think, as we mentioned in the last Subcommittee hearing, that's something that's still under review, and we'll circle back after May revision. Okay.

And can you clarify for me and apologize? I can't remember this. The monthly spending plans, is this for the whole calendar year? Was that requirement of purchase of the fiscal year up to June? There was requesting. Yeah, when they get. So could you restate it then, please? Elliott began requesting monthly spending plans starting in January. Was it for the fiscal year? For the calendar year?

It was. So just to clarify, there is a monthly reporting requirement that as a part of that legislative update, they report the changes in the budget on a monthly basis. What we were asking for was the monthly expenditures, because the expenditures were not tracking the budget, it was underspending the budget that was available.

So we wanted to understand, starting in January, what were the expenditures on a monthly basis, given there was this fiscal pressure that's facing the state, and if there are resources available here to head off some other cuts that are being proposed in the budget, we wanted to understand whether those funds could be made available. And that's what we asked for, starting in January.

Thank you.

Got it.

So, Roth, are we good?

Well, I think so. I mean, obviously user interface is pretty important, which is what you were referring to, is that right, sir?

The user adoption plan?

Yes, the user adoption, particularly in a system that involves all 58 counties. Absolutely.

That's usually where these projects break down. So you're monitoring that or somebody is right. And you'll talk to us about that?

We have done, we're doing a lot of work with our counties with regards to the focus of user adoption, including, as Mister Metzger said, getting the user feedback, trying to make it better. You know, we're working with each county or each organization. That includes the 24 e tribes. It includes cdss. There's a lot of probation offices.

It's not just, you know, child welfare. In 58 counties, we have about 125-127 organizations we're actually coordinating with. But, you know, to understand their needs, understand their changes, you know, doing more now that we're really moving in this project, doing a lot more communications about what's coming, you know, what are they going to see changing?

So there's really been a shift in the, in some of the communications over, I would probably say, during this fiscal year, which we report on monthly in our Lao report. And of course, if there are additional questions, regards that area. We can definitely take that back and get further information.

User resistance is often what brings about the defeat of it projects, having spent six years on the other Subcommitee chairing it. And so while there's pressure, financial pressure to scrape money back, I would hate to see money not be spent on making sure that those in the field who need to use this don't get, fail to get the proper support and encouragement to overcome the natural resistance to go to a new system, because we need to make this work, because obviously we've spent a bunch of money on it.

So that's my only comment. Manager. Thank you. Thank you for what you do.

Thank you. We're going to hold the item open. No further questions on this. Thank you. Our final item on the agenda, our proposal for investments. You'll know on your agenda, there are four items. We're only going to have presentation on the first one, if the speaker would come forward.

You have three minutes to present on permanently authorizing the Emergency Food Bank Reserve.

Thank you, Chair Menjivar and Members, for the opportunity to talk about our disaster food request today. I'll just start by saying I think everybody in this room can probably think of, of a disaster that they have gone through over the last year, or family or friends in other parts of the state that have.

I live in Sonoma County, where the threat of fire is ever present here in Sacramento. I know flooding is something that is constantly on people's minds. So disasters can really impact any of us at any moment.

The national risk index was updated by FEMA last year, and it predicted what they call very high or relatively high risk for well over half of California's 58 counties and at least moderate for nearly the entire state. So if you look at a visual map that they create every year, California is basically entirely in red.

And in 2019, California created the State Disaster Food Assistance Program in response to massive fires actually in Sonoma County at the time that were impacting also a lot of the state through public safety, power shutoffs that were preemptive. Since then, the program has been incredibly effective for food banks.

About 14,000 boxes of food have gone out in just the last two years alone in response to eight separate disasters from fires, flooding, snowstorms, even last year. And actually, just a quick example, you know, relevant for Committee Members here.

Feeding America, Riverside, San Bernardino, in Senator Roth's district, actually received about 1000 boxes last year here in response to the snowstorms that happened. One of the most important features of the program is that it's immediate. So unlike many other federal resources, that can come in in response to a disaster, for example, disaster Calfresh, which is really important.

Those often lag a couple of months behind when the disaster strikes. So we just saw that in San Diego, actually, where the flooding was impacting the community in late January into February. But some of the federal supports didn't come until March. So the beauty of this program is that it's immediate.

So essentially how it works is that a food bank can call CDSS, who runs the program, to say, we're in disaster response mode, and then literally the next day the CDSS can send food boxes out basically instantly. As you can imagine, when a family is experiencing food insecurity because of a disaster, it doesn't work to say, don't worry, there'll be food in two months from now, right? They need food immediately. And that's how this program works.

And this allows food banks that are already embedded in their communities and really trusted and have many relationships and networks to reach families to get out shelf stable boxes of food that require minimal cooking to displaced families or to people that may have their homes still but have lost their source of income because their place of employment has been impacted by the disaster.

So the most immediate need with this program is to permanently place it in statute so that it can keep operating reliably as it has been over the last few years.

So with climate change making disasters more frequent, the threat of big earthquakes, we are simply asking that the state maintain this program that has already proven to be invaluable for our countless communities on the front lines of disaster response. So thank you again for the opportunity to talk about this item today.

Thank you. I don't have any questions on this. Appreciate it. Time for public comment. If you'd like to do provide a public comment on the issues that we heard today, please step on up. This is your moment to shine.

Hi, Madam Chair and Senator Roth. Keely O'Brien from Western Center on Law and Poverty just here in support of permanently authorizing the emergency Food Bank Reserve and also in support of the funding the diaper banks so they can continue operations. Thank you. Thank you.

Kelly Brooks, on behalf of the California Association of Diaper Banks here in support of continued funding five years ago, in the face of crushing and increasing cost of living for low-income parents and the dire impact that poverty was having on children, the Legislature provided limitations, limited term funding for diaper banks.

The last round of funding included 30 million over three years that expires June 30, 2024. While the funding was limited term, it was certainly the hope and the expectation of the Legislature that funding would be made permanent. Unfortunately, that has not happened and the funding will expire in just six weeks.

If state funding expires and the structure collapses, it will take years to rebuild the infrastructure that's been delivering over 160 million diapers over the last five years. We know the Legislature is facing difficult choices. Just like the low-income families who have come to rely on free diapers, families are making choices between food, rent, utilities, and diapers.

57% of parents and caregivers reported missing an average of 14 days of school or work per month because they did not have enough diapers to drop their child off at childcare. The want of diapers can result in unhealthy conditions for infants, creating a greater cost in medical treatment due to rashes and infections.

We hope the Legislature can find some amount of funding to continue the diaper bank funding which has become an important part of the safety net over the last five years. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members Mark Farouk, on behalf of the California Hospital Association in support of the critical access hospital funding proposal that's on the agenda. Thank you, Madam Chair, for including that as one of the items on the agenda.

Just wanted to point out that three quarters of a million Californians rely on critical access hospitals for care, and two thirds of those hospitals operate in the red. When one of those hospitals has to close the service or at the worst case scenario, runs the risk of closure.

You're talking about adding hours to the travel time of people to get basic medical services, including access to emergency rooms and maternity care services. So thank you and the Committee for your continued consideration for this proposal. Thank you. Thanks, Mark.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Connie Delgado, on behalf of The District Hospital Leadership Forum, these are the 33 district and municipal hospitals in the state in budget year 2021 and 2022. They received bridge loans, and those bridge loans help them with cash flow.

Those loans are due year one to date, has been paid in full and on time. The hospitals have paid those loans back. We are looking for an extension of the repayment terms for year two. Those money will be due in December of 2024.

As you have heard, hospitals have continued to face distress times, and these hospitals, 14 of them received the bridge loans. Of those 149 of them also received distressed hospital loan funding. So, just indicative of their dire financial straits, and we are looking for additional time to repay back year two of those loans. We want to thank you for agendizing this issue and for your consideration at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Josh Gallagher, on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California. As you know, with the passage of SB 823, county probation departments are now responsible for the full continuum of juvenile justice at the local level, including care for the highest needs youth previously admitted to state DJJ relative to the AB 102 data.

While we have some significant questions about how the data analysis in the report was completed, we agree with the goal of avoiding net widening and are encouraged by OICR's finding that they are not seeing it overall in the data.

We believe it's a delicate balance as we try to stand up quality juvenile programs that can reduce adult transfers, protect public safety, and provide meaningful treatment and education programs that can transform lives. We also stand ready to partner in efforts to identify and reduce disparities in the system as youth are ordered to our care and treatment. We look forward to meaningful engagement with the Legislature and OICR on our shared priorities and the significant policy change in DJJ realignment. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Chris Carter, representing the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank. The LA Food Bank fully supports the request for $10 million in the state budget for the diaper bank program. Item two, diapers are the most commonly requested resource at the LA Food Bank.

Thanks to the state's diaper bank program, the LA Food Bank has distributed over 23 million diapers for over half a million infants since 2019. The program will cease at the end of June in 20 counties across the state without continued funding. LA Regional Food Bank urges you to keep this critical program operating for families in need.

The LA Food Bank also supports permanently authorizing the emergency food bank Reserve. Item one while LA County hasn't needed to utilize the Reserve, a disaster can happen at any time. Our resources are already stretched thin. Any disaster would strain our ability to serve. We urge you to support the Food Bank Reserve so that we can maintain our programs while providing emergency relief during disaster. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Chair and Members of the Committee, Kelly Longo Flores, the California Association of Food Banks we work alongside 41 food banks like Chris's across the state with a mission to end hunger. And we know, as we heard from Becky, disasters can impact any of us or any of our families at any time.

With climate change making disasters much more frequent, we have a new normal. We are respectfully requesting support for the Permian authorization of the emergency Food Bank Reserve, which has already proven to be invaluable for countless communities on the front lines of disaster response. We are also here in full support of Diaper Bank Funding, a critical resource for many of our food banks across the state. Thank you.

Madam Chair Members, Shane Levine, on behalf of the San Diego Food Bank here. Also for issue four, number two, we're actually the state's from San Diego, the state's first funded diaper bank.

Thanks to the incredible advocacy by former Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez from San Diego, this program as to date has helped thousands of low-income parents and guardians in San Diego County and has distributed over 34.5 million diapers since its inception. And as some of my colleagues stated, the ask year is pretty minimal.

Our program runs on about $1.25 million a year and provides diapers over 10,000 infants and toddlers month based on the 2023 numbers that we have at our disposal.

I realize your jobs aren't easy with the cuts that you guys are having to confront, but I'd say that there's probably no greater moral imperative here than to help the state's most vulnerable people and our infants and toddlers from Low income families who need these diapers.

A couple data points I'd share anecdotally, we know that many parents are having to forego food in order to buy diapers. Additionally, children without diapers can't attend daycare, and without daycare, these struggling parents are having to stay home with their children, risking the jobs they desperately need. So the choices these parents are facing are frankly incomprehensible. And we'd ask that your support for this continuing request. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kevin Buffalino with Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services like to join in with my colleagues here on the emergency food bank reserves fully funding that program. We haven't had to use them yet at Sacramento Food Bank, but with disasters, you never know.

And our demand has been stretched thin over the past couple years with the demand for food assistance rising and government funding and private donations both falling. So if we did have a disaster, it'd be hard to meet demand without that Fund. We are also a Member of California's Association of Diaper Banks and one of the state funded diaper banks. So we would like to respectfully request that the $10 million in funding continues for our diaper bank.

We've distributed over 10 million diapers in the past three years here in Sacramento county, and it is what families need right after food. The next thing they're asked for or ask us for our diapers. So we've built that network up to almost 100 partners here in Sacramento county. It's been taken us three years, and without that funding, we'll have to close our doors at the end of June so that infrastructure will crumble and it'll be hard for us to rebuild if we miss out on funding this year. Thank you.

See no other public comment. That is the last hearing before may revise. So come back potentially ready for a bloodshed in the May revise. So we'll see how it is. Budget Subcommitee number three on health and human services is concluded.