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

Alright, we'll get started. Good morning, everyone. Welcome back. Fortunately, we couldn't finish last Thursday, so it's going to be a little different today. We're going to finish where we left off last Thursday.

So it's basically social, Department of Social Services in the mix of it, bringing back some topics we did talk about Thursday, just some additional questions that you'll see on the agenda.

We'll go through DSS and then we'll swing back to health and dive deeper into some topics that we want further information on that we started talking about on Thursday. So that's the plan. We're here until, if we need it, until one. And that's how we'll do it.

We'll stick to what I said last week in terms of public comment. One big topic. We'll do public comment and move forward like that. So we'll start with childcare. Deputy Director, please join us up here. Department of Finance. Jackie, welcome back. And for this, you know, we started talking about the unspent dollars. The number was $19 million.

I'd also like you know, as the question shows, the $70 million as well. We focus on those two points more than anything.

Good morning, Chair and Members Jennifer Troia, Chief Deputy Director of the Department of Social Services, diving straight into those questions on childcare. To go back to that subject, the first question that you asked was about that $19 million in projected federal ARPA funds.

I'll kick us off and then ask my Department of Finance colleagues to add on if they'd like to. ARPA discretionary funds were eligible for uses to support subsidies or slots, but also for other purposes, like professional development rates, expanding the supply of childcare.

That said, the funds had to be obligated for a specific purpose by September 30, 2023. We as a state did obligate all of the funding, and we did so by the deadline. The $19 million that we are estimating may revert to the Federal Government was obligated to support slots and therefore can only be used for that purpose.

More specifically, the funds are still obligated. They are in contract actively with General childcare and Alternative Payment Programs.

What we shared with you about the 1$9 million is based on our most recent assessment of what we expect them to expend out of those contracts, and that is a 99% utilization rate of all of the funding, leaving this $19 million. It's a point in time estimate.

If the contractors are able to utilize all of the funding, we would not revert any to the Federal Government. It's our best estimate at this point. In time of what they're not likely to utilize because of the time it's been taking for them to ramp up implementation.

But the money is actively in contract and that's why we are unable to alter the intended uses. So I hope that provides a little bit more clarity. I don't know if others want to add, but.

Tamara Weber, Department of Finance. I think the Deputy Director explained it pretty well, but happy to answer any questions.

Deputy Director. Okay, so the $90 million, well, just the bigger number was allocated to contracts for expansion of slots. This is an anticipated unspent dollars of the funding that's already been provided to the vendors providers that potentially will not be able to be spent by what time?

The end of September this year.

Because of the process to getting slots out to the consumer and so forth.

Correct. So I would say on the voucher side, the contractors that we have need to have enough staff to process the eligibility. The families need to identify a provider and get that done in time. On the contract side, where we direct contract with centers, they need to have enough staff and facilities.

And so as we have been ramping up, we have been very successful, as we talked about Thursday, in expanding, but not as quickly as we would have liked because of those logistical issues on the ground of actually getting the expansion.

Would this then pose an additional number to the 12,000 slots that are on the table potentially be clawed back an additional of this amount?

This is. I don't know how to think about this in terms of the slots.

Do you want to. Yeah. So this is $19 million that's in contracts for current service level slots. So it's completely independent of any new slots that would be added in 24-24.

On the APP side. So on the voucher side, they have two years to expend the funding that we have provided to them. It's a two year contract.

Part of the reason it's complicated, to answer your question, is that some of what we do is shift the funding around so it's not so much a slot issue in the sense that if they ultimately end up utilizing the slots that are there now, we might be using a different color of money.

The question is, if we run out of time before this color of money expires. On the General childcare side, it's a one year contract.

Okay, I think I understand that part, but I think I want to go back to the question I just asked. If the $19 million was already allocated, however, was allocated for the different vendors and they can't meet that, doesn't that potentially also decrease the number of slots that they thought they were going to have.

We have already accounted for the funding that we expect to go unexpended in slots elsewhere. This is funding that we, I think we've already accounted then for that in the total number of slots as well. Is that as well?

Okay, so $12,000 potentially can include the unspent. $12,000. Not the unspent, the $12,000 we can't. We're proposing up further, providing resources. And then this one, the $19 million that is only allocated for slots, the.

Slots that we talked about in terms of what we anticipate not being able to Fund that would have otherwise gone newly into contract. Was. It's a different Fund source?

Yes, it is, but they all Fund for slots.

They are all funding for slots. That is a different fund source.

Okay, Jackie, do you have anything on this?

Jackie Boracio, Legislative Analyst Office. We're in the process of trying to schedule a meeting with the Department to better understand the issues behind why these funds would go unexpended.

As your agenda noted, last year we were in a similar position where through our conversations with the Department, hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funds were projected to go unspent. Potentially some of those were also in contract.

I think the way that the Department obligated those dollars, as the Department expressed, is rather than pay quarterly payments or monthly payments, however, those payments are made with a General Fund dollar. Maximize those payments with an ARPA federal dollar. So make those payments 100% until you spend on the federal funds. Then you'll dip into the General Fund.

The Department is already projecting within the budget that they will do some Fund shifts with $97 million ARPA discretionary. I think some of the questions we have is, are those dollars in contract and are we shifting those dollars or were they never put into contract?

What is the distinction between our ability to spend that money before September 2024 versus this $19 million? Or is the issue workload, administrative capacity?

Okay, I know you're looking to schedule that. Meaning, is there anything you can share regarding which kind of funds we're re appropriating or shifting around once that have more flexibility, ones that are about to end?

We do periodically assess contractor spending levels and identify any adjustments to projected expenditures on that sort of first in, first out basis to make sure that the dollars that expire the soonest are expended first. We, as Jackie noted, are planning to do that similar kind of redistribution in August.

But we're projecting that even after we do that redistribution, this is the amount that may be left again. The contractors could expend it, but this is what our projections now, based on the trends now show would be remaining even after that shift.

And do contracts know that that money could potentially be pulled back?

They know that this funding has this timeline, yes.

Okay. Okay. All right, let's move on to the second question, please.

The next question was about previously awarded CCDF funds. So not the one time relief funding, but the regular CCDF funds. And I just want to clarify, I think there may have been confusion. We are not projecting any regular CCDF funds will go unspent.

Okay.

That's a three year window for utilizing the funds. We have plenty of time to identify the eligible uses and to utilize them fully.

Okay, what's the deadline for the utilization of these funds?

We have a three year plan period for our CCDF state plan. Our new plan is coming now. Do you remember how long we have to liquidate the existing fund?

At a high level. Sorry, Gabby Santoro of Department of Finance at a high level. The regular CCDF award is on a three year rolling basis. Don't have the exact date. Happy to get back to you.

How much? So we have available funds right there. Can you explain to me why then we can't use this for the slot to the bridge? What is it called? The emergency bridge program.

Our CCDF plan happens on a three year period. We have all of the funds that are currently in the CCDF plan allocated. We have them identified for eligible uses, which do include slots.

Got it. Okay, so that's. And when's the third year end? When is the third year? Are we in the first year? Second?

We're in the third year, but I don't remember what the timeline is exactly in terms of the close out of the expenditures. Our new plan is due July 1, this summer.

Okay. Okay. And as we enter into this last year of this three year plan, the entire allocation within this Fund is accounted for. Will all be spent before we submit. Not before, but. And then we'll submit the new plan for the three year.

We don't expect to have anything left unexpended. I think what perhaps was referenced on Thursday was that part in similar vein to what we were talking about earlier. There is some degree to which we can sort of shift things, and when we shift them, sometimes we're able to identify savings. This funding is intended to supplement, not supplants.

So we can shift in certain ways, but also have to be cognizant of that. And I think there was a question about $70 million as to whether or not there was any additional potential opportunity to shift, and I'll defer to my colleagues at finance if they have anything to add to that.

Gabby Santoro, Department of Finance like Deputy Director Troia said, we are not anticipating any of that $70 million balance. Like we are working to maximize that so it doesn't revert back just for clarity because we are still working on evaluating eligible uses for that balance.

We did not score associated General Fund savings as part of the May revision. However, we are continuing to work that and happy to fold in the Legislature and staff to inform you on our progress about how we maximize that $70 million balance.

I guess I think I just got, I confused myself. There is a 70 million balance?

So, the only distinction is just that we did not, it is our intent to use that balance and recover General Fund savings. We did not score those savings as part of the May revision so you don't.

So you have a plan of utilizing it?

Yes, correct.

Got it. And is within that discussion, the two items that are proposed for delay or cuts, the slots, the expansion of the slots and the emergency bridge program.

We are definitely taking a holistic look at any opportunity to make sure that we're not. We're minimizing reversion of federal funds, including for that $70 million balance. So that would that, you know, looking at the whole picture, that could be a part of the.

What would bar us from utilizing that, for that? I just, I guess help me understand. If we're proposing cuts and there's an option, what bars us from just automatically doing that instead of proposing cuts to the expansion and proposing cuts to emergency bridge program?

I think part of this is the Administration, as an awardee of federal funds, is working with the Federal Government to make sure that whatever funds or whatever purposes we are using for this balance are eligible. So it's part of the process.

But to your question about how do we evaluate uses, I think that we're looking at anything, any possibility of spending those funds so that they don't revert back.

Yeah. And with respect to the $70 million, that is a one time balance that is not ongoing funding. And when we introduce new slots, we make an ongoing commitment. So that could only get us so far with the slots and we would have to cover the rest with General Fund.

Is that the same thing for emergency or is that one time support for each individual? Say for each.

The may revision proposes an ongoing reduction of the $35 million for.

Right. But when we allocate an emergency slot support at that time, do we allocate an ongoing support for emergency, but. Or is it just keyword emergency, It's a one time allocation?

At a high level. In terms of how the program works, we make a voucher available for a year long period. There was a recent amendment to add flexibility to the extent that, like a child in the foster family that's caring for them needs additional time. But in terms of the funding, we make it available.

It's not like a one fund. We just have the overall funding available for those voucher slots, so we're not.

And $34.8 million ongoing. How many emergency slots, on average, does that cover?

We did a rough calculation back of the envelope again, as the Department of Finance and the Department of Social Services, as noted, calculating a rough slot number is difficult because programs are funded mainly like funding. But if we were to look at average cost per slot, it's roughly 1700.

I believe.

Jackie, maybe, you know?

But I would note that those slots currently are not being used. Our understanding of the administration's reduction is that this is right sizing, but as we pointed out last week, it's right sizing based off of current take up trends.

To the extent that we're not doing the slot expansion in other programs, which is our understanding as to why maybe bridge slots have come in lower than budgeted, because there was capacity in other programs that may change the take up trends moving forward.

How much funding will continue in the service? The emergency bridge?

Krishan Malhotra Department of Finance under the May revision proposal, the emergency child care bridge program will still have $59 million in total funding.

Yes, thank you. I wrote that down. Okay, so summarizing, $90 million potentially, we don't know. Vendors could utilize it. And you're saying it's really difficult to automatically take that back to allocate somewhere else because it's already in the vendors.

$70 million doesn't really exist because you will have a plan or you're working on having a plan, and we're staying engaged in that. We will meet with LAO on the questions that Jackie proposed here on ensuring not a penny gets unspent and stays within childcare seems to be okay. And then the final question.

I'll defer to my colleagues at finance for that.

Krishan Malhotra Department of Finance the approximately $60 million in new federal child care funding anticipated from the Federal Government this summer. Of that $60 million, we currently have an estimate from the Federal Administration of Children and families for that funding. We don't know how much we're actually going to be receiving.

It's not standard practice for us to budget funds that we haven't received yet. And so we don't have, you know, direct answers to what's going to happen with those funding, with that funding, until we receive the award letter from the Federal government.

Couldn't we then use provisional language for childcare slots or anything else if there's a potential for funding coming in?

Tamara Weber, Department of Finance we're willing to entertain any kind of proposal the Legislature wants to make about what to do with the $60 million if and when we actually get the award.

Okay.

I would just note that the award letter, they typically come in July and August. Another option could be, which we've seen in other areas, too. When we know we're going to get a federal dollar, we just may not know how much is.

You could the Legislature could consider as a part of the June package, adopt a placeholder number and then potentially through August cleanup, just correct that number to reflect actuals.

Thank you, colleagues. Any questions on the childcare issues?

Senator, I would just say that I like what you're proposing because then at least we have that placeholder that will remind us that that's out there. Just so it's like what happened to that money.

Right. Okay. Thank you so much. Moving on to issue number two, Deputy Director, on this one big emphasis on the home visiting program, more than anything on the mental health.

I just want to know if there's anything that's come out of that conversation on last Thursday about the transition of people in services and what that's going to look like. That's really it. That's what I'm looking for here.

Okay. Thank you. Jennifer Troia, on behalf of the Department of Social Services, again, with respect to revisiting some of the conversations about CalWORKS and what you just referenced. Starting with the home visiting program and the questions in the agenda, the May revision proposes a total Fund of $58 million for the home visiting program.

So this reflects a reduction of $47.1 million in 2024-25 and ongoing to adjust funding to utilization and address the budget shortfall. As I think we talked about on Thursday, the home visiting program is currently implemented by 41 counties across the state and serves an average of 3400 families per month for the calendar year 2023.

You asked about the outcomes of the program. We did conduct an evaluation in 2022 with the University of California, San Francisco. They found that clients experienced the home visiting program to have improved their quality of life and that of their children on a number of fronts. For example, they experienced improved parent child bonds and gained parenting skills.

They were connected to other services that helped to meet their basic needs. They reported increases in food security and in mental health. Participant families, also, of them, a greater proportion of children receive developmental screenings than for other Medi-Cal recipients and other preventive services.

As we're still in implementation and uptake fairly early on for this specific CalWORKS home visiting program, we don't yet have information on the longer term improvements and things like financial stability.

That said, home visiting programs more broadly, including the models we specifically use, are very well researched and that research has documented improvements in infant and maternal health, the prevention of child abuse and infant mortality, early learning and long term academic achievements, and those same referrals and coordinations of services. You also asked about expenditures.

In 2022-23 we allocated $99.5 million total to the home visiting program. Of that funding, $40.8 million was expended. To date. In the current year, $39.1 million out of the $100.3 million that was allocated has been expended. However, the counties can claim an arrear.

So we will not know final expenditures for the current year until well into the budget year or even beyond. So that $39.1 million is premature to assume is the current year spending. Our best projection at this time for expenditures for the current year is $64.6 million.

So to do the math for you, that would leave $35.7 million unspent. The proposed reduction that put forward in the May Revision was based on a point in time utilization rate.

So given the numbers I just shared, I think you will see that because it's our understanding that counties have done some increasing of the number of families served in the current budget year, the actual utilization could be higher and some families currently receiving services would be discontinued from the program if that was indeed the case.

We'll continue to analyze that data as it becomes further available.

Deputy Director, can you remind me, or maybe I got lost in the numbers there. Sure. The cuts are $47.1 million ongoing out of or what would be left ongoing.

In 20, we allocated 100.3 for 24-25. Sorry, that's the current year in 2425. Do you have it handy? Go for it.

Yeah. So we have for 23-24, $103,000,000 allocated and expenditures average $64 million. So of the $47.1 million reduction, we are calculating that $38.7 reflects a true up based on utilization, and the $8.4 million left over is like kind of a baseline baseline cut for this reduction.

So we're moving forward with 34 ongoing for the program or 8.0 something ongoing for the program.

So it's the $104 million minus the $47.1 million reduction.

So about?

64. If my math is

Different, number over here. But it's around the same.

Yeah, yeah.

Plus or minus

Our expenditures are the 104 million.

Okay, so ongoing. This program will still continue with approximately $58 to $61 million.

Correct.

Your next set of questions was about the mental health and substance substance abuse funding. As a reminder, the may revision proposes to reduce the full amount of that funding on an ongoing basis to assist in closing the projected budget shortfall. You asked about the number of individuals served in the agenda in 2022 to 23.

A monthly average of 5628 individuals were receiving mental health and substance abuse services through CalWORKS. 5098 of that was mental health services and 530 were substance abuse services. In 2022 to 23, we allocated $126.6 million for these services and $89.4 million of that funding was expended.

So far in 23-24. $85.1 million of the $126.6 million has been expended that we know of, though this is the same issue in the sense that the current year is not yet closed out and the counties have time to claim even after the current year ends.

Our best projection at this time is expenditures in the current year of $72.1 million. So the remaining balance would be $54.5 million in the current year. Counties have flexibility designing and implementing these programs.

As we discussed on Thursday, the focus is to remove barriers to employment and support self sufficiency so we don't track the utilization or outcomes in a more detailed fashion.

You asked in particular about transitions, and I don't have anything to add to what we shared on Thursday in terms of the work that we would need to do with the counties to make sure that as much as possible, there are warm handoffs on the Medi-Cal.

Side in particular, and then also because we can assume most likely these people won't cut off services right at July 1, will there be some funding to continue the people who are in services throughout August-September?

The proposal is to reduce the full amount of funding for the budget year.

So how then, if we do that, then everybody who's in day two of their 10 day inpatient treatment will be kicked out immediately.

Hopefully, anyone who's in inpatient treatment is getting served on the Medi-Cal side already because it's a pretty Medi-Cal service. But I realize your larger question, your larger question was about people receiving those services.

The only thing I can point to, which of course is difficult given the other proposals within the May revision, is that the counties have flexibility within the single allocation to provide services related to employment services. And to the extent that they feel. That these are,

We're cutting that drastically, Drastically.

Yes.

So, I mean, I really do worry that, you know, it takes a while even to transition over to Medi-Cal. They're going to get kicked out of the service, figure out their insurance, and then maybe they'll come back to this service. This seems like it's a cold turkey cut off.

Doesn't matter what service you're in, you're going to lose everything July 1st without having to ramp up some kind of allocation just to weed people off. I'm really, really worried about that part. Really worried about that part. Ready? They're also worried. You can see it on their faces. They're worried. Okay, we can skip number three.

The third question. I'm going to move on to issue number three. Oh, I'm just kidding. LAO, any comments on that?

Sonia Schrager Russo with the Legislative Analyst Office. I would echo some of your questions that you've raised around the operational aspects at the county level. It may put counties in a difficult spot when they're facing bosing allocation reductions and also these proposals to figure out how to fund the folks who are transitioning off.

Additionally, we hope to engage with the Administration to get a better understanding of their current year projections when it comes to expenditures so we can report back on that.

Thank you so much. All right, now we can move forward. Do you have any numbers on utilization for the family stabilization program?

In terms of the numbers of people served, it might take me a second to track that down. In terms of utilization, it is fully utilized. Actually over utilized. All of the funding.

Okay, please begin. We are now moving into new information that we didn't go over on Thursday. Great.

The third item on your agenda relates to Child Welfare Services and the May Revision solutions. You asked us first to share an overview of those solutions. The first one is related to caregiver approvals. The May Revision proposes a reduction of $50 million General Fund for caregiver approvals workload in 24-25 and ongoing.

This funding has been provided annually since 2022. It has been fully fully utilized by the counties. As of March this year, 1923 families with placements were going through the approval process. These are typically relatives. And 2716 pending families were seeking resource family approvals.

So they did not yet have a child placed in their home but were seeking to become resource families. In terms of the outcomes of this reduction, we do expect that the reduction could result in higher caseloads for county staff who approved caregivers, and therefore there could be delays in the approval of caregivers and the permanency for children.

The second proposal relates to the permanent foster care rates structure. We have a number of detailed changes to the trailer bill related to that proposal. I will save those for the later item on the agenda. The specific one that relates to the solutions is a trigger. The trigger mechanism is intended to identify whether there are available revenues in the Spring of 2026 in order to trigger on the permanent rate structure. I will turn to our Chief Deputy Director Ramsey for the Bringing Families Home Program.

Claire Ramsey, Chief Deputy Director for the Department of Social Services. Would you like me to speak to Bringing Families Home again or hold off on that?

We'll hold off. I realize that we didn't do the public comment for that topic last Thursday, but let's... Deputy Director, let's go back to the rate structure. And Department of Finance, let me, help me. Tell me if I'm wrong here. And I was searching and didn't do... I don't think I did a good job of searching the entire budget on this, but is there anywhere else in the budget that has trigger language for a mandated infrastructure statute?

Kia Cha, Department of Finance. We could take that back. I'm not sure if there's any other errors. If there's trigger language being put.

I don't think there is, and I'm wondering if we can walk through this again. This is the statutory mandate. We're solving, I get it, for budget plus one. This brings no savings whatsoever in putting the word trigger. But it really sends a message that even though this is a statutory mandate, we're going to put trigger language on this and just this. The Department always comes back to Budget Subcommittees, hey, we need to delay this. We need to delay that. We're doing it from almost everything. So I don't understand the need for the word trigger here.

Kia Cha, Department of Finance. So I think the intent, we don't want it to delay this effort. The intent is that like the automation TBL and the work to develop guidance and other necessary activities.

I'm so sorry, ma'am. I said it wrong. You're right. I don't want to delay. I apologize. I'm going to cut you off really quick, so I can fix what I said. Why the need to put anything? We don't have to put delay. Just say, hey, this is going to be implemented in 2026, and for some reason something happens, we come back.

Yeah. So the Administration continues to support foster care rate reform. I think given the volatility of General Fund revenues and just the significant size of this investment, we want to be able to monitor and evaluate that General Fund in the out years can support this investment.

We can still do that without a trigger because this is supposed to be going into play two years from now. We still have time next year to come back and reevaluate. But the trigger language really locks us in and gives, with all due respect, a lot more power to Department of Finance to just say, no, we put trigger language in this, versus having the dialogue to come back next year and say, hey, let's reevaluate with how this program is going and the process. I am not a fan of the word trigger in here. I think if we stick to the trailer bill language on the process and so forth, but no trigger language to this program.

Understand. But I would just also note that whether or not... Like whatever the outcome of the determination, we are going to be having that conversation for sure in subcommittees.

100%.

It's not solely a Finance Department decision.

Right. Right. And I want to have that conversation, but putting the trigger kind of limits it a little bit. It already says if we have funds, we're going to do this, we're going to put it on the trigger. But just leaving it as is, the Department can still come back next year and say, hey, we need to delay this. And that conversation still happens.

I think it allows for a more transparent conversation instead of putting the word trigger. Like most programs that are coming to the table today are from deals that were made a couple years ago that are being proposed for delay. That's still the opportunity of the Department to do that. I still think the trigger language really locks us in before having that conversation. Senator, anything to add on that?

I would just concur, Madam Chair. I think this is a... I'm like a broken record, but in my final year. But it's always a Department, it's always the Human Services Department, Social Services that get the trigger language. And it, it rarely then comes back to us. The trigger is triggered and that's two years down the road.

I think it gives that time for the public to give input again. It can be painful, but that's part of transparency and oversight and us actually, the Legislature actually taking our role very seriously and being deliberate about its impact on families. And once you put, I mean, trigger in there, just from a mental health perspective, right. You're triggering somebody, you're telling, it's coming, it's coming, it's coming. So I would concur with you that we can let it go as is, and the Administration come back to us if they need to make changes later, like everything else.

Yeah, because I think you just reminded me, the continuous coverage for 0-5 is on trigger language. And that keeps just, I mean, of course we can bring up anything to talk about it on Sub 3, but those are just some examples that get triggered, get down at the bottom of the list for priority. So it doesn't take away your opportunity to bring it back. It's just leave it, where we stand, leave as is.

And I know continue having that conversation with the three parties for the budget at the end, but that's where I'm standing on. Okay. I think those were in on that. I think I... We're going to do public comment now for all child welfare issues, CalWORKs and child welfare, and then move on to IHSS after LAO. I keep forgetting y'all.

Thank you. Angela Short with the Legislative Analyst Office. I'll start with the trigger since that's what we were just focused on. I think perhaps similarly to some of the comments made by the Chair and Senator Eggman, we also would agree that it does not seem to make sense necessarily to subject implementation of the new rates structure to a trigger. More specifically, this is a quite significant revamping of the foster care rate structure that has been proposed.

And we already know that the department, stakeholders, counties, service providers will be spending quite a lot of time over the next couple of years, continuing to work out the implementation details of the proposal and preparing to transition to the new rate structure. So we're not sure if having everyone do all of that preparation, all of that work, would make sense if ultimately the decision is deferred to the Department of Finance and implementation may not happen at all.

Since we already know, again, that this is a very significant proposal that's going to take time, we would agree a prudent approach would seem to be to pass language this budget year that is necessary to allow that implementation preparations to begin, and then in the next year or so, once the Legislature has a better fiscal picture of the state's future revenues, make a determination if a delay needs to occur.

But ultimately, the trigger language doesn't seem to make sense from our perspective for this proposal. And then briefly, I'll just go back to the proposed 50 million reduction for the resource family caregiver approvals. We would just add to what Chief Deputy Director Troia mentioned.

Our understanding is that currently the median approval times remain over 100 days, both relative caregivers as well as non-relative resource families. This is above the target 90 day approval timeline. So reducing those funds that counties use to help address the backlog and get those processing times down, we would anticipate will just result in longer times and longer delays for those families. And happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. No questions. Turning over to public comment. So we have the Bring Families Home Program, we have the family care approvals, foster care trigger language, and then the CalWORKs programs.

Yeah, we oppose the trigger. And about mental health and substance abuse. Medi-Cal is not the solution to the issue because Medi-Cal has a limited six visits for a year, so often people need more than six visits. So if that's going to be the solution, then those prepaid health plans have to be amended to make this possible. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Eileen Cubanski with the County Welfare Directors Association. Cut me off when you need to. There's a lot. Just the single allocation. I'll just say it is a significant reduction to the single allocation. With the eligibility shortfall that we have of about $400 million, we're looking at what is effectively the entirety of this cut coming out of the employment services component of the single. That's about a 50% reduction to services.

There's no doubt that we are going to be cutting people off of the employment services that we have and will not have any room to transition on the mental health substance abuse side either. And that's on top of the ESE cuts and the family stabilization cuts as well. So. And now the Home Visiting Program cuts, too. So we'll be looking potentially at cutting some families off of that. So it is significant and it is deep, and it is deeply concerning to us what that means for the CalWORKs program.

Minimally, we're going to need some trailer bill language to absorb even a portion of these cuts that's going to exempt us from work participation requirements and so forth.

One last thing, because you went over your time already.

Oh, I'm sorry. On the caregiver support, on the approvals, we fund about 200 social workers statewide with that money. We spend at least twice that on those. Without that funding, we are undermining core programs, and we have significant concerns remaining about the foster care proposal. None of our concerns were addressed in the trailer bill. Thanks.

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the urban counties of California and the Rural County Representatives of California, we have deep concerns with the CalWORKS reductions, which is 759 million, 487 million of that is ongoing.

We're looking at cuts to infrastructure of the program, things that help in family crisis supports, access to mental health and substance use services, job readiness training and employment supports, and county caseworkers. If counties decided to implement the single allocation cut just with layoffs, we'd be laying off 1730 CalWORKS staff statewide.

Just underscore what Miss Kubanski said about we will need some trailer bill to implement this level of cuts on the caregiver approvals. This is the foundation of our child welfare system to maintain family caregivers for children and youth who have been removed from their parents.

This will lead to delays and mandated approvals, including of relative caregivers and delays in their ability to be provided a full foster care repayment inclusive of supplemental rates. The $50 million cut is equal to about 203 social workers statewide. Thanks.

Good morning. Kim Lewis, representing a Spironetta Foster Family Agency in 35 counties in the state and I just want to echo your comments around the trigger into the permanent rate structure. I think this causes grave concern to the field about the stability of our programs and services who are supporting our foster youth.

In addition to the $240 million in cuts that are being proposed in this budget to the child welfare system in general, let alone the loss of the FFA Bridge Funding, that's going to go away.

And so how do we expect to have our foster care providers be able to support the vision of this new rate structure if they're not going to be here in two years?

So I urge you to reject all the cuts to child welfare system and have an engaging conversation with us around how we're going to solve this problem going forward. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Kristen Power with The Alliance for Children's Rights. I want to echo your comments about the trigger language and support the recommendation from the LAOs office.

We want to be sure that we are supporting this investment and that the Legislature has oversight into this process and that the overall process is supported and results in what we anticipate is an increase.

At the same time, we want to urge the Legislature to reject the cuts to all of the child welfare programs and see where this balance ends us at the end of the day. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Chris Stoner-Mertz with The California Alliance of Child and Family Services. We similarly agree that we need to remove that trigger language and bring back the proposal to the Legislature for review in January 2025 so that we're all working together to make sure it's the right proposal.

And we want to focus your attention on those cuts to foster family agencies, which are a critical part of this proposal. We must get that 8.8% COLA in place for this July. And then finally, we also reject the cuts to the child welfare system in General. We can't be building on one side and cutting on the other.

Thank you so much. Thanks.

Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties. We are strongly opposed to the cuts to the CalWORK senior allocation, the various services cuts, the bringing families home program cut, and the caregiver approval cut.

You know, taken together, these cuts will significantly impede county's abilities to perform core administrative functions for these programs, as well as negatively impact the workforce at the county level. On the services side, that will take away key housing supports, job training and other skills and services that families need. And it's critical to the success of these programs.

So we urge you to reject them. Thank you. Thank you.

Susanna Kniffen with Children Now, the state has both a moral and legal responsibility to protect children and youth in our foster care system. Today. They need you to protect them from this Administration. Please reject all cuts to our foster care system, particularly the elimination of the family or gym response system.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Members, Cathy Senderling-Mcdonald for Alameda County. We urge rejection of the FERS elimination, the bringing families home elimination, the elimination of the SILP housing supplement, and the $50 million cut to RFA approval. These cuts would delay reunification for families who are doing everything we ask of them.

Would delay approval for relatives who want only to care for the children and their families. It delays stability for those children. It would further traumatize and reduce services to children and youth who've already suffered, through no fault of their own, all of those things. And finally, it would further reduce and threaten an already overburdened workforce. Thank you.

Thanks, Cathy.

Madam Chair Members, Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, also urge your rejection of the CalWORK single allocation because it would affect 117,000 families, 217,000 children, 70,000 adults in Los Angeles County would be impacted. We also oppose the additional cuts to child, the cuts to child welfare from the January.

We're looking at the governor's may revision and the serious impact it will have to Los Angeles County and will provide additional impact information.

Thank you. Good morning. Kelly Longo Flores with the California Association of Food Banks. We understand that this is a very challenging budget year, but we ask that the Committee rejects outcuts that will impact California's most vulnerable populations.

Specific specifically, we ask that you reject the double cuts of CalWORKS and safety net withdrawal and any pullback in child care funding. Thank you. Thank you.

Jeff Neil, representing the County of San Diego. We remain concerned with the proposed cuts to the single allocation to the CalWORKS supportive services, especially the proposed cuts to the statutorily acquired eligibility and Employment services program would be almost $30 million just in San Diego, make it unsustainable to continue to operate that program into the future.

Given the significance of the cuts, the county would request that you consider reducing some of the administrative regulatory burden both on counties and on clients. Some of the COVID era Executive orders made changes to suspended intake interviews, annual renewal interviews, semi annual reporting, and good cause latitude for counties that don't participate in employment services.

Lifting some of those administrative burdens would would at least give us some flexibility to operate the programs under these devastating cuts. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, chair. I'm Indravar Emmerald Evans with Grace in Child Poverty California. We would like to deeply oppose and reject cuts to programs serving foster youth, both included in the May revise and the January budget proposal, and then also regarding the foster care rate structure.

We want to echo concerns by counties and advocates about the unknowns in the methodology behind the tiering system. We urge only minimally necessary action this year for stakeholders to get it right given the permanent reforms being made. We share your concern about the structure of the trigger and then regarding how it works.

I want to echo our comments from Andrew on Thursday to underscore your comments, chair, that these are deep cuts to core programs and then regarding childcare.

Lastly, we want to reject the cuts to childcare bridge that would ensure children are placed into foster care in crisis, that are in crisis, have childcare, and we appreciate your hard work to make sure that we maximize all federal funding. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Vanessa Kahina, on behalf of the Nurse Family Partnership, one of the CalWORKS home visiting programs, deeply concerned with all of the proposed cuts to CalWORKS. Taken together, these would have significant impacts on thousands of families around the state.

As we've done an assessment of our network partners in different counties, we can tell you that we believe that there would be 100 families in Riverside County who would be cut off from home visiting services if this cut were to go into effect. We urge you to reject these cuts and thank you so much for your attention.

Thank you.

Good morning. Heidi Kaiser, representing Child Action. We'd like to align our comments with the ECE coalition, please reject the cuts to the childcare bridge program. Cutting these funds will hurt some of our most vulnerable children. Additionally, pausing any new childcare slots will result in missed opportunities for struggling families to stabilize and hurt their children. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning. Nina Buthee, Executive Director of Every Child California we're very opposed to the cuts to the child care bridge program and also specifically to the General child care slot reduction. Centers have already started transforming classrooms on the promise of these funds.

One of my Members in LA said the expansion funding application was a very long and arduous process. She went through it, got board approval, started shifting classrooms, got licensed, which takes a very, very long time. Of all of the age groups she serves, the longest waiting list is for infants and toddlers.

Without this expansion funding, she will have three empty classrooms unable to serve these children. Let's not let classrooms just sit open because we're cutting this funding. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Valerie Denero with Every Child California and we also align ourselves with the ECE coalition. I echo the comments that have already been made. The ECA coalition we are committed to working with the Legislature and the Governor to adopt other budget solutions.

In particular, we urge you to adopt the timeline for implementing the alternative rate methodology, adoption of the ECE reversion account, and most importantly, the release of the 27,000 CCTR spaces that were already promised to providers that have already gone extremely out of pocket to be ready to go to enroll families July 1.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Thank you.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We continue to oppose the deep cuts to CalWORKS, especially the Family stabilization program, subsidized employment program, the draining of the safety net, and then in May, the CalWORKS home visiting program and the mental health and the substance abuse program.

We do believe this runs counter to the state becoming part of the federal pilot program, but we were happy to see in the budget that there was some language put in by the Department requesting language to be a part of this pilot.

And we're also concerned about the cuts to the child welfare, including the childcare slots and the bring families home program. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, chair Members. Janice O'Malley with Ask Me California, you've heard from the folks prior to me that the cuts to child welfare, to CalWORKS will really severely impact the workforce. But I also want to share with you what that actually means.

One person, even one person who is fired from these positions could really affect the health and safety of children and families especially in small rural areas.

We represent folks in Humboldt County, and they had to put out an all points bulletin message to their workers to even if they didn't work in the classification of child welfare, they needed to all work together to address the backlogs. And so that means that the workforce is overburdened.

They're unable to address some of these health and safety issues that are mandated by the state. So we're really concerned about these cuts and hope that I know this is a bad budget year. You have to make really difficult decisions. I don't envy you when you make these decisions.

But let's think about, like, the real impact of how this will affect families. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mariam Sossouadouno, Child Care Law Center we urge the Legislature to reject any cuts to the CalWORKS program. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Menjivar. My name is Juliet Terry. I'm with the Child Care Resource Center, and we're proud partners of the ECE Coalition and align ourselves with all of their sentiments said today.

I just want to start off by saying that during the May revision, drop the governor's sentiments around a choice having to be made between funding childcare rates and funding childcare slots is quite a false choice narrative, and it's very harmful to our families and children who are depending on these programs. We have other choices.

So please consider rejecting the cuts to CalWORKS, rejecting the cuts to the Foster Care Bridge Program, fully funding the child care slots that were allotted. I know in our district alone serve, we already have 18,000 families waiting for childcare. And as well, we do ask the restoration of the General childcare slots as well. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Moving into IHSS.

Madam Chair, before you do, if I may just for your record, answer your question related to family stabilization, it was 44,000 CalWORKS families that received those services in 2022 to 23.

Thank you so much. I appreciate that.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Claire Ramsey for the Department. Speaking on your IHSS questions, I will begin with the rescission of the in home supportive services benefit based on immigration status. The May revision proposes the elimination of IHSS for all undocumented recipients affected by the full scope Medi Cal expansions.

The elimination of IHSS for all undocumented recipients would affect estimates for the caseload impact of SB 75, which is the children 18 and under, and those 19 to 25, 26 to 49 and 50 and older.

This elimination would result in a reduction of $94.7 million and a workload adjustment of $3,000,400. $304.8 million General Fund in fiscal year 24-25 and ongoing to assist in closing the projected shortfall.

Based on our case management information and payrolling systems data, which supports both the IHSS and the Waiver Personal Care Services program, this policy will impact approximately 2,968 individuals. We are working closely with the Department of Healthcare Services on this change because they run the Medi-Cal program and we run the IHSS program.

So we're working to mitigate any negative impacts to currently assisted individuals, including looking at other benefits they may be able to receive under the Medi-Cal program. These could include things like the CalAIM enhanced care management, the CalAIM community supports and other Medi-Cal waivers, including the community based adult services program and the multi service senior program.

So CBAS and MSSP, in addition to all other Medi-Cal benefits that they will remain eligible for under the expansions. There are, however, no alternatives at the Department of Social Services at the time for this population. We were also asked to speak in question two to our implementation plan.

The Department would need to take a number of steps to implement this change, including the normal administrative steps we take to issue an all county letter, draft a notice of action messages for recipients, work with DHCS to make sure we have accurate data to ensure no other qualified populations were included in this termination.

We wouldn't need to make some systems changes as well, but those are absorbable by the Department. We would then have to issue notices with at least 10 days in advance to individuals who would be losing IHSS under this proposal. I'll move next to the elimination of the IHSS permanent backup system.

The permanent backup system was established on October 12022 to assist IHSS recipients with finding a provider when an urgent or immediate need for IHSS services arises and the regular provider is not available, or when an IHSS recipient is transitioning from out of home care to home based care and they do not yet have a provider.

Eligible providers are currently allowed to receive up to 80 hours a year and in certain instances up to 160 hours a year, and there is a differential wage paid of $2 for backup provider systems. The May revision proposes the elimination of the program so both the funding going forward and the program itself.

The reduction would result in $11.6 million in General Fund savings starting in 24-25 and ongoing. In regard to impact, there are no alternatives at the state level to the current backup system. Some counties have operated independently backup systems before these systems were made permanent through the state.

We anticipate some counties would continue to do that, although we don't know how many and to what extent they would be able to offer backup services ongoing. However, we do plan to work with our counties and public authorities to determine how best to support them and any recipients to make sure their urgent needs are met.

Regarding utilization utilization currently has been Low in the program.

We are averaging about 110 providers providing backup services per month for the first four months of 2024, specifically in January 105, February 117, March 114, and April 105, and we do anticipate that there are a lot of IHSS recipients who are able to utilize family, friend and personal networks to provide backup services, which is why this the current backup system is not being more heavily used at this time.

Lastly, I'll speak to the reduction in the IHSS Career pathways program. The Career Pathways program is the training program that we have talked about several times that is meant to increase quality of care and assist in recruiting and retaining providers into the IHSS program.

Your agenda correctly indicates that the number of people who have currently been served through the Career pathways program and the number of incentive payments that have been paid out to date. The May revision proposal proposes a one time reversion of $60 million in HCBS funding for IHSS career pathways to help close the projected shortfall.

The 60 million would be divided between 40 million to the Department of Developmental Services and 20 million to the Department of Healthcare Services Fund assisted living waiver slots, and on the DDS side, it would help Fund rates. Can you say the breakdown again?

Sure, and I look to my finance colleagues if I've stated anything wrong, but it's 40 million to Department of Developmental Services for rates and 20 million of the 60 million to Department of Healthcare Services for the assisted living waiver and then regard to impacts.

We will continue offering all the classes we are currently offering through the end of September as planned. There are no changes there. We will continue to allow people to submit for payment and incentives through the middle of November, and they will be able to earn on incentives through the end of October.

So that will all say the same. As we discussed at the hearing earlier this year, we do anticipate we can spend down the entire $235 million remaining, as we have already spent as of March 31 of this year, $91.6 million in the program.

So we do not anticipate a negative impact to anyone participating in the program and believe there was money to be able to use for other purposes. I will stop there and happy to answer any questions.

A year ago, y'all said the same exact thing a couple months ago, y'all said the exact thing. And now again you're saying we have confidence we're gonna spend it. That's three times I've heard it in my time here, and we're not. So I don't have that much confidence in this area that we're gonna spend it all.

Do we have. I know these are numbers for March. Might be too early to get April numbers. Do we have any April numbers just to see a trend we don't have?

Excuse me, we don't have April numbers yet, but we anticipate we will likely have them in the coming weeks. We are always month in arrears on payments and we understand the concern by the share about spending fully in this program. This has been a hard program to predict spending and we are doing it in small increments.

So it requires a lot of providers to take classes to build up the dollar amount. But we did have our highest spending to date in March of 2024 after the doubling of classes. And we do anticipate the trends to continue upward.

Are we still doubling classes?

We're not doubling anymore, but we now have a significant number of classes being offered ongoing, and we do expect to continue to see high rates of spending going forward.

Question for both Department finance and Leo, because this will be after the budget process, what recommendations can we put in here? Or what would the process look like come August, where we don't seem to be on track to utilizing all this Fund?

And how quickly can we reallocate some of those funds for something else outside of this process?

Kiachi, Department of Finance I think that would be something we'd have to work with our DHCS colleagues and the Department of Healthcare Services, since they are the lead agency on the HCBS spending plan.

Would the departments just determine on their own? I mean, I don't think they're calling all of us to come back and decide.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ginni Bella with the Legislative Analyst Office. I think you're raising really great questions about how will we know and how can we keep more lifetime track of this spending. I think hearing this April information will be very helpful in kind of determining how much is left over and what we can do.

Because to your point, if you are going to redirect more of this money, you would want to know that now so that you can offset other reductions that you may be considering. So something that will be on top of two in terms of April. So we can get back to you once we see those numbers.

Do we anticipate those on June 1st.

That's about right. I don't want to promise the date, but that should be about accurate. We should have them early June at the latest. Okay.

Please do send that over to us as soon as we get that. We definitely want to track this literally day by day, just because, again, and it's no personal nothing, the trend that we've seen, we're not on track. And I do worry that we're not going to utilize all this federal funding.

And if it doesn't seem like we're looking to expand it, I still want to entertain the idea of just doubling down the amount of money we give out, if that's our utilizing for other things. But I definitely don't want any funding to be left over in this area. Thank you, chair.

And we have the same commitment to spending all the money. Okay. And then for the immigration benefit benefits for the immigration regard because of your immigration status, how we. I don't know if you've been talking with advocates, but this isn't a public charge. And for those who have complex needs, they can go to CBASes. Right.

It requires you to be ambulatory and so forth. If this is care for someone who is non ambulatory and their next option is a SNF, a secure nursing facility, that's a public charge. So I'm wondering what we're doing to focus on that specific area.

Because I agree with you, Calam ECM can help with certain areas, but the most dire, dire need of this care could potentially be locked out of other services, especially on public charge areas.

Thank you for your question. Undocumented immigrants would have a right to skilled nursing care if they needed it. So I just want to be clear that would be available to them.

Add a SNF, wouldn't that be a public charge?

I'm not an immigration expert. zero, yeah, I know your problem.

But I understand the concern about advocates have shared with me that that would be, in fact, a public charge, so that wouldn't be an option for them.

I can take that question back. Madam Chair, we are cognizant that people may need to make hard choices if this proposal goes forward and IHSS is terminated again, we would be working closely with Department of Healthcare Services to make sure no one is caught out or without services that they need to live safely in their own home.

We do recognize that that may be not possible to stay at home given the change in IHSS eligibility.

This has a 10 day timeframe. You mentioned a notice goes out you have 10 days. This service is over.

So that's something we could certainly work with the Legislature on. 10 days is our minimum requirement of notice to give to an individual.

I mean, I appreciate some kind of notice. Right. Other programs we've talked about earlier today, it doesn't seem like there's a notice approach. It's just a cutoff with the 10 day timeframe. Does that mean that there is going to have to be some spending in this area in the upcoming fiscal year?

I think that is something we will take back as a question, but is going to be a challenge given that there are multiple requirements that have to be met before the action can actually be taken for any individual recipient.

And you mentioned it's about like 300 something million for the admin.

Oh, let me correct. There was a caseload adjustment of $304 million, and I don't know if my colleagues at finance want to speak any more to the caseload adjustment.

Oh, no, no. Okay. I just wanted to see if there's any funding left for those people that are going to be using those 10 days leeway to come off this service into the fiscal year. In the fiscal year.

We have not budgeted for any funding for this population into the budget year. However, we may want to continue to have legislative discussions around how to work that timing and the funding on that timing.

If we haven't. Department of Finance, what is the plan then? If we're giving them 10 days, that means they're going to have the service all the way up to the 10th day until they find someone else. So how do we?

Italy Perez, Department of Finance. Yeah. In regards to this, we're continuing to engage still with DSS on the implementation of the solution should it make it into the final budget.

Okay, I feel like we wait till the last minute to discuss everything, huh? Any other questions on IHSS colleagues? LAO? I was going to Forget. Department Finance? Did you have something else to add?

Yes, Madam Chair, please. Okay, so we also would like to note that in regards to the IHSS for undocumented expansion services, prior to the various coverage expansion for individuals, regardless of immigration status, this population qualified only for emergency and pregnancy related services. They were not eligible for IHSS.

The May revision maintains expanded Medi-Cal coverage for individuals of all ages, including the adults that became eligible for the full scope Medi-Cal effective January 12024. The benefits for this population continues to be eligible for included essential services such as preventative care, dental coverage, optical services, prescription drugs, physical therapy, reproductive health, and doula coverage.

And mental and behavioral health services. It continues to be the administration's priority to maintain health coverage for all Medi Cal Members. And in lieu of reducing eligibility, the MAE revision is recommending the solution now to address.

That's the second part of the question of how, or yeah, as if the Administration considered the potential higher costs for individuals who lose access to IHSS and if they may rely on institutional care.

At this time, we don't have any estimates, but we'll work to make sure we put forth a balanced budget to the Legislature in subsequent years. Thank you. Thank you.

Juwan? Juwan, yes. Juwan Trotter, Legislative Analyst Office so for us, just overall, we're always monitoring utilization rates and caseloads and always making sure that what's budget is in line with utilization rates for this elimination of the IHSS undoc population for all ages.

First, we will note that administration has significantly reduced the estimate of what would cause for the IHSS undogging population, reducing it from hundreds of $1.0 million in January to less than $100 million as of the May revise. So we're currently tracking and taking a closer look at these estimates.

Other primary questions kind of revolve around what's already been discussed regarding the. How it's going to be operationalized going forward, as well as the other resources and benefits that these populations are going to be eligible for.

And at a higher level, we do have questions around the implications of eliminating Medi-Cal benefits for a specific group of recipients. For example, has this been done anywhere else in Medi-Cal?

And how is it decided for IHSS benefit to be the component of the program eliminated for the undocumented population if the, if there were other benefits considered? As far as the career pathways, we'll work with the Department on monitoring the April numbers and work with and get back to you on that.

And then touch, just touching on the elimination of the permit backup provider system. We did note during our evaluation of the January proposal that the utilization rates were lower than expected and there was room to create savings.

The Department did reduce their estimate before proposing to eliminate a program overall, but we are looking at these update estimates to see if we could reduce, or right size the program further to create significant savings without like completely eliminating the program. And so we'll get back to you on that as well.

Okay, thank you so much. Public comment on IHSS.

You will have 45 seconds each.

As soon as I get to it. All right. Hello, Senators. My name is Warren Cushman, Community Resources for Independent Living in Hayward. I took a while, took a bit of a journey to get up here from Hayward. I want to say that the IHSS discussion today around the undocumented population is just shocking.

The fact that we would in our state, consider that, consider cutting off an entire group of folks from IHSS would just be unconscionable. It would be something I can't even fathom. And I absolutely hope that we will not go down that road.

It is a serious breach of trust for people with disabilities, and I hope we don't go there.

Thank you, sir.

Yeah, Kevin Aslanian, Coalition California Welfare Rights Organization, the 10-day notice is a minimum required by federal law. The state Legislature could decide to do 30 days, and there's nothing that prevents you from doing that. And for the record, I would also like to say that we oppose all the CalWorks cuts. I forgot that last time. Thank you.

Sorry. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Mohamed Rashid. I'm a self-advocate in Stanislaus County. IHSS is a program that supports all people, documented and undocumented with disabilities, to live interdependently in the community.

It allows those with family members to still have income in as they provide care for their families while helping to close the gap first. The gap of the shortage for providers, people with disabilities that do not have family to provide care back. That do not provide care back registry relieves the anxiety and removes the burden of providers.

It ensures the vital care to be provided there by keeping individuals in their homes and community and out of more expensive care facilities that have limited space and restrictive placement options. Thank you for your time. Have a good day.

Kim Rothschild, California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS, and we're here to echo the comments from the LAO. We'd like to work with CDSS as well as the Subcommittee on right-sizing the backup provider program so that folks are not completely without care or cut off.

This could result in more costly services as well as fear and anxiety around not having care and ending up in urgent care or ERs. So with that, we'd like consideration of maintaining some level of funding for this program. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning. Dan Okenfuss with the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers. Just a few words about what IHSS means for our community, the independent living movement and IHSS that kind of shared the same DNA.

It's all about critical needs for people with disabilities to stay out of more expensive nursing facilities and remain productive in their homes and communities. We're already desperate for quality caregivers, which are hard to recruit for these positions. Low wages and high turnover and insufficient hours for the consumers that rely on these IHSS services.

The consumers, some of them are often the most vulnerable in our society, suffer when these cuts happen, and live in fear of losing their providers and not being able to find their replacements. And finally, I believe the Deputy Director mentioned that the IHSS benefits based on, she said, 3000 individuals affected. That's 10 times the capacity of this room.

Thank you.

Hello. Raylen Aguado-Mala with the Filipino Workers Center and Courage Home Care Cooperative. We are deeply alarmed that the Governor's May revision includes the elimination of IHSS, benefit for undocumented Californians in Medi-Cal. This elimination also puts a significant economic burden on family caregivers, who may now have to leave the workforce to provide that care uncompensated.

Family caregivers are often low-income women of color, and if they must leave the paid workforce to provide care to their aging and disabled family members, this proposal will exacerbate economic disparities. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Rebecca Gonzalez with Western Center on Law and Poverty. I want to echo some of the comments about the cuts to the IHSS program, it being a public charge issue about it resulting in more institutional care, which is more expensive, and also it would harm workers who are predominantly women of color.

We believe California should not turn its back on the historic Medi-Cal coverage expansion and treat people differently based on their immigration status. Given the proposed cuts target immigrant and disability communities, we believe these cuts violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead, the Equal Protection clause of the California Constitution, and California's Government Code section 11135. We are exploring litigation options at this moment. Thank you.

Thanks, Rebecca.

Oh, geez. I was going to do the power stance, go lower. Good morning, Madam Chair. Malik Bynum with UDW AFSCME Local 3930, representing IHSS providers in 21 counties throughout the state. Also commenting on behalf of my SCIU counterpart, Tiffany Whiten, who represents home care providers in the other 37 counties.

It truly is disappointing to see the expansion of IHSS to undocumented individuals clawed back, as well as the reduced funding for the career pathways program. But even further, the proposed elimination of the IHSS backup provider system in its entirety. These cuts aren't just gonna be harmful to our workers.

This is gonna be devastating for consumers of IHSS and their families across the state.

And, you know, we acknowledge that the budget isn't in good shape for anybody this year, but it is unfair and unjust for us to keep balancing the budget on the backs of our providers, caring for those who need it most, you know, our aging population and those living with disabilities.

So with that, I respectfully urge the Committee and the Legislature to reject these proposals. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello again Chair and Members. Janice O'Malley AFSCME in California, just want to align my comments with our AFSCME affiliate, UDW Local 3930, because of the devastating impact to providers and consumers. Thank you.

Thank you.

Christine Smith with Health Access California also urging the Legislature to push back on these proposed cuts that unfairly target immigrant communities, including this proposal for people who are undocumented. The proposal undermines the health for program by specifically rolling back existing services for this population.

It is essential care, as has been noted, and also removal of this funding could result in further impoverishment and increase the state spending on expensive nursing home care and also, as noted, exposes people who are undocumented to public charge if they were to result in a nursing home.

Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members, Kathy Senderling-Mcdonald for Alameda County, echoing the comments of the public authorities regarding the backup provider system and urging consideration that this program be maintained due to the importance of it, as well as expressing concerns about the effects of eliminating the services for undocumented recipients of IHSS and also thinking about providing full scope coverage to this group.

But yet, carving out this one set of services doesn't actually make a lot of sense in the provision of a robust healthcare system, which is really the point of healthcare for all. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ronald Coleman Baeza that here on behalf of the California Pan Ethnic Health Network CPEN, we implore that the Legislature reject the Governor's discriminatory proposal to eliminate IHSS services for the undocumented. It is indefensible that Governor Newsom to eliminate these services for a population for no reason but for their immigration status.

Segregating which Californians are eligible and who are not eligible is unconscionable. It is 2024. It's California Governor's so called California for all. And this has vile undertones of Prop 187, and it's right out of Donald Trump's playbook. Without IHSS, these individuals will need costly and preventable hospital and nursing home care, and family caregivers will go without pay.

This will perpetuate a generational cycle of poverty. We understand the Legislature needs to make very difficult decisions right now, but we ask you to reject this cut and stand up and do not put discriminatory proposals in statute and stand up for equity. Thank you.

Look, I stood up.

Good morning. Jackie Gonzalez, Policy Director of Immigrant Defense Advocates, I humbly offer my opinion also as an immigration attorney that this would result in a public charge. The State of California has also taken a position on what constitutes a public charge.

On the California Department of Social Services website where I read, "public charge is defined as a noncitizen who's likely to become primarily dependent on the government for support by receiving either cash assistance or being institutionalized for long-term care at a government spent."

So the State of California is aware that this would result in a public charge. I would also like to clarify what public charge means because we're throwing it around.

Public charge could lead to the inadmissibility of someone which would prevent them from becoming a lawful permanent resident, making them eligible for other services that they need in certain circumstances within five years of admission, it can also result in deportation.

And I want to be clear that the United States government has no issue deporting people who are disabled or in a wheelchair or suffer other disabilities. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Vanessa Cajina on behalf of Vision y Compromiso, the statewide network of promotoras and community health workers, in opposition to the IHHS cuts to undocumented Californians.

Thank you.

Emerald Evans here with End Child Poverty California, we align with SEIU and WCLP against the proposed cuts and delays to IHSS. Regarding the benefit for undocumented individuals, we underscore the deep inequities that this will create and that many of these people who will be impacted will be also children. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members Andrea Maviska on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center. I want to first echo some of the comments made by the Filipino Workers Center and others regarding who tends to serve as caregivers and the impacts that this would have on immigrant communities.

The proposed permanent elimination of IHSS for undocumented Californians unfairly targets immigrant communities and undermines the aim of the Health for All program. This is not a delay or scaling back, this is a full removal of benefits that people are receiving right now.

IHSS provides essential care that allows thousands of seniors and persons with disabilities to remain safely in their homes as an alternative to out of home care. Removal of this funding could result in further impoverishment among our most vulnerable community members, as well as increased state spending on expensive nursing care.

We respectfully urge the Legislature to reject the proposed cuts to this critical investment. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Durazo Dawson Rawlings and I am the Community Organizing Manager at California Foundation for Independent Living Centers. And as my colleague and others have testified, these cuts have deep impact.

I want you to see the face of someone who has benefited from having access to programs such as in-home supportive services.

I myself came to California in 2001, and I can also tell you that what these hard decisions look like, waiting for access to a program such as IHSS or being denied access to the program, means those hard decisions include going to our ERs.

I myself had a period where I was ineligible because my benefits had not yet started in California, and those were the decisions I had to make, was going into the ER just to simply get washed up and to make it out of bed in the morning.

So these are the real impacts that you're going to see for undocumented individuals if they lose access to this program. I also really wonder about a 10-day notice period, also because the in-home supportive services program operates on a monthly pay schedule or twice monthly.

So I'm wondering about unpaid wages to people, potentially unfairly, if the program were changed. Yeah, thanks.

Thank you so much.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Khalid Rashid. I'm from Stanislaus County. As an IHSS backup provider for my brother, I know what it is to have security to know that my brother will be cared for when my mom needs a break. To know that others don't have that security worries me.

It also gives me anxiety if I or my mom are not around to provide care for my brother. As a person with a disability myself, to know that when I need care, that I will not have a backup registry to back me up scares me. Primary care providers are already limited.

To narrow that down even more makes no sense. Disability does not discriminate. We need to have a system that will be ready to care for all documented and undocumented. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Mikyla Dupont. I'm also a resident of Stanislaus County. IHSS provides essential supportive services to individuals with disabilities to allow all to remain in their community. Caregivers are already in shortage in this program, and eliminating the backup system puts elderly and dependent adults at risk for more costly institutional or hospital placement.

Continuous care is critical to ensure individuals remain in their homes despite potential gaps in primary care, which allows individuals to also continue accessing their communities and even being able to take an active role in economic development activities and employment. I urge the Legislature to please reject this proposal. Thank you.

Thanks.

My name is Ella Roberts. I'm a retired state worker. I retired disability, retired in 1999. My husband became very disabled with Parkinson's. I had to take care of him even though I'm disabled myself. We don't need cuts, any cuts to disabled services or IHSS. We were not eligible. I'm a retired clerk. He's a retired lounge keeper.

He just died in January. We made too much. We were not eligible. I'm having to hire people out of my pocket, and I get people who are not trained. It's been a nightmare. I did manage to keep him home until he died. He didn't want to die in a nursing home. No cuts.

Instead, close 15 of the prisons and do something about the oil subsidies.

Thank you. Hi, I'm Min Chang. I'm CEO for Homebridge. Homebridge is the main provider for career pathways. And to date, we've trained actually over 28,000 caregivers in the State of California across all 58 counties. So we are very proud of it.

As you know, training is such an important part of actually providing quality care to the clients and the customers that you've heard from. And so we urge you to continue the funding, not only through this calendar year, but through the fiscal year as well. The demand has only been increasing.

Just as an example, in the month of April, we've had 30,000 people register, so the need is absolutely there. So I encourage you to rethink that as well. If there are questions that we can answer, I am very happy to set up some separate time and answer any questions, also provide some context.

We work very closely with CDSS, and we look forward to continuing to do that. Thank you. Thank you.

Erin Siberri, also here on behalf of Homebridge, I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and this Committee, for your support of IHSS and for serving our most vulnerable citizens. I also wanted to just weigh in on behalf of career pathways and the increasing demand that we're seeing even in the last few weeks.

And so we have no doubt that the money that Director Ramsey said could be spent, would be spent. And we're also hoping, even though it's a tough year to extend, this program, which is affecting, has capacity to affect over more than half a million Californians. And as the woman before CEO Chang spoke, training is so critical.

Folks are on the front lines of our cognitive and Alzheimer's issues and really need this training and support. Thank you so much.

Kelly Longo Flores with the California Association of Food Banks in strong opposition to the elimination of IHHS benefits based on immigration status. All Californians deserve to live in the least restrictive environment possible. Thank you. Thanks.

Hello. Jessica Lamon, disability and aging community organizer. I am an employer of home attendants myself, and it has gotten harder and harder to hire attendance.

Having decent rates, having provider backup, having career pathways are all about having the strong workforce we need to keep us in the community where we can come and be part of things and not in nursing homes. This is actually a life or death matter.

I do know people who have not been able to get the attendance they need, who have cycled in and out of nursing facilities and have killed themselves because it is so miserable. I am not exaggerating. We cannot make cuts to IHSS.

When someone asked me why are they proposing cuts to undocumented people, all they could think was that it is, of course, one of the groups that is probably the least able to safely fight for their rights. Ibram Kendi says that every action is either racist or anti-racist, and it's pretty clear which way this proposal goes.

Please reject all the proposed cuts to IHSS. Thank you.

Hello, Madam Chair and to the Committee. My name is Monica Kirkland. I am the State Policy Director for Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County. We offer it's about 39 nonprofit and community organizations that offer health and different social supports to about 89 older adults within the county.

And we strongly urge you to reject the cuts to the IHSS career pathway program. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning. Yasmin Peled on behalf of Justice and Aging, we are strongly opposed to the proposed cut of IHSS for undocumented Californians.

And really, with all due respect to the Department of Finance, when the Administration and Legislature committed to expanding Medi-Cal to all in California, regardless of immigration status, that meant expanding all of Medi-Cal, which includes in home supportive services.

So to suggest that just because they can have the rest of the range of Medi-Cal Services, that this is not a detrimental cut is really disingenuous.

Also alarmed that there didn't seem to be an acknowledgement or an understanding of the public charge consideration when these folks potentially may have to end up in nursing facilities, which is, like everyone has said before me, a much more expensive place to end up. So we are also opposed to the cut to the IHSS backup provider system. Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving into Calfresh and food programs.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jennifer Troia for the Department of Social Services. You've asked us to provide an overview of May Revision solutions related to CalFresh and food programs, so I will begin by doing that. There are three proposals that I will highlight.

The first is the expansion of the CFAP or the delay of the CFAP expansion or the California Food Assistance Program. As you will probably recall, the Legislature and Governor recently agreed to expand the CFAP program to all Californians aged 55 and older, regardless of immigration status.

This proposal extends the implementation of that program by two years, so it would move from October 1, 2025 implementation to October 1, 2027 and correspondingly result in General Fund savings. There are no immediate impacts in terms of losses of benefits for people eligible for CFAP who are currently receiving them because, again, the program has not yet...

The expansion has not yet been implemented. However, of course, we acknowledge that the individuals who would otherwise have been served beginning in 2025 would be waiting to be served until 2027. Prior estimates indicated that around 75,000 people would receive CFAP during the first year of the expansion.

Those who are currently eligible for the CFAP program, approximately 45,000 individuals, would continue to receive CFAP with no changes. The second proposal to highlight is the Minimum Nutrition Benefit Pilot. This program was enacted as a part of the 2023 budget to assist in closing the projected budget shortfall.

The proposal is to eliminate the pilot program, which would have issued supplemental state funded CalFresh benefits to raise the minimum benefit from $23 to $50. The pilot program has not yet been implemented, so there are no immediate losses of benefits for individuals who are otherwise receiving them.

The final proposal to highlight is the Work Incentive Nutrition Supplement Program. This proposal results in an anticipated reduction of $25 million beginning in 2025 and ongoing. The WINS program, or work incentive nutritional supplement, provides a supplemental $10 per month food benefit identified as a form of TANF assistance to CalFresh households who are not receiving CalWORKs.

In the past, this has allowed us to meet our TANF work participation rate by being able to count those individuals in the calculation for the WPR. Because the recent federal Fiscal Responsibility Act provides enough caseload reduction credit for the state to meet the all families WPR, we no longer need the WINS program to serve that purpose. Having said that the elimination of the WINS will result in the loss of food benefits of $10 per month per household for just over 100,000 Californians.

We're coming after everything. $10 each. The second one was my baby. This was my initiative last year.

We've cut most of the ones I made during my time.

I should get used to this. Oh, no, I don't want to. Department Finance. What is the... I gotta see if I can save this. Delaying it two years.

Yes. So you want to know the fiscal for delaying two years?

Yeah. I mean, it won't impact us right now. Right? We can still come back and...

We'll reevaluate in two years, and that's the plan. So implementation would begin October 1, 2027 instead of October 1, 2025. So this was planned to begin implementation in 25-26.

I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. I'm talking about the CalFresh minimum.

Oh, Minimum Nutrition Program. This is just a cut of the 15 million one time funding.

No, no, I know. So what, could we potentially just delay it two years?

We're happy to have discussions with alternatives to a complete cut, but for now, the budget proposes, the May Revision proposes...

It won't impact us. Right? There's nothing... You're not going to say, oh, no, that's... We'd still have to allocate some money for XYZ. Just want to know if delaying it for two years is a net zero or not sure if I'm looking. Is it going to cost us anything?

Yeah. So Aanam Khan, Department of Finance. If we did delay it for two years, then we would have to account for the 15 million in budget year plus one. So it would have cost in budget year plus one.

No, two years. So...

Right. Budget year plus two.

Plus two, which we're not looking at right now. Right. We're just solving for incoming plus one?

Correct. The Administration looked at budget year plus one. Just budget solutions. Yeah.

So if we're looking at budget plus two, it has no implications.

Well, it has implications in the out years.

Right. Right.

Right.

So I'm going to take that as a no. There's no impact for what we're looking to solve of fiscal year?

Lourdes Morales, Department of Finance. While the Administration's focus was on producing a balanced budget for budget year plus budget year plus one, we do know that there are structural deficits in sort of the out years. And so as we sort of look to make ongoing reductions to the budget, it is to provide solid footing for those out years as well. So as though we are not fully solving, it helps address sort of multi-year deficits that we know would persist should we not take these corrective actions now.

Can you share with me, if we're solving for two years, does that not solve the structural problems?

No. So we understand that the revenues and expenditures sort of do not put us on solid footing, sort of under current expenditures through the multi-year period. So that is three years out beyond budget year.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? LAO, any comment on these issues?

Yes, thank you. Sonia Schrager Russo with the Legislative Analyst Office. As it relates to the first two proposals, so the delay to CFAP expansion and the reduction in the Minimum Benefit Pilot Program, these do in general align with our overall recommendations as an office for the Legislature to consider delays in programs that have not yet been implemented or reductions, again, in programs that have not yet been implemented.

Given, as was mentioned by the Department, that this will not impact the benefits of individuals currently receiving benefits. However, of course, there are trade offs to these decisions, and given the budget situation, we recommend the Legislature sort of consider those trade offs and the potential future recipients in its many priorities across human services and social services.

Similarly, as it relates to the WINS program elimination while, as the department has mentioned, the WINS program is unlikely to be needed in the next few years to meet the state WPR requirements, we do have questions about what might occur if, longer term, we did need a program like wins to meet the WPR requirement again, as we see caseload increasing in the coming years.

Thank you so much. Moving on to the next issue, issue number six.

Good morning, Chair. Claire Ramsey for the Department of Social Services. I'm here to speak on issue six, the Adult Protective Services and CDSS housing programs. I will start with the cuts to the Adult Protective Services expansion. The Budget Act of 2021 made statutory changes to the Adult Protective Services program to lower the APS eligibility age for older adults from 65 to 60 and adjusted the eligibility age for dependent adults to age 18 to 59. It also expanded the definition of self neglect to include financial mismanagement and housing insecurity.

It also allowed for additional case management. The current May Revision proposal proposes a decrease in funding for the APS expansion of $40 million ongoing. This would help to assist with the projected budget shortfall. The proposal largely impacts counties and their ability to serve the expanded population, so it is not a direct benefit cut to any individual.

But we have heard indications from counties that there may be layoffs associated with this reduction. We would flag there are no alternatives for APS for this population, and APS is required to take all calls on a 24 hours hotline and to perform an in person visit to individuals who have called for assistance.

The growth in APS over the last four years between January 1, 2029 and January 1, 2023 has seen approximately 20% increase overall in services per month and has had an increase in services to individuals 60 to 64. We were also asked about expenditures. Counties do fully expend these funds, which are currently at 70 million dollars.

If the proposal moves forward, it can become effective July 1, 2024, since it is a reduction in funding and not a change to the AB 135 requirements. And we will work with counties to determine any technical assistance they need to make this shift and to adjust their staffing levels. Happy to answer any questions. I'll move on to the Statewide Training Program. Or would you like me to...

Yeah, 1 second. Department of Finance, I think we've asked some similar questions about like what unforeseen increases we're gonna see. Across a couple of programs that we've talked about where there's a potential for a lot of layoffs. The future of public health potentially laying off, I think it was like 1000 individuals across statewide.

Layoffs here, layoffs elsewhere. These are individuals that could potentially request or seek governmental assistance in other programs, increasing our costs. Have we looked into this and seen, coming next year, that our Medi-Cal cases will increase so forth, where our costs will be much more than what the cuts were doing?

Kia Cha, Department of Finance. I think what you mentioned is the possibility, but at this time we don't have any estimates. And I think as my colleagues mentioned earlier, we'll make work to make sure we put forth a balanced budget in future years to the Legislature.

When we do these cuts, is that a variable that we look at?

I think that's something that we're still looking at and we can continue to Work with the department...

In past years, is that a variable that we've looked at? When we propose cuts to programs, is that a variable that we include in our calculation? Not where the world do it, but is that something that's been part of Department of Finance's approach for various things? Or have we ever gone back to the table after years, after years saying, hey, we cut this, this is a direct correlation to now we're seeing an increase in XYZ?

I think I can take that question back and get back to your staff.

Okay. I just... Yeah, I guess...

Madam Chair, if I could also. I mean, we're talking about cutting services to IHSS and family support, and at the same time we're going to talk about cutting services to APS and CPS. Right? So those two things have a definite relation, right?

I mean, the amount of stress and poverty on a family and the lack of help increases abuse. I mean, the numbers don't lie on that at all. So that's another direct correlation. I wonder if we could look at. As families become more stressed, you're gonna have more abuse and injuries occur to also be able to think about how do we make sure that we're not incurring other really big costs both to our pocketbooks and to are most vulnerable.

These are preventative in nature, most of these programs, right. These are just to help assist get people back off their feet so they no longer utilize these services. The longer we cut assistance, the longer they'll be on these programs. So I'm just wondering if we've ever done this kind of correlation. That if we, the more we assist in the beginning, the less they'll need support once they get older or down the line.

So whatever can be brought back on that. For APS or for like, in general, a lot of programs, you know, I've heard, well, these are programs that just started and so forth. I feel like we never give, we're not never. I feel like we're not giving programs enough time or we provide them for a couple years, and they're like, well, we only did it for two years, so it's not really a core service. People aren't really used to it.

But the impacts in those short years are so, so are fantastic that I can only imagine how much more we can really help people if we let these programs grow and we're not cutting them at the root. And the APS, you can imagine with the influx individuals who are going to be coming of age into this third part of their life, we need all the types of services around this demographic. The expansion was for a good reason. I mean, we do these things after evidence based practices, after stakeholder discussions, after XYZ.

We put so much effort into expanding these programs because we know there's a need and then we cut them off. Essentially, I feel like negates all the work that we've done leading up to these kind of expansions. Nothing else to say on that. LAO, any comments on these issues?

Juwan Trotter, Legislative Analyst Office. So first we would just highlight what was said about how the counties have historically fully spent their annual APS allocation, and thus any cuts will likely result in real reductions in services.

Also, we would note that although the APS expansion did lower eligibility age for APS from 65 to 60, it's our understanding that reductions in funding will potentially impact the availability of services for all age groups, not just those expanded.

Because it's the same pot, right? So we don't know who it's going to impact. It can impact anybody. Would you like to add anything else? You don't have to. I just...

No further comment to add. Thank you.

Okay. I'm gonna hold the item open and move on to issue number seven.

Excuse me. I just wanted to check if you wanted me to speak to the APS training elimination?

Yes. Yes.

Second item. Thank you. Quickly just add that the Adult Protective Services Training Program is a state function that is mandated to select and award grants to private, nonprofit, or public entities for the purpose of establishing a statewide APS workforce development and training program, as well as providing training to other individuals who are serving APS clients, including, but not limited to, public administrators, public guardians, and public conservators.

The May Revision proposes the elimination of the APS contract for training curriculum. The elimination of the contract would result in a reduction of $4.9 million General Fund beginning in 2024 and continuing ongoing to assist in closing the projected shortfall. The APS training budget would revert to $176,000 per year, which was its amount before the expanded money was provided. And we do anticipate, as impacts, there will be significantly less training provided and classes offering and availability in the number of classes available to APS social workers. And the state will have to amend or end contracts with current APS training providers.

The contracts already started?

Correct. There are yearly contracts. So we are currently in contract with CSU San Diego and in the process of executing contracts with CSU Sacramento and CSU Fresno for these training dollars, although they are already providing the services. So...

Okay. Is there, like, a fee to get out of these contracts we're gonna have to pay?

No, we don't anticipate that, but there will be time to amend contracts.

Juwan, you good? Are we okay? Okay, now we're going to go on to issue seven. Thank you.

There we go. Good morning, Madam Chair. Eliana Kamowitz here for the Department of Social Services. I will be speaking on item number seven, the rapid response immigration item. As we all know, the Federal Government is responsible for immigration policy and migrant processing.

However, at large falls to local and state government to address the post processing needs of new arrivals. The CDSS funded nonprofit partners welcome, provide shelter and administer services to hundreds of vulnerable migrants who would otherwise be released by federal authorities directly into border communities.

Just last month, on April 15, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 106, which re appropriated 79.4 million General Fund from the 2021 and 2022 budget acts to continue to support the southern border humanitarian efforts.

The May revision proposes to reduce the rapid Response Reappropriation Authority included in this legislation by 29 million General Fund to assist in closing the budget shortfall.

The reduction won't impact the services currently being supported in San Diego and other parts of the border as early action funding would support services in the budget year FY 2425, we expect there will be sufficient current year savings in border operations to restore the 29 million, and the Administration will continue to assess the details of these potential savings based on current projections and operational needs.

Happy to take any questions.

So you expect current funding should be enough for the next fiscal year? Okay, Eliot, want to comment on this?

True on charter Legislative Analyst Office. I guess our only initial question would be if there's any new funds provided by the Federal Government and if so, how much?

Since January, there were additional funds provided by the Federal Government. And this federal fiscal year are organizations in San Diego and Riverside County received a little bit over $45 million in shelter service program. FEMA federal funds for a total of 93 million over the last two fiscal years.

And it could be used for this kind of program?

Yes.

Is this the only kind of program it can be used for?

Yes. It's for sheltering services across the border.

Okay. Because if I remember correctly, there weren't any other kind of funding to help offset the other two programs we talked about. Right. The other two programs. Temporary, the TPS. That's correct.

CSU, immigration. Those are separate because those are legal services. And this is sheltering federal funding for sheltering. Okay.

You know, sharing with my colleagues, I was like, this hearing's going long is because everything's being proposed for cuts. That's why it's. That's why it's a lot. It's a lot. Thank you so much. We're gonna go on to issue number eight. Thank you. We can go fairly quickly on this one.

That's the plan? Yang Lee with Department of Social Services. So for the first couple of issues are just caseload adjustments and changes that are happening to our major programs. I mean, the agenda does a pretty good job aligning some of those case law just in surgery.

So I'm not going to go into too much details of that unless the chair wants me to do so. Otherwise, I'll just skip ahead and start talking about the budget change proposals instead.

If you could just a little bit on the provisional language for the federal CalWORKS calips program. Sure. Again, reiterating, we don't anticipate all these cuts are hurting our ability to participate.

In this pilot program at the moment. We don't anticipate that because the Federal Government's going to be making the determination. I don't think they're going to be looking what the state's going to do on that side. But I don't know, too, because I'm not the Federal Government of what they're going to be looking at. But.

Jen lizard no. Okay. But on that one, really simple, just the extent that we are accepted to be part of the pilot, we're just going to need some resources to implement that. And that gives us an opportunity to make those adjustments during the current year when the Legislature is not available.

Can you remind us of the timeline for this whole thing? Sure.

So spring and early summer Administration, the Federal Government will release a guidance application for the pilot around the summer. The state will be selected, states will be selected to participate, and then October 1 is when we anticipate that the pilot will launch and data will be collected to start the process.

Do we, I think I asked this or anticipate any other funding sources necessary?

I'm not tracking any, but there could always be that when we start doing assessments, once we get the more information from the feds.

Okay. The 2.4 million, this is administrative, that's.

Automation costs that we're anticipating would be needed to do some automation work. There's going to be some resources for staff to do some of the work and also some resources for the counties also.

Okay. Thank you.

So I'll start with some of the bcps that we have included in May revision, and I'll just cover some of those and then some of the other detailed stuff. Okay. So the first one is just the maintenance of the CEcRIS system.

We're requesting to make permanent positions, make permanent four limiter positions to continue to maintain and operate the system. These resources were provided two years ago. This is very, it will be very helpful to allow to ensure that the county is reimbursed timely. So like I said, with any system you need people to maintain and operate it.

The second one is just the summer electronic benefit. Well, which is now referred to as Sunbuck. That's a program that we're referring to now.

That's the federal change in that name for requesting $2.5 million in the budget year for six permanent and two limited resources position to cover the ends up funding to cover some consulting work related to the it component.

So this resources will provide state level administrative, technical experts and to do some of the policy work around the implementation of the Sombec program. The next one is the child welfare training funds. This is more of just a shift between funding between two different budget items.

We're taking money that's right now being allocated and paid for through some consultant services with a vendor. We're going to bring some of that in house instead. And we're going to hire two position to do some of those training. And then the last.

No, sorry, the second to the last BCP, it's a guardian background checks, maintenance and operations. This is the current system that the state is the department's using for background check. Currently the cost has come a little bit higher as anything else that we've seen. Costs are going up.

So we're asking for $312,000 for the next two fiscal years and then $612 and starting 2627 to cover the cost of the maintenance and operation for the current guardian background system. The last BCp is the preschool development grant program. This is just federal dollars that we're asking and reimbursement authority for social services.

So 328 reimbursement for social services $1.3 million federal funds for agency for us to continue to expand and implement the preschool development grant planning program. The FRA we cover that is just budget Bill Language. The next one is the ABOD, the budget Bill Language.

We're also asking for language to be included in the budget Bill that would allow Department of Finance to increase our department's authority extent that we are determined to no longer be eligible for the waiver. So ABAD currently California is under statewide waiver the aboard time limit pending release of relevant unemployment data.

California will be conducting analysis to determine if the state will be eligible for another waiver beginning in November 1.

To the extent that we're not because the employment data are coming in would so that we're not longer in meeting the waiver, we'll have to implement the time limit and that requires resources to do so, so we're putting language into consent that that happens.

And starting as fiscal year, there's an opportunity for us to get resources to do that. ABA five CalWORKS grant increases pretty simple. Every year we do an assessment of what the real local realignment dollars are. Right now we're projecting that there's going to be a 0.3% increase in the CalWORKS map that would in itself bring.

That's estimated to cost around $10.5 million. This is all paid for by realignment, the child poverty and family supplemental support account that would bring our non exempt net level up to $1,171. Sorry, sorry. From 1171 to 1175 per month for a family of three. The next one is emulation of comparable disqualification.

Here we have a proposal which includes trailer Bill to eliminate the comparable disqualification for the CFAP program and to make it align with the Calfresh program. Comparable disqualification refers to the policy whereby a state may choose to choose to disqualify Calfresh Member if the household Member is disqualified from another means test program such as CalWORKS.

And so we Calfresh receives approval from FNS to eliminate the comparable disqualification beginning April 12024 as part of our annual state options report process. Because of that, we want to align that with Californ CFAT, too. So we're just making that shift here, making that change with this proposal.

The next proposal is the national standard for missing and exploited children reporting requirement, or the May revision includes 1.2 million. 432 Journal Fund ongoing for new federal reporting and communication requirements this is signing into law and federal law this past January.

Under current law, federal agencies, federal title four EE agencies are required to maintain regular communications with law enforcement agencies in an effort to provide safety recovery of missing youth. This funding will go to the county so that they can implement that process. And then, of course, we have the La County welfare stabilization funding.

This is more of a technical adjustment that we're just making because we're no longer proposing that as part of the solution. Right? Foster rate reform. I think for the most part, we talked about that earlier, so I'm not going to delay into those details. We also have another proposal for re appropriation.

This has to do with BH Connect. We got $2.6 million that we want to have additional year to spend so that we could continue supporting of the child family teams for families maintenance cases associated with implementation of BH Connect and then FFPSA reappropriation. This is very technical.

For the most part, we just want to make a correction to a budget item that's in the budget Bill. The last couple things are just chapter legislation. These are just funding that are provided to implement various chapter legislation that impacts the Department.

We have approximately, there's quite a few, but overall, the department's requesting $46.4 million, 24.7 General Fund to implement various chapters legislation. Some big ones are.

I'm not going to go into all of the details, but some of the big ones are implementing, providing additional pay, sick leave for IHS providers, going from 24 hours a year to 40 hours a year, implementing some books, program, things of that nature.

There's a lot in there, but these are just chapters legislation that the Legislature and the Governor agreed, too, as part of the 23 legislative process. So that's pretty much the information there. I'm happy to talk more about the details of some of these chapter legislation, if that's the desire.

No, we're okay. Department panelists, I just have kind of like the same question I had last week regarding. Well, the governor's proposing about an 8% cut across departments for staff, but we continue to see staff requests that essentially could potentially offset the 8%.

So I'm not seeing how we're going to save all these savings if we're asking for more staff.

Oh, no, I'm calling Department of Finance. So are you referring to the vacant position savings?

No, that's a 10,000 vacant positions.

The statewide reductions?

Yes.

Yeah. So the may revision is assuming a cross board reduction to state operations by 7.9% for all agencies and departments. The plan reduction involves all categories, so it's including personnel, operating costs, and contracting. We're planning to work with agencies and departments in the fall on the appropriate budget reductions. And this is just to address the structural deficit facing the state.

The post cuts, we think are necessary to address the budget deficit and encouraging the Department to operate more efficiently in a way that will maintain core operations and affected levels of service. And then, as the Governor mentioned in the May revision press conference, we're targeting 3 billion in government efficiencies.

But how can we do that if we're requesting for more staff? How are we going to be working more efficiently? If I'm seeing all these different departments asking for more staff?

It will offset the 8% cut. Right. So I think we took that into consideration when determining the statewide cuts.

Oh, I thought you turned it off. Because we're turning it off now. You're like, don't turn to me. Okay. So that consideration, the 8%, is still going to be seen, even though what you're saying, what I'm hearing is that we're asking for more stuff. Correct. Okay. LAO, any comment on this?

Angela Short with the Legislative Analyst Office. We're still reviewing the details of these various proposals, but very much in line with the chair's comments.

Something that we will be looking into is, given the administration's proposed 7.95%, kind of global, across the board state operations reduction proposal, how do these new funding requests interact with that overall reduction goal? Is something that we'll be working with the Administration to better understand in the coming days. Thank you.

And then I'd also like to know, and this is not specifically on this topic, but the 10,000, I think I brought it up, where they lie amongst HHS departments. If they impede any chaptered legislation, then one of the questions our colleagues had was like, are any of the 10,000 vacant positions?

Were they supposed to have been working on some chaptered legislation? Would that further impede the implementation of said chapter legislation? Okay, any questions? Okay, moving on to issue number nine, let's talk about some trailer built languages.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members Jennifer Troia, on behalf of the Department of Social Services, the first item of trailer Bill is the one that I will actually spend a little bit of time going through the detail of, if that is all right. And then on the others, I think we can move fairly quickly.

That first item of trailer Bill is adjustments to our proposed permanent rate reform structure for the foster care system. As you may recall, we already talked about the trigger language with respect to this proposal, but the overall proposal is a large set of changes to the overall structure of the Foster Care Rate Reforms.

Subsequent to the governor's proposal in the January budget and the hearings that we previously had on this topic, we held more than 15 public meetings with more than 500 individuals. We received extensive public comments in writing and verbally. In those meetings, we are submitting responsive revisions to the trailer Bill.

In light of all of those comments that we received in those extensive public engagements, I will highlight the most significant of those changes for you, and I'm happy to answer any questions about the additional details.

There were three components of the or three main components of the proposal, strength building program, immediate needs, and then a sort of catch all bucket of everything else. So, with respect to the strengths building program, we previously had a lot of conversation about the supervised independent living programs and how those rates were structured.

Our proposal in the May revision is to make an adjustment to the trailer Bill Language so that the strengths building funding will be given directly to the youth who reside in supervised independent living placements. They will not go through the third party financial manager for the receipt of those funds. It will be built into the silp rate.

As a result, the total of the silp rate would become $2,288 and it would go directly to the non minor dependent.

Non minor dependents would also be empowered so outside of Silps, but in other placements, to develop their own strength building plan and to make decisions to expenditure the strength building funds in a manner that supports their transition to a successful adulthood.

We also, in response to feedback that we received from stakeholders, made an adjustment so that any unspent funds in a child or non minor dependent strengths building account will remain available to them for the remainder of the fiscal year if they have transitioned to permanency.

So if they reunify with their parent or are adopted or enter into guardianship, they will still continue to be able to expend those strengths building funds. We removed background check language that was causing some confusion.

Our intent was simply to reference the existing law, and our reference to that created some confusion about whether we were creating a new standard. We were not, and so we've just deleted that.

To make it clearer, we also clarified that strengths building funds are not to be considered income or resources for the purposes of eligibility for any other local, state, or federal benefit or assistance program to the extent allowable under federal law.

With respect to the immediate needs program, the biggest change was to set essentially a default so that those funds, if a child or youth is placed in a strTp, they would receive.

The sTRTP would be the default provider of those immediate needs services unless the county affirmatively determined that it was not in the child's best interest for the sTRTP to receive those immediate needs funds. So that would create some greater certainty for those TRTP providers of the availability of those immediate needs funds.

And the final thing that I'll highlight is that the immediate needs program plan will be required to be jointly submitted to CDSS by the local child welfare agency as well as the local mental health plan to increase the collaboration and coordination required at the local level.

So I'll pause there on the rate reform and see if you have questions on that.

And then, you know, I still am very excited for what this reform is going to bring, and we're hearing the excitement from youth and caregivers. I know not everyone else is super happy, but at the end of the day, if the youth who are in these programs are happy about this, the caregivers are happy about this.

This is a really big start. And I know we have two years to continue to hash out the trailer, continue to hash out the program and so forth.

My ask, and I don't do this to the advocates, is that we need to come together and we need to make sure we're supporting the Department and pushing this forward, because what I don't want is for there to be some installment, some barriers and pizzas from continuing to push forward this trailer Bill Language on this program that is going to be historic for our youth.

And I think, again, we'll have time to come back and see what else we can do.

But for right now, this is a big first step and we'll continue working with the counties and providers, but we need to be united for now in pushing this first step forward before we don't have a first step that we can push forward. So that would be my ask to the advocates on that.

And then going back to the trigger language, I just want to ask another question on this. By putting a trigger, are we scoring a save because we're doing an infrastructure, right? Are we doing this to score a save earth? Yeah, score a save savings.

Kita Department of Finance so yes, in the out years. We are not capturing those costs in the out years until the trigger determination is made. Okay.

So that's what I'm worried about. We're scoring a save on something that's a statutory mandate. And I'm thinking about the DDS rate reforms. I'm thinking about what we're going through right now and like that, I think is very unfair. But I really appreciate you answering the question. Thank you.

I just think it's very unfair for us to do this to this population, scoring a save on something that we have to do. Okay. Any other questions on the trailer Bill Language for the rate reform foster care rate reform?

I just want to confirm that the trigger language for 2026 doesn't automatically let us roll this program out. It's based on funds available for 2026. Is that true or not?

Yes. So in the spring of 2026, the intent is for finance to make a determination to make sure that there's sufficient General Fund revenues to support in the multi year over the multi year.

Eliot, comment on yes, thank you. Regarding the amended trailer Bill Language, based on our initial read, we did want to acknowledge it does seem that many amendments are made directly in response to the significant stakeholder feedback that has been provided to the Department over the past couple of months.

And we do also understand that the Department will be continuing to work with stakeholders to address some issues that do remain outstanding. For example, we understand there are still some questions related to the child and adolescent needs and strengths cans, assessment usage, the latent class analysis or the methodology to establish the tiers, and some other issues.

So while there do remain outstanding questions, the amendments do again seek to directly address many elements of stakeholder feedback that has been provided. So we'll be continuing to track the evolution of the language in the next couple of months.

Thank you. And then can you share anything regarding the admin cost for providers and what we're seeing and how conversations are going in that realm where providers feel it's just not enough?

We have not proposed any changes to the governor's proposal from January with respect to the admin costs. Conversations are still happening. We absolutely are hearing from providers and do understand what their concerns are.

I think they are both concerned with the total of the admin funding and also with the desire for a COLA to be applied to those funds. We have not provided either of those in the proposal at this time, but do understand the concerns that are being raised.

Does the Department see it in a different light? Where we feel where the Department feels like this will get providers through, this is enough.

Our proposal represents what we believe is necessary to implement the rates okay, okay.

Claire Ramsey for the Department on the second trailer Bill Language for information sharing for small family childcare homes this is a non fiscal TBL proposal that would allow small family child care home names, license numbers, zip codes and telephone numbers to be shared on California's consumer education website for child care.

Currently myChildcareplan.org.current law limits that sharing and California is looking to bring itself into alignment with federal law that requires this information to be made available. We do have concerns if we don't come into compliance, we may have penalties assessed in out years. Next, I will speak to the facility inclusion for community care expansion preservation program.

This is also a non fiscal TBL to allow cdss to accept a legally enforceable agreement in lieu of a deed restriction for facilities awarding excuse me, facilities awarded funding for operating subsidy payments in the community care expansion preservation program.

The requirement for deed restrictions has posed a significant barrier for participation in the operating subsidy payments for CC because we're finding that people often lease the properties they use to run the facilities and their landlords are not looking to make deed restrictions just to confirm that the term of any legally enforceable agreement would cover the full term of any operating subsidy proposals provided to that facility.

The next item is with respect to federal reporting and communication requirements when there are missing or exploited children. The TBL proposal relates to federal reporting and communication requirements, which were signed into law in January 2023.

The federal law requires us as a title iv e agency to maintain regular communication with law enforcement agencies in efforts to provide safe recovery of missing youth. These are additional recording requirements that will bring us into federal compliance and also enhance the overall partnership between county child welfare agencies and law enforcement.

The next item is related to specialized care increments. Specialized care increments provide a supplemental payment to family home providers when they need to pay for the additional care and supervision when there are behavioral or emotional or physical requirements of the needs of a foster child.

This proposal would allow tribes who have a title iv e agreement with the state to create their own Sci rate setting system. It would also explicitly clarify that children under county jurisdiction who are placed in a tribally approved home may receive the county's SCI where Applicable.

So overall, it is providing additional specialized care increment resources to tribal children. The next proposal relates to the resource Family approval program and the emergency caregiver funding which we've previously discussed for other purposes.

The resource family approval program was implemented to create a streamlined approval process for relative and non relative caregivers under the jurisdiction of county child welfare systems and to increase the use of home based and family centered placement options.

There's currently a disconnect in the statute in the sense that the RFA statute requires the approving agency to complete the process within 90 days where emergency caregiver funding can be provided for up to 120 days. The RFA timeframes have continued to decrease but not ever hit the 90 day mark.

So this trailer Bill is bringing those two statutes into alignment at the 120 day timeframe. The next trailer Bill is related to the state and federal kinship guardianship Assistance payment program.

This is an alignment to bring the state into a place where we can allow young people who are aging out of the foster care system to have a better transition into adulthood by not requiring them to spend spend down resources.

So the current law provides that children and non minors receiving kin gap can only retain cash savings, including interest up to $10,000 and specified personal property limits. This is a holdover from prior federal law.

The Federal Government no longer requires it, and so there is no reason for the state to create such a restriction and there's no fiscal impact to us of allowing these young people to retain those resources and transition better into adulthood. The next one is related to the excellence in family finding, engagement and support program.

One of the requirements of this program is that counties that opt into the program need to have full time staff fully dedicated to this resource. What we have found in implementation is that for the 20 small counties and for some tribes, there is not a sufficient caseload to justify a full time staff person.

And so in those exceptional circumstances, we want to have the flexibility to make sure that they are still meeting the intent of the program, but are able to do so perhaps with someone on a part time basis. The next trailer Bill is related to snap or Calfresh reimbursement when there are instances of stolen benefits.

So the may revision is proposing to codify how we reimburse electronically stolen Calfresh benefits and to bring us into alignment in terms of when the versus the Federal Government is footing the Bill for that replacement of benefits.

The proposal would halt the state funded replacements if federal funding is available, and would also create better alignment between the state and federal policies that ultimately are more generous to how much is replaced for the recipient. We originally implemented our state replacement prior to any availability of federal funding.

So these programs sort of came into being at different times and we are bringing them into alignment through this trail.

I know a lot of the advocates have pushed for streamlining the process of getting the funds back, you know, 10 days. I know we worked to get to 10 days, 10 business days, and still advocates think that's still a long time.

I'm interested in seeing if we could put some stronger language in this Tbl regarding, you know, as soon as possible or just, I think 10 days. Just, we're going to wait till the 10 days. So interested in seeing some language regarding codifying a faster approach to getting the funds out.

I believe the way that the statute frames are right now is that it's a prompt replacement and we have implemented that to be the 10 day standard. Does it say prompt? Okay, it does appreciate your point though, and happy to talk with you further and to work with your staff on any proposals that you might have.

Okay, thank you.

The next piece of trailer Bill is related to the tribal Nutrition Assistance program.

The trailer Bill would remove references to the federal distribution program on Indian reservations from the statute that authorized TNAP to make sure that the TNAP program could be more available without requiring tribal Members to choose between FD, PIR or Calfresh in order to benefit from TNAP.

The next one is related to the CalWORKS intensive case management hourly increase. Pause. This was a January budget proposal. This is the trailer Bill Language that would effectuate the proposal. The next trailer Bill is the California Food Assistance program, or CFAP elimination of comparable disqualification. My colleague Mister Lee already referenced some of this.

We have currently a policy of disqualifying or sanctioning individuals in Calfresh if they received a sanction in Cal Works. We are not required by the Federal Government to impose such a sanction, and we've received approval in the Calfresh program to no longer do so.

But the CFAP statute remains on the books, and so we need to adjust the CFAP statute to align with calfresh in order to not sanction the Calfresh recipients.

Madam, one question. Is this. Remind me, I know we talked about this earlier in the year regarding some additional state sanctions that the Federal Government doesn't have. Is this what you were talking about, removing that?

No. I believe what you were referencing in the earlier hearings was with respect to the pilot and the advocate's advocacy for saying that the state should not in the CalWORKS program sanction any more than is minimally federally required. This is about carrying a calwork sanction over into calfresh.

Okay. Senator Grove.

I have a question on the CalWORKS intensive case management hourly increase. Pause. How many people, or have you guys determined how many people would be affected by that for delaying that?

I don't have that number in front of me. I do know that the case management hours are reduced, but there is still intensive case management. It's just going to be, instead of increasing from 8.75 hours to 10 hours, it will remain at 8.75 hours. So we will still be serving all of the same people.

I don't know what the total caseload is off the top of my head, but we will still serve all of that.

Can you find out how much the number of hours is not being served? Because my office receives calls all the time for help to develop, to get a case manager because they're waiting months for one. And so I'd like to know how many people aren't being served.

That's why we asked to have the increase in the first place, so that people that were struggling with those benefits, working with a bureaucratic agency would be able to have their benefits brought forward on the case management problems that they had. And that's why we asked for it to be increased.

And if you're not going to increase it, I want to know how many people are still going to be waiting in line and for how long and what. Give me a dashboard. We will provide you the information on the caseload for that program that are served by them.

The next piece of trailer Bill relates to the family reunification cash assistance for families who were receiving cowworks when their children were removed. On the child welfare side, this is recognizing an implementation delay.

Typically we include in changes to the CalWORKS program language that indicates it will take effect at a certain time or when automation is complete, whichever is later. We did not include that language in this statute and do need to do so, and so this is making that adjustment.

Part of that is also because the all county letter to implement the policy was released in November of 2023 and what we have heard from Calsaws is that the implementation for the change will not be completed until January 2025 and the counties are not able to do a manual workaround given the complexity involved prior to that time.

So this is changing the timeline just to match what is actually feasible in implementation.

Next we have the data sharing to quantify the impacts of the safety net on the whole californian. This is another non fiscal TBL proposal that would allow CDSS to receive data and report on outcomes related to housing stability for participants in various human services program, including our CDSS housing programs.

Specifically, this would give us access to person level data from the housing data integration system, hdis that the BCSH agency runs. We believe the statutory authority will provide everything the Department needs in order to access that data and to move forward with additional ability to analyze outcomes.

The next proposal relates to the CFAT program and to the overissuance, collection retention rates. This was actually a January proposal which you have already heard. We are literally just changing a code section reference within that trailer Bill because we identified an error.

The next is the IHSS permanent backup provider system. This is the TBL to effectuate the elimination of the IHSS backup provider system.

The following item similarly and the wins and the undocumented. Do we have trailer Bill Language yet? Like the actual.

So regarding CFAP. Yeah, that trailer bullet language. The technical correction is forthcoming for the win. That also has not been posted yet.

And the undocumented IHS. The undocumented IHSS is still pending, so we're working on that and that will be posted as soon as we have it ready.

So I'm just a follow up question. So we're going to be voting on this Tuesday and Wednesday, right? Is that correct?

TBD, because I still have a lot of health to go over and TBD.

So my understanding is that we're going to take up the votes on this next Tuesday and Wednesday and we don't have maybe and we don't have language for those three. Like it's just pending out there. When is somebody going to provide us the language so we know what we're voting on?

Or is that the, I don't know, Modus Operandi? I guess that's what I feel like.

I feel like that every year a budget is submitted, somebody puts a little sticky note on a white paper that says, you're going to cut all these people's benefits and the most poorest or most vulnerable Members of our society, and then you meet with them and you can say, zero, we met with all these providers.

We had 15 meetings and met with over 500 providers. And instead of cutting their benefits at this level, you only cut them at this level. And they're very grateful and thanking you guys for doing so, but they still have a cut. And then we don't even get the language.

So somebody tell me when we're going to get the language. Respectfully, sorry. Go ahead. Anybody?

Yeah. So in regards to the CFAP and wins program, we're working on the language as we speak. So hoping to get to you as soon as possible.

What does that mean? Does that mean this week or next week or.

Yes, I would hope by this week.

Okay.

And then for the chair.

Go ahead. Yes, ma'am. Sorry, go ahead.

I was just going to add for the IHSS undocumented solution. We're also expecting to get that hopefully wrapped up this week for you guys as well.

How many pages do you think is in there? Like, are we going to have time to read it? Is it 100? Less? Five.

In regards to the CFAP and the winds, the CFAP is a technical correction, so it won't be more than one line. The winds we haven't seen yet, so that should be pending. But it shouldn't be hundreds. You haven't seen it yet, so we're working on that currently. Who's working on it? The Administration.

So the Department, along with the Department of Finance. And have you seen it? I have not at this time.

Okay. No, I'm there with you. I'm there with you. I'm there with you. Okay, we can proceed.

I believe we are done because there's nothing to share. Right.

Last thing I wanted to just flag for the chair and Members on the IHSS undocumented, there is CDSS trailer Bill Language that will be posted, which is very brief because it's a single code section being amended. However, there is amendments needed from the Department of Healthcare Services as well, and those are in process as well.

So we'll have all that together.