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

Good morning. We are now ready to begin Senate Budget Subcommittee Number Three hearing. I would like to welcome everyone who is here in attendance. This hearing should take no more than two hours and in order to facilitate that or allow that to happen, I do request that those who are presenting to keep their comments as brief as possible. We will be having one department item up for discussion today, that is the Department of Social Services.

We will solicit public comment after completion of the presentation items within the agenda, at which time the public may comment on any previous items, so public comment will be at the end. First item up for discussion is the panel discussion on our CDSS housing programs and exhaustion of limited term funding, requesting for Jennifer Troia, Monica Kirkland, Megan Van Sant, and Juwan Trotter to come for their presentation.

And always welcome LAO and DOF as well. They will join us once they make it through the security line. Thank you very much for our four panelists. You each have no more than three minutes and you may begin whenever you are ready with Jennifer Troia.

Good morning. It's lovely to be here with you. Jennifer Troia. I'm the Director of the Department of Social Services. Thank you for having us here to talk about the programs today that serve, support, and protect Californians across a number of issues.

The first on the agenda is about CDSS's housing and homelessness programs which deliver housing-related assistance including case management, financial assistance, housing navigation, rental subsidies, housing stabilization for people who are engaged with the social safety net and at risk of or experiencing homelessness. These programs are locally administered by counties and tribal grantees.

As a result of historic investments during the pandemic, we were able to ramp up comprehensive operations of the programs across the state. We're proud of the documented outcomes of these programs, which include serving particularly vulnerable populations who frequently exit to stable, sustained housing.

For example, from the inception of the Home Safe Program in 2018 through June 2024, we served approximately 15,600 individuals. In 2023-24, 62% of those participants exited to permanent housing, compared to 35% for the broader local homelessness response systems in California.

We see similar levels of exits to permanent housing through our Housing Support Program and our Housing and Disability Advocacy Program. In addition, the Housing and Disability Advocacy Program results in a 77% approval rate for the disposition of disability benefits applications compared to 35% nationally for the average rate of approval. The Bringing Families Home Program has also proven effective not just in reducing homelessness among child welfare involved families, but increasing the number of families that successfully reunify with their children.

What we have learned from implementation of these programs is that the integration of housing and social services and the flexibility of services and supports are especially critical to successful interventions. With that, I will cede the rest of my time to our Deputy Director over the Housing and Homelessness Division to answer the remaining questions for us.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Hanna Azemati and I'm the Deputy Director for the Housing and Homelessness Division and I will speak to questions 2 and 3 in the agenda. Given that the Bringing Families Home and Home Safe programs have no ongoing funding, CDSS estimates that a significant number of these of BFH and Home Safe county grantees will exhaust their one-time funding and fully close operations in the next six to 12 months.

This may entail terminating contracts with service providers as well as redirecting or laying off staff. Although the Housing and Disability Advocacy Program, or HDAP, and the CalWORKS Housing Support Program, HSP, have ongoing funding, many programs are actively scaling down or planning to scale down as they will not be able to operate at the scale that they have been able to build up to over the past few years once they utilize the one-time funding.

As part of the process of shutting down or scaling down programs, counties may also have to disenroll any remaining participants even if they have not yet been placed in permanent housing. CDSS is providing technical assistance to support counties in making these program transitions while reducing any negative impacts as much as possible.

I will now turn to the Community Care Expansion Program, or CCE, which is expected to create or preserve 7,000 beds or units of housing with care and supportive services for SSI, SSP and CAPI applicants and recipients at risk of or experiencing homelessness. All 570 million of CCE expansion funding has been awarded to 61 projects that are anticipated to produce over 33,000 beds or units in licensed adult and senior care residential facilities, permanent supportive housing, recuperative care, as well as medical respite settings.

17 of the 61 awards included operating subsidies and to date, 7 of the 61 awarded projects have completed construction and created 494 beds and units. In addition, 247 million in one-time CC preservation funding has been awarded to 34 counties to preserve licensed adult and senior care residential facilities that are at risk of closure and that are serving the CCE population. All but one county accepted operating subsidy payment funds and to date, 14 counties have contracted with 82 facilities to preserve 2022 beds including 430 that were preserved through operating subsidy payments.

Establishing the CCE Preservation Program has required counties the last few years of developing relationships with facilities and building an entirely new infrastructure to be able support them through the program. With that now in place, funds are starting to flow to facilities but are still in early stages and as such we have not received significant concerns yet related to the immediate exhaustion of operating subsidy payments funds.

While CalAIM could cover some of the costs of operations and service delivery, we do not believe that it could substitute for the CCE operating subsidy payments given that the CalAIM reimbursement system can be complex for small operators to navigate and CalAIM is specific to Medi-Cal members that are eligible and approved as well as time limited.

All of that may make it harder for small facilities that are trying to serve the CCE population to rely on CalAIM funding streams as ongoing funding to support the facility overall the way that they are using the operating subsidy payments at the moment. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Monica Kirkland.

Thank you. Monica Kirkland, State Policy Director for Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County. HomeSafe has been a lifeline for vulnerable older adults at risk of homelessness. The program provides intensive case management, eviction prevention, housing stabilization services, and financial assistance ensuring seniors remain housed and stable. HomeSafe is remarkably effective.

As mentioned prior, the fiscal year 2023 and 24, 62% of participants exited to permanent housing and 76% retained housing six months later. For example, I'll share a story about two HomeSafe participants, but this could be used across the board of any of the counties.

Jack, who was 75, and his wife Martha and his in-home support service caregiver were referred to HomeSafe by Adult Protective Services due to eviction risk and thousands in back rent. Martha's cognitive impairments had impacted her ability to submit IHSS hours and manage their finances.

Their HomeSafe case manager helped them apply for rental assistance, locate uncashed checks and bank accounts, and coordinate with legal aid to prevent eviction, clear rental debt, and secure ongoing financial management support. Without continued funding, these programs will close. The consequences are evident.

Eight counties, including Fresno, exhausted their funds and were forced to stop services as early as May of 2024. An additional 12 counties, including Los Angeles, one of the largest, will run out by June 30. Others have stopped accepting new clients and 27 are preparing to wind down.

California's older adult housing insecurity and homelessness crisis is growing. Without continued support, data from peak years suggests that thousands of older adults will fall through the cracks. No other program can step in quickly, serve individuals regardless of eligibility, and provide the excellent to support older adults with cognitive challenges.

HomeSafe's flexibility ensures it can do whatever it takes to stabilize those at risk. If HomeSafe expires, thousands of older adults and people with disabilities will lose critical housing support increasing homelessness in this vulnerable population. Many seniors have no alternative resources, leading to more emergency room visits, higher shelter costs, and greater strain on social services services.

Ending the program now would accelerate this crisis and undermine the state's commitment to preventing homelessness. While efforts will be made to transition current clients, no other program will be available to help the many thousands who will need assistance in the future. The HomeSafe Coalition, composed of 38 organizations statewide, have joined forces with CWDA.

We are requesting an ongoing 88.8 million annual General Fund appropriation starting in fiscal year of 25 and 26, with each allocation available for three years and this funding also includes 5 million for tribal entities and we came to this amount by receiving technical assistance from CWDA.

This funding will allow HomeSafe to continue operating in 58 counties and 23 tribal social service agencies. This request does align with the Governor's Master Plans for Aging and California's Interagency Council for Homelessness Action Plan. Given the growing demand for these services, continued investment in HomeSafe is essential to maintaining the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable older adults.

Thank you. Next presenter.

Good Morning, Chair Weber Pierson and subcommittee members. My name is Megan Van Sant. I'm a Senior Program Manager with Mendocino County Department of Social Services. It's my pleasure to provide testimony this morning in support of the Bringing Families Home Program.

I'll begin with sharing two client stories that illustrate the power and efficacy of this program, and I'll start with Ryan. Ryan lived with his mother, Katy, until he was removed from her care at 5 years old. Ryan's mother was deep into a cycle of addiction and its resulting chaos and trauma.

After several years, Katy made the choice to commit to a path to recovery. By the time she entered our Bringing Families Home Program, she'd been homeless for four years and was finishing residential treatment. She found a landlord willing to rent an apartment and our Bringing Families Home provided rental assistance for several months and helped her obtain a housing choice voucher, giving her the stability she needed to attend daily, sometimes twice daily, outpatient meetings, court dates, drug testing, and to slowly begin overnight visits with her teenage son.

In mid 2024, she was granted full custody of Ryan, who is now age 15. She has been successfully housed with her son for over a year. She's now employed and doing well. The second story I'd like to share is about Amy and Vivian. Amy is four years old. She lived with her mother and her half sister Vivian.

Six months ago, Amy and Vivian entered foster care due to safety issues in the home. The social worker contacted Jason who is Amy's biological father. Jason was willing to care for both children, his own daughter and her half sister. However, Jason was living in a single rented room at the time and couldn't accommodate the children.

Bringing Families Home provided security deposit assistance for a larger apartment and a complete set of furniture through a partnership with a non-profit organization called Make It Home. Jason and both girls are now living in a stable home. Their schooling was not interrupted and the sisters did not have to be separated.

I selected these two stories because both of them illustrate how this program makes such a significant difference to our children, families, and community. For Katy, stable housing was a missing piece that enabled her to fully participate in all of her efforts to recovery that would allow her to reunify with her son.

I have no doubt that she would not have been able to reunify with her son and he would have aged out of foster care if this program didn't exist. For Jason, the housing he housing intervention he needed was urgent but brief. It's important to note that Jason would not have qualified for any other housing programs because he wasn't literally homeless at the point of need. Through Bringing Families Home, my team and I meet client specific needs such as rental assistance, security, deposits, eviction protection, housing navigation, and tangible items such as furniture.

We do this in partnership with our community-based agencies, our local tribes, and our Public Housing Authority. Of the 171 households we've served to date in Mendocino County, 115 have completed the program. We're actively working with the remaining 56 families. Only four families were unsuccessful and their children remained in foster care.

This means we have a 96% success rate. At our current rate in spending, we will run out of Bringing Families Home funding in July or August of this year. This will mean we will have to dismantle our program, disrupt relationships with landlords, our Public Housing Authority, and our community-based providers.

This is infrastructure that took us years to build. Children will spend more time in foster care than necessary and some family reunifications will fail. Bringing Families Home is effective and serves a uniquely complicated population. The program is beautifully designed to be flexible to the individual needs of our families.

It speeds up family reunification and can prevent family separation. On behalf of our county and on behalf of our County Welfare Directors Association, we urge the Legislature to continue to support the Bringing Families Home Program. I love this program because it works. It works for Mendocino County and most importantly, it works for children like Ryan and Amy and Vivian. Thank you.

Thank you.

Juwan Trotter, Legislative Analyst Office. So as we've heard throughout the panel, all of these DSS housing programs will be exhausting the limited term funding over the next couple of years. To be more specific, for HomeSafe, the remainder of their one-time funding is scheduled to be expiring as of June 30th, 2026 and for Bringing Families Home, the remainder of their one-time funding is said to be expiring as of June 30th, 2027.

However, as we have heard for both HomeSafe and Bringing Families Home, some counties have reported already exhausting all of their funding and thus closing out their remaining of their program as well as other counties acknowledging that they will have to significantly scale back their program over the next couple of years and will likely exhaust their funding prior to the official expenditure deadline. Going on to Housing and Disability Advocacy Program, the remainder of their funding one-time funding will expire as of June 30, 2026.

However, unlike the previous programs just mentioned, HDAP as well as the CalWORKS HSP program are continuing to receive ongoing funding, that being about $25 million for the HDAP program as well as $95 million ongoing allocation for the CalWORKS HSP program. With that being said, and that's been mentioned throughout the panel, even with that ongoing funding, many of these programs will still likely be limiting their capacity pretty significantly moving forward.

And for HDAP specifically, some counties have acknowledged that they may still need to close out their program completely, citing that the limited amount funding continue ongoing will not be enough to continue even maintaining baseline levels of services. So as these with all that being said, as you continue to look at these programs throughout the budgeting process, we are happy to provide additional technical assistance as needed. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any comments from DOF?

Good morning. Dr. Weber Pearson, Senator Menjivar and fellow staff. Thomas Locke, Department of Finance. We have no further comments at this time, but happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any questions from my colleague, Senator Menjevar? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Director Jennifer, you said a couple of phrases that lessons learned that these were especially critical to addressing homelessness and especially critical to combine social services and the homelessness with that being the description of these programs. Two parts. Why aren't we continuing to Fund? Maybe Thomas, you can step in as well.

Continuing to Fund when departments deem a program is essential. It's critical for our success in housing people.

When we hear stories of percentages we can actually track and I think if I'm not mistaken, when LAO did the or whoever did the audit on all her our homeless investments, every one of our investments got a fail except these programs because we were able to adequately connect the amount of or we were able to adequately track the money that was invested in the people that we were housed.

So I guess at what gauge are we grading our programs to what moves forward or what doesn't?

Senator Manjarvar, to answer your question, so the Governor's Budget does maintain prior commitments to the housing and home assist programs, so particularly these. So for CalWORKS, for example, 95 million ongoing there's budget maintains $95 million.

I'm talking about bringing families home and home safe only.

Yeah. Department of Finance. So I think looking at the larger budget picture, the Administration Governor's Budget building off the 2024 budget framework where we were trying to balance with no additional cuts. So not necessarily disagreeing with the effectiveness programs, but I think it's just the larger budget situation.

But as we're here today, open to hearing, you know, any proposals and thoughts from the Legislature.

Yeah, I think some thoughts are if we're going to be spending more money in the end if we remove these programs, the success rates of this at a minimal cost.

I can't remember the amount of savings that we get from investing in these programs and not having to do hotel vouchers or this is cheaper than all the other programs. Like it does it is a savings.

And I know we've had these conversations that we don't look at the budget of well, like what money we will save down the road. I think it's weird that we don't do that.

But as we're balancing the budget and we're looking to balance it for outward years, like these costs are going to come back to us, not directly through these programs, but they're going to come back to us in other ways because a not just the housing, but the lack of investment in family reunification that causes more money.

We have to invest more in the other programs for child welfare, the social impacts of the kids because they're not. Because they're not being successfully reunified. I think like the cons of not investing of these are completely outweighing.

I get we have to balance, but if we're looking at last week we were looking at a couple of things that for me made no sense to invest in and had no success rates and are just advisory groups why we focused funding advisory groups versus putting families in our homes and homes.

So I just wanted to share that. And then Deputy Director Azemari, you're the one who spoke about, you answered question number two. And I wanted to dive in a little bit more on Calaim and how perhaps you don't think that it can cover all of it, but can it help a little bit?

Absolutely. And as part of our CCE preservation as well as expansion program, we're investing significantly in technical that also helps facilities in being able to braid funds and leverage other existing funding sources which include Calaim. So certainly we are also trying to leverage Calaim.

But the point was just that the way that operating subsidy payments function are almost as monthly guaranteed payments that small facilities that may not have the administrative like, you know, ability to navigate their way through more complex systems are able to rely on OSP Dollars to be able to main operations and serve the really high need population of SSISSP and CAPI recipients that are at risk of homelessness and or experiencing homelessness.

And therefore we don't think that it's an exact substitute, but it definitely does.

And I'm glad you're providing that ramp up to that connection. And then you also share that you're providing counties for some Ta on the potential of these programs coming offline. I mean, what are we telling counties? Where are they going to put. Where could they put their families?

If bringing families home is cut or home safe, where should it put their seniors and their children?

It really depends on the community. So in some communities there might be other programs that have availability and capacity where the programs, the HHD programs that are winding down can refer existing current participants too.

But in other communities, especially smaller counties as well as tribes, there may not be the other resources that current participants can be referred to as the programs have to wind down. So it's certainly a challenge across communities, but particularly in smaller communities.

Thank you. And my last question is Juan and then was it Monica, you mentioned $88.8 million would be able to just for Home Safe. But some you said some counties still have funding. Correct? Is that for are you taking that into account?

Yes, because some of the programs have closed already and some are already winding down. So we're taking to effect what that's going to cost to bring those back up to speed and those that are also getting revved up again.

I'm wondering if DoF or Lao has a number that is if can you confirm that's close to the number we need to continue these programs?

Thank you for the question. JUWAN trarder, Legislative Analyst Office at this time, I don't think we have a specific number. I think when looking into how much it will cost to continue these programs, some questions that you might want to consider is at what capacity do you want to continue these programs?

Do we want to continue at the current level of capacity, or are we okay with keeping that kind of baseline level capacity? Do we want these programs to continue in every county as they have been the last couple of years, or are we okay with them being exist in more of a limited capacity of counties?

I think those are some of the questions I think you may want to think through. And I think we can work with your office to help you think through how that work.

And I know this is going to it would involve multiple people to answer this question, but I did want to just add in the fact that it did start out even with the pilot. It was with 24 counties and it expanded to 58 and 26 programs for Homestay specifically. And so it did expand.

And the growing need for older adults has is increasing. So even to trail back would be a little bit of a disservice. So just want to put that in there. But I understand. Last question, Monica 88.8 is at base. Yes. Funding or is that this is. Is that.

No, that is so so that number came from 2021 to 2024 peak years. And so that's when they were at their highest. And this is also used because in 2020, when it started, some took a year to get their funds, you know, to get the programs going, get the staff.

And because of the population that they're working with, it takes time to get that going. And so that's another reason why. Thank you.

I want to thank my colleague for her questions. I would like to thank the panelists for your presentations. You know, understanding that this is a very tough budget year and we still do not have the full scope of how tough it will be based on some actions at the Federal Government level.

I am always driven by data and one of the things that stuck out to me is that these two programs, they have better rates overall compared to other state and national rates. And we're also more cost effective. And so, you know, I would just ask for you all to keep that into consideration.

There may be some other programs that don't have the same outcome that these programs, specifically Home Safe and Bringing Families Home, have. Additionally, you know, I do think that the LAO had a very good suggestion on really instead of just a blanket cut, looking to see where we may be able to finesse some funds.

If there are some counties that are able to still provide this in a different type of program, then maybe we should focus on ensuring that those counties that have nothing will at least be able to have some funds so that it doesn't completely eliminate in those areas that don't have the ability to fall back on another program.

But with that, I thank our panelists and we will now move to the next issue item, Housing and Homelessness Program Complaint Resolution.

Thank you. Hi, Hannah Zamati, Deputy Director for the Housing and Homelessness Division at the California Department of Social Services.

The TBL that we have proposed here would for the first time establish statewide minimum requirements to be fleshed out further in future guidance requiring the implementation of local complaint resolution processes as well as individualized written housing plans to inform HHD program clients, Housing and Homelessness Division program clients, in writing of housing related services and assistance being provided to them through the four programs that we've been discussing, bringing Families Home, Home Safe, the CalWORKS Housing Support Program, as well as the Housing and Disability Advocacy Program.

The TBL also gives CDSS the authority, if there is a separate appropriation, to create a CDSS level written appeal structure for program applicants and recipients who want to appeal a county grantee's decision regarding their complaint.

In terms of alternatives we considered for background this tbl, we've really tried to balance the needs of participants with the considerations of counties that they have flagged in order to be able to successfully implement processes.

Given the capped funding for these programs, as well as the flexibility for counties to be able to adapt programs to local needs, changes in program funding, and the challenges in the housing market. The alternatives we have evaluated included the state hearings process.

However, we determined that the proposed process would provide clients with faster and more meaningful resolution of their complaints while preserving program funding as much as possible for services.

In particular, given that the programs do not prescribe the specific supports and resources that each client should get, but instead are are meant to be flexibly leveraged based on each client's needs and the services of other services that might be locally available.

We anticipate that administrative law judges would frequently have to defer cases back to counties to reevaluate how they were handled against that county's policy as well as the availability of funding in that county.

Note also that the capped funding for these programs would further complicate state hearings ability to deliver meaningful outcomes for clients as that year's allocation for the county could be exhausted or already committed to other clients by the time a decision is rendered.

Finally, the state hearing process is significantly more expensive both for counties having to prepare for state hearings and for the state to ensure that state hearing division has the capacity to hear cases related to these four programs.

In terms of existing processes that this proposal would replace, despite the lack of statewide guidance to date, some individual counties have independently developed varying local complaint resolution processes, while other counties do not have such processes in place.

As such, this proposal would address the patchwork of existing processes and instead ensure that local complaint resolution processes are in place and are consistent in meeting minimum requirements that are set out by the tbl, as well as in future guidance.

To address the question about processes being conditioned on the availability of funding for programs, this provision means that if the TBL were to be adopted, implementation would focus on HSP first, then likely HDAP and absent additional funding for Home Safe and bfh. Thank you.

Thank you. Any comments from LAO?

Juwan Trotter, Legislative Analyst Office? So at this time we are continuing to look at the proposed trailer Bill Language. We do understand the concerns around the inconsistencies of the current complaint resolution process and the interest in bringing a more standardization to that process.

That said, as your agenda noted, there have been concerns raised about the specific the specifics of the Trailer Bell language solutions proposed by the Administration. We are working to fully understand those concerns and whether there is a potential solution to kind of increase consistency in the process while also being responsive to the concerns raised by the stakeholders.

So as such, as we continue to learn more about this issue, we'll be sure to reach out with additional assistance as we learn more.

Thank you. Any comments from dof?

Thomas Locke, Department of Finance? No further question. No further comments at this time, but happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions?

Senator Menjevar, Deputy Director, you shared a little bit about the option for the state process. You talked about it being a bit more expensive and I'm Sorry if I missed this. What are the benefits of keeping it on the county level?

Process at we foresee a number of benefits. We believe that because each county develops unique processes and procedures for each of the four programs that take into account other existing resources that exist in the county to support clients, as well as take into account the sort of unique needs and housing markets within their county.

We believe that if experts within the county are able to assess a complaint, experts who are objective and unfamiliar with the particular case at hand, but are expert in the Housing and Homelessness program and Housing First Law and other related contexts, that they would be able to arrive at more meaningful outcomes for clients and do so more quickly and therefore ensuring also that as given the cap funding for the programs decisions could be rendered prior to funds, for example, being exhausted for that year's allocation.

So that's one of the main reasons why we have proposed this process.

And what would make it's not that we need, it's not an incentive. That's not what I'm looking for. But like what would make counties put this process together? If our language in this proposal speaks to an upon appropriation, if those other two programs were moved forward, why would they do that now?

So actually what we have proposed is that the local complaint resolution process would be a requirement and it would have to meet minimum standards that are both outlined in the TBL as well as would be further added to through guidance that CDSs would issue.

But that there would be a potential future state level written process that would depend on future appropriation before it is rolled out for appeals of decisions at the local level. So that it's the state process that we're saying would only become activated if there were an appropriation in the future.

Just to confirm I'm understanding things correctly, we're asking the counties to put together the local complaint process for programs we don't know we're going to fully Fund.

So the local complaint so 1.0 of background that's helpful on this is that program funding for HHD programs covers both administrative functions as well as direct service delivery.

So already administrative functions that are required to operate a Home Safe program or a Bringing Families Home program, counties use the program funding and their allocation for program funds to complete those functions.

So in that sense we expect that the costs at the local level for local complaint resolution process would be covered by the existing program funding allocations that we have again for HSP and for hdap, but we don't have the equivalent at the state level.

One more note, in terms of the benefit that you just reminded me of with this point about funding is that in developing this proposed process, given that the funding at the local level would be used from program funds, we've also tried to design a process that is not overly administratively burdensome because we don't want to divert program to Administration from services as best as possible.

And then have you as a Department done any stakeholder feedback on these trade offs?

Yes. So we actually have been working on a guidance letter. Again, the idea is if the TBL is enacted, that we would be issuing further guidance for each of the programs. But actually for one of the programs, hdap, we've already been working on a guidance letter over the past year.

And the TBL reflects many of the components that we have in that guidance letter. And we've been able to use the guidance letter as a vehicle to both receive feedback from advocates for clients as well as from counties. We've done two rounds of formal feedback.

Okay, so I was like, guidance? Are you already telling them it's more.

We have not ruled it out yet, but it's got it hard to get to get input on the process that's being proposed.

I read this, I was like, so there's hope for BFFH and Home Safe if we're looking to invest into a complaint process.

So we have included BFH and HomeSafe in the TBL in case there were to be an adoption in the future, as there have been in past years, because those programs have only ever been funded with one time funds. So we wanted to make sure that they were included in the TVL in case in the future.

But if there isn't any, you know, new appropriation, we don't anticipate rolling out this, any guidance for those programs since counties wouldn't have the program funds to operate functions.

Thank you so much. So just for clarification on the. At the individual county level, they would use the funds that they already have for administrative purposes for the appeals process, correct? That's right. But if someone wanted to appeal to the state, there is no funded process for that.

There is no process until there is an appropriation and we build a process. There wouldn't be the option to appeal any decisions that are made about a complaint for at the local level. And I will just note that part of the reason we have designed it this way is because like twofold really.

One is we think a phased approach makes sense so that we can first focus on getting the local complaint resolution process right and support counties in implementing that as well as assess whether it's working and therefore are there actually cases that a significant number of cases that would require appeal.

So we would want to assess and evaluate as we roll out the local process. And then additionally it would also just help us gauge what kind of level of volume of cases we would anticipate, given that an appropriation would be necessary if that process were needed, for us to be able to plan for that.

Okay, thank you. All right, we will now move on to issue number three. Homelessness Programs Data Budget Change Proposals.

Okay.

Hanazmati, Deputy Director for the Housing and Homelessness Division with cdss. So we have two budget change proposals today. The first is Homelessness Data Programs Data Collection and sharing AB799 implementation this proposal requests ongoing resources for two positions to implement, facilitate and oversee the data sharing, coordination and analysis associated with AB 799.

The resources will support the new mandates under AB 799, including, but not limited to, quarterly sharing of funding opportunities and collaboration with the California Interagency Council on Homelessness on their new annual publication of a statewide report on homelessness.

The resources will enable CDSS to comply with its requirement of ongoing coordination of funding applications, fiscal and outcome reporting, and enhanced collaboration across state agencies related to housing and homelessness programs and resources.

The second BCP Limited Term Resources for Housing and Homelessness Data Reporting Solution requests limited term resources for one position to oversee the implementation, maintenance and operation of the Housing and Homelessness Data Reporting System, or hhdrs, which was procured through the California Department of Technology Project Approval Life Cycle.

This resource is essential to operationalizing the vision of hhdrs, including change management, training, maintenance, and ongoing technical Support for all 300 plus housing grantees required to report data to CDSS on the HHD programs.

Effective implementation of HHDRs, in turn, will enable CDSS to leverage data to increase accountability and improve the impact of each of the programs in addressing the homelessness crisis in California.

Thank you.

Any comments from Lao Juwan Trotter Legislative Analyst Office? We have no concerns to raise at this time.

Thank you. Any other comments from Department of Finance?

Thomas Locke, Department of Finance no further comments at this time, but happy to answer any questions.

Any questions. All right, thank you so much. We will now move to the next item on the agenda 1 California Program and Immigration Legal Services Funding. It.

Good morning again. Jennifer Troia on behalf of the Department of Social Services. CDSS's Immigrant Integration Program seek to advance the inclusion, integration, and economic mobility of foreign-born Californians and their families. This includes annual investments of nearly $75 million to provide free immigration legal services and community outreach through qualified nonprofits.

In particular, in this agenda item, there's $45 million that we annually invest in the Immigration Services Funding, or also known as ONE California Program. The department funds a network of nonprofit organizations who meet our statutory eligibility requirements to provide free immigration legal services to immigrants across the state with this funding.

The nonprofits provide three broad categories of services. The first is immigration legal services, the second is education and outreach, and the third is legal training and technical assistance. Every year our funding helps hundreds of thousands of immigrants apply to obtain DACA benefits, green cards, temporary protected status, or to become citizens of the United States.

Overall, our services are offered at 162 service locations by 85 organizations which also provide services across an additional 77 extension offices or through sub grantees. You've asked us a question about how we ensure that we reach harder to serve areas. To expand services in these harder to reach areas of the state, we've made targeted investments in specific regions including the Central Valley, the Central Coast, and the Northern Region. These regions include more remote areas geographically and they generally lack sufficient immigration services providers, including attorneys relative to the number of immigrants they have who are in need of services.

Recognizing these barriers, we've made specific investments to provide technical assistance to existing providers to expand their reach into new communities or increase their expertise in certain areas of law, such as removal defense by connecting them with experienced service providers in urban regions of the state.

We also encourage our ISF organizations to open satellite offices or sub grant with other partners to expand their geographic reach whenever possible. With respect to the Special Session additional funding that we received toward this program, we're directing funding to existing immigration legal services providers as well as designing a new competitive funding initiative for eligible providers.

In light of increased demands for legal services and service delivery disruptions due to shifts in federal funding, executive orders, and the uncertainty in the present environment, we are conducting assessments and engaging with our existing service providers and advocates to determine where the existing services can be increased for immigrant communities. We expect to augment funding to existing service provider agreements by about $4 million.

We're also working on designing the new competitive funding application I referenced for each region to provide immigration related services focused on supporting families facing immigration enforcement, including removal defense for detained Californians, and expect to set aside about $5 million of this of the pot for that competitive funding.

The augmentation of funding for existing providers and the competitive award funding will occur on a rolling basis and be rolled out within approximately the next three to six months. Finally, you asked us about the CHIRP, or Children's Holistic Immigration Representation Program, which began in 2022 as a one-time funding initiative.

At the time it was in response to an increase in the number of unaccompanied undocumented minors, or UUM, being released to sponsors in California. The project funds an integrated team. It includes both an attorney and a social services staff member to provide both case management and legal services through a trauma-informed lens.

As of December 2024, the 16 funded nonprofit associations had served 728 clients through CHIRP. The organizations participating in the project have built community. They formulated best practices for this new and specialized service delivery model for the undocumented unaccompanied minors. The program is currently scheduled to conclude June 30th of this year.

We do have an ongoing Youth Legal Services program that has an annual $3 million allocation which funds 23 nonprofits to provide legal services for about 400 UUMs per year. It is possible that some of the cases that are being served through CHIRP may be absorbed by the YLS providers if they have capacity.

Some of the funding referenced earlier related to the special session may also be offered to these providers to increase their ability to take on additional cases. With that, I will pause. Happy to answer questions at the appropriate time and I do also have our Office of Equity Director Eliana Kaimowitz here with me as well.

Thank you. Hi, Good morning. My name is Shiu-Ming Cheer and I'm a Deputy Director with the California Immigrant Policy Center. That's not an exaggeration to say that the ONE California Program and state-funded immigration legal services have been both life-changing and life-saving for immigrant Californians and their families.

One in four Californians are immigrants, 46% of California's children have at least one immigrant parent, and one in three California workers are immigrants. Deportations for people with such strong ties to the state means banishment and exile from their family, friends, workplaces, home, and livelihoods.

Legal services make the difference between a person being permanently and cruelly separated from their home and family and ability to remain here. In 2023, 70% of immigrants in California facing deportation who had lawyers by their side had successful case outcome.

In contrast, only 49% of immigrants facing deportation without lawyers were able to win their cases. Without the expansion of Immigration Legal Services funding, Californians will be in dire circumstances. As just one example, federally funded legal representation programs, such as the one for children facing deportation, have been impacted by the federal administration's abrupt stop work orders.

This leaves more than 4,500 unaccompanied children in California in limbo, along with 26 legal service providers who've been representing these children. California can and must step in to fill this gap. The need for emergency immigration services has never been more urgent.

The Federal Administration has already begun arresting immigrant Californians, has ignored court orders in a complete disregard for the rule of law, and targeted unaccompanied minors and their sponsors. Immigration attorneys are at the front lines of defending not just individual clients, but also a judicial system and the fundamental idea of due process.

To meet the demand that has been growing exponentially since the elections, more funding is needed. For example, one legal service provider in the Central Valley has been turning away people daily. Their wait list for removal defense services is over 200 people, with an anticipated callback in about five months. Our communities can't wait that long.

To increase the capacity of organizations to serve people and to meet the urgent needs of immigrant communities who are facing daily attacks, advocates are asking for 60 million doll in additional funding over the next fiscal year. As mentioned, this funding will also continue the work of building organizational infrastructure and capacity across the state, including in underserved regions such as the Central Valley, Central Coast, and Inland Empire.

Funding for the San Diego region has already enabled new providers such as the Alliance for African Assistance to hire a staff attorney and an accredited representative for the very first time. Immigration legal services funding will sustain the work of nearly 100 nonprofit organizations who provide services to thousands of youth, college students, workers, vulnerable individuals, and families every year. Over 140 organizations across California have signed on and supported this additional $60 million ask, and I urge you to also support it. Thank you.

Juwan Trotter, Legislative Analyst Office. So as was noted in the agenda and by the panel, the proposed budget does not include any new spending for immigration services, but does maintain the $75 million in ongoing immigration services funding. With that being said, as issues in this area continue to evolve, we're here to provide additional assistance as needed.

Thank you. Any comments from DOF?

Thomas Locke, Department of Finance. No further comments at this time, but happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Director, can you clarify some? You threw out some funding numbers. The base I know on page 16 of what we got, it's $75 million total covers all our programs. You're saying you're augmenting $4 million. Is that on top of the 75?

Yeah. So actually the 75 million refers to a variety of programs that are ongoing legal services programs. 45 million of that is ONE California, which I was referencing as part of the 75 million. We did also receive $10 million in the special session funding. And what I was referencing there was how we are breaking down how we're spending the $10 million from the special session.

Okay, can you say that to me again on the breakdown of the 10 million?

Yeah. 4 million of it will be used to approximately. So we're working with our existing providers to assess their needs and what it is that they both need and can absorb. So this could change, but tentatively, what we're talking about is $4 million to augment existing service provider agreements and then $5 million for a competitive pot of funding that will be more new and innovative ways to expand capacity and services.

And then the extra one million is just for change on either side?

No, not necessarily. It's also for the administration, both for the state and for our contractors who actually organize them.

If we already administer these programs under the 75 million, why do we need an additional one million to administer the same programs?

Good morning. Eliana Kaimowitz, Office of Equity Director. We have over time built some of these programs off of one-time investments and therefore have many limited term positions for the staff that solely over time are not currently with us. People end their two-year term and do not stay in state service.

So we need additional investments in maintaining some of the existing staff and also hiring additional staff to administrate all these new programs. For example, designing the new competitive pot of funding requires, you know, engagement and grant process and policy work as well.

But also, you're under the Office of Equity. Okay. But you're also requesting additional staff on top of the $1 million in administration. There's also...

For other programs. So our Office of Equity includes our Immigrant Integration Branch as well as our Office of Immigrant Youth as well as our Office of Tribal Affairs. The requests for the BCPs are for other programs. The Office of Immigrant Youth as well, the Office of Tribal Affairs. These are specifically for the Immigrant Integration Branch that oversees these immigration Legal Services programs. Okay.

And Director, when do we anticipate that assessment? I'm really happy that we're doing this assessment to see where the money is going. When will we have the details on that?

We are already in the process of engaging our stakeholders about what they, our grantees, about what they're able to absorb. So we expect in the next month or two to have a better sense of our existing grantees, what they're able to absorb. And then from there, we're also in the process of developing the new innovative program that we want to be open to not just our existing grantees, but anyone who is eligible, meeting our statutory requirements.

Okay. And then the last request, if you can, I'd love to know when the competitive grants go out, just as a heads up so we can share with our network as well.

We'll be happy to keep you updated.

Okay. I think 1 million for admin is a little. But okay.

Well, I want to thank you all so much for your presentation today. Thank you for giving us a breakdown of the money that we allocated earlier, because I know there's questions around where those funds are going. And so just to be very clear, potentially the thought process as you all work it out is that about 4 million will go to those who currently already have contracts, who may want to expand either their providers or what they're able to do.

And then the 5 million will go for competitive grants to others who may not be a part of the pool at this time, but also opening it up to those who are if they want to add other programs. Okay. Thank you so much. All right, we will now move to the next issue. Issue number five, Office of Equity budget change proposals.

Good morning again. Eliana Kamowitz, Office of Equity Director at the Department of Social Services. The California Department of Social Services Office of Equity includes the Office of the Foster Care Ombudsperson, the Office of Tribal affairs, the Equal Employment Opportunity Office, the Civil Rights Accessibility and Resource Equity Office, the Immigrant Integration Branch, and the Office of Immigrant Youth.

This PCP is just to support our increased workload. And we are requesting 407,000 in total funds, 188,000 of those from the General Fund. Ongoing and position authority for two permanent positions. One is for the Office of Immigrant Youth and one is for the Equal Employment Opportunity Office.

The one requested Office of Immigrant Youth position will ensure compliance with the federal funding and programming which require California to coordinate the effective resettlement of refugee children and youth, eligible parolees from Afghanistan and Ukraine, unaccompanied refugee minors, and unaccompanied Afghan children.

The additional position for the Equal Employment Opportunity Office will help reduce the backlog of investigations and comply with state and federal statutory requirements to conduct investigations in a timely manner.

Thank you so much for that presentation. Any question, any comments, excuse me, from the LAO?

Juwan Trotter, Legislative Analyst's Office. We have no concerns to raise at this time.

Thank you. Any comments from the Department of Finance?

Thomas Locke, Department of Finance. No further comments at this time, but happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. And we have no questions from the committee, so thank you very much for that presentation. We'll move now to issue number six, Adult Programs In Home Supportive Services, Adult Protective Services, SSI/SSP. And you may begin when you're ready. Thank you.

Okay, I'm on. Hi, my name is Leora Filosena. I am the Deputy Director of the Adult Programs Division at the California Department of Social Services. I'll just go right into the questions for time. With regards to the budgets, I'll start with IHSS first. The 25-26 Governor's Budget includes $28.5 billion total fund.

Of that, 10.6 billion is General Fund, which is an increase of 3.3 billion compared to the Budget Act of 2024. The increase reflects growth in the projected caseload, cost per hour and number of hours per case for IHSS overall. The fiscal year 25-26 projected caseload is 771,650, which reflects an increase of 67,729 cases from the Budget Act of 2024. I'll go ahead and move on to SSI/SSP.

The 25-26 Governor's Budget includes 11.2 billion total fund, of which 3.6 billion is General Fund, which reflects a decrease of 83.6 million total fund compared to the Budget Act of 2024. The decrease to total fund reflects a lower average grant, partially offset by a slower caseload decline than previously projected in the budget act of 2024, as well as the full year impact of the 2025 COLA of 2.5% and impact of the anticipated 2026 federal COLA of 2.3%.

The cost of the CAPI program, we added this here, is 254 million in General Fund for 25-26. And then as for APS, the 25-26 Governor's Budget includes 616 million total fund, of which 428.7 million is General Fund and County Services block grant for APS.

This reflects an increase of $117.7 million in total fund compared to the Budget Act of 2024. Please note that the APS program is not budgeted based on caseload. It is budgeted based on actual expenditures. So I want to make sure we pointed that out. For the second question, which was with regards to Career Pathways.

The final day for IHSS providers to take classes through IHSS career pathways was September 16, 2024. IHSS providers had until November 15th of 2024 to submit all training time and incentive claims to CDSS. At this point, all of those claims have been processed and everybody has been paid.

The department's currently working on the final report that is due back to the Legislature by September 30th of 2025. The report will address the key outcomes for both IHSS caregivers and recipients, as well as any other relative relevant findings as determined by data and the outreach that we've done to program participants. That includes focus groups, interviews, and surveys. And then for question number three, I will defer to my finance colleagues about funding.

Good morning. Idalys Perez, Department of Finance, So as far as for question number three, we're currently looking into how to address the additional costs. At this time it's not certain whether the overage will need to be covered by the General Fund.

And then good morning. I'm James Treggiari. I'm the Program Administrator of Adult Protective Services. I'll be handling the HomeSafe question. Since fiscal year 2021, there has been an overall increase in APS approvals in APS cases with an identified housing need.

APS programs have fully integrated the HomeSafe program with significant investments in time and resources, and it has proven highly effective in responding to older and dependent adult housing insecurity and homelessness.

In fiscal year 23-24, data analysis suggests HomeSafe served over one third of the APS population with an identified housing need and over 5% of the total APS participants approved for APS services during that time period.

In the fiscal year prior, HomeSafe served an even greater percentage of the APS population with an identified housing need over 45%. However, there was a decrease in HomeSafe approvals for fiscal year 23-24 due to counties across the state exhausting their HomeSafe funding. There is no current replacement for the HomeSafe Program, which will limit the ability for county APS programs to respond to clients with a housing need.

In terms of caseload, we do not expect this to decrease the caseload of APS workers as housing and security remains an appropriate reason for referral to APS and this need was prioritized with the passage of AB 135. It will, however, mean significantly less resource availability to respond appropriately in these cases. This could lead to longer cases and an increase in rates of recidivism to APS due to the inability to effectively support housing crises for vulnerable older adults in APS. Thank you.

Thank you. Any comments from LAO?

Juwan Trotter, Legislative Analyst Office. I'll begin with In-Home Support Services. So overall we believe that the proposed budget for IHSS is reasonable, but we do believe there are some cost pressures that have not been fully accounted for in the Governor's Budget that we would like to bring up here.

So first off, the most up to date caseload data does show that monthly caseloads are currently running higher than what was estimated in the Governor's Budget. We do expect this to be updated at the May revision. However, this does mean that IHSS costs may be higher in 25-26 than was estimated in the Governor's Budget.

Additionally, the Governor's Budget also estimates that the average number of monthly hours per case will remain the same in 24-25 and in 25-26. However, historically the average monthly hours per case have consistently grown year over year.

And so while we're working with the administration to better understand these estimates, should these historical trends hold, this too could be we could expect a higher estimate or higher cost in 25-26 than was estimated in the 25-26 Governor's Budget.

And then for Career Pathways, as was mentioned the agenda and the panel, the Career Pathways Program currently reported a currently has reported a funding gap of around $24 million that also is not addressed in the Governor's Budget. And then moving on to SSI/SSP and Adult Protective Services. The Governor's Budget does not include any proposals for either SSI/SSP or Adult Protective Services. So for those programs we'll just say that we are available to provide additional assistance as needed.

Thank you. Any further comments from DOF?

Idalys Perez, Department of Finance. Nothing further at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Menjivar.

Ms. Perez, I'll start with you. Can you clarify what you meant that you we don't know if we're going to have to use General funds to offset the 24 million. Is there another option? You've got a rich aunt somewhere we're going to?

Department of Finance. So I think right now we're starting to look at how to address it and we're going to be looking at, you know, just all different options. So I think at this time it's just we can't say with certainty that we're going to need to fund it.

So there's other options? Potential other options?

I mean I think we're going to look at it in the context of like, you know, DSS's overall budget. I mean we're. Yeah. So I can't. Yeah. I mean that's still something that we're going to be looking.

What are the potential? Is it like a special fund that we can pull from or are you saying it's going to come from the General Fund in terms of like if we need to cut another program or?

Yeah, I mean, I think what I'm trying to say is like we're not certain right now that it's going to require a new General Fund to cover the program. And I think we still have to kind of look at May revision and see what our options are. So just can't say with certainty at this time we're going to need a new General Fund to fund it.

I don't know if someone here can talk to me about the report that was due for collective bargaining. That was due in January and we still haven't seen it.

Sure. Leora Filosena, Deputy Director of Adult Programs. So the report has been approved by the administration and it is planned to go to the work group tomorrow. Yeah. So tomorrow the work group will have a full two weeks of review cycle and then they will submit letters to the department that will be added into the appendix once we publish the report.

Great. Thank you for that. And Juwan, can you give us a little bit more of the breakdown of the utilization or underutilization? Well, I mean given those numbers you shared, maybe not underutilization of IHSS and the cost increase there.

If you're referring to my comments that I made previously, I think it's less.

I know you had a report recently. Yeah. If you could give some points on that.

Yeah. So there have been a couple of expansions to Medi-Cal and IHSS and so there have been certain groups that have been under utilizing in-home support services. One example of that would be to the expansion of all individuals regardless of immigration status.

So far, the ramp up specifically to the 15-plus age group and the 26 to 49 age group has been showing lower utilization rates than the overall population. This could. These programs are also. They did just get started. So there is some ramp up for the 50-plus population. We have seen that continue to grow since it began. But yeah.

Still underutilized than the?

Than the General population. Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Menjivar. So Department of Finance, are you expecting that there will be programs that are underutilizing their funds and that's why you may not need to go into the General funds to cover the overage of the IHSS Career Pathway?

I'm not saying that we have expectations or anticipation of that, but I think really we just want to be able to to see an updated picture and then really look at what options we may have. And then as needed, we'll include any adjustments in the May revision.

Okay, thank you. All right. Thank you all for your presentations. We will now move to the next item on our agenda, which will be issue number eight, licensing budget change proposal. We are not doing issue item number seven.

Good morning, Chair and members. Claire Ramsey, Chief Deputy Director for the Department of Social Services. I'll be speaking to four legislative BCPs for our licensing division. First is related to the administrative support for pool safety AB 2866. The California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division is seeking position authority and funding for three positions to support the new workload created by the passing of AB 2866.

The bill includes child care centers and family child care homes and single family dwellings with in-ground pools to add additional safety features and equipment to their pool. This bill also requires the Child Care Licensing Program to update pool safety regulations and update our department's compliance and regulatory enforcement known as our care tool.

Next, we are seeking five positions related to our anaphylactic policy creation under AB 2317. We're seeking this position authority and funding for five positions which include one permanent staff services specialist, three permanent licensing program analyst, and Litigation Branch attorney to support the new workload which includes providing guidance and training on anaphylactic prevention and emergency responses in child care facilities.

Third, we are seeking four positions for camp, excuse me, children's camp regulations under AB 262. These funds will include, excuse me, these include additionally $1.0 million in contract funds to conduct the work of AB 262, which requires us to prepare a report informed by consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders and partners on children's campus and that will include recommendations for a definition of children's camp and minimum health and safety requirements and responsibilities and requirement for camps oversight to the Legislature.

These positions will include two permanent full-time staff services manager twos, and one permanent AGPA, as well as one research data analyst. And finally, we have a BCP for resident services and supports for SB 1406. SB 1406 expands residents rights for individuals living in adult residential and senior residential facilities.

We request three full time permanent positions including one staff services Manager 1 and 2 associate governmental program analysts in our Centralized Complaint Bureau and one AGPA position in our Policy Development Bureau to assist with this new workload. We do anticipate a 5% increase in citations and compliance complaints each fiscal year because of this new bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any comments from LAO?

Good afternoon. Angela Short with the Legislative Analyst Office. As noted in your agenda, all of. These requests are to implement legislation passed by the Legislature last year. Based on our initial review, we don't have any concerns to raise at this time, but happy to provide any assistance needed.

Thank you. Any comments from Department of Finance?

Idalys Perez, Department of Finance. Nothing further to add.

Thank you so much. Senator Menjivar.

I want to commend you on the progress you've made on the Guardian background check system. And like the past two years where we started, we were so behind and in the short two and a half years you've made great progress. So I do want to commend that that work is not going unnoticed. So thank you for the great work on that.

Thank you, Senator Menjivar. And we're really excited as well to have seen the times drop and the caseload backlog.

Yeah. I do want to ask you the impacts in LA fires and any licensed facilities. Can you give us, you know, just the impact on those facilities, what we're doing to assist them get back on their feet?

Yeah. Thank you for the question. We did see significant impacts to facilities from the LA fires, including over 915 facilities identified as having either direct impacts or being at risk of impacts. That includes 232 facilities in our adult and senior care programs, 633 childcare programs, and 50 children's residential programs.

We did have 67 destroyed facilities within this fire. 20 of those were adult and senior care programs, 42 were childcare programs and five were children's residential programs. As such, the department, through our community Care Licensing Division has worked very diligently with those facilities that both experienced impacts or were destroyed.

The Governor issued two executive orders to provide for licensing waivers and flexibilities and we have communicated those out to our impacted facilities. We have worked with individual facilities on waivers that they may need.

So for example, if they need need to relocate to a different space for a certain amount of time before rebuilding or fixing their facility, if they needed additional capacity to house people who maybe had to move into their facility from a different facility. We've also done a lot of in-person engagement in LA. We've gone to the disaster recovery centers. We've sent out information about federal assistance resources and about the disaster unemployment assistance that was offered.

What about extension of hold harmless. Do you have to? Yes.

So that was also another executive order that was issued by the Governor.

It was short term though.

It was 30 days. That's correct.

That's right. It was not extended. The Department did not have authority or the state to extend it beyond that without federal approval.

In its state, no extension came?

And it was determined that it made sense to do the 30 days and then to provide the flexibilities and supports we talked about in the other Executive orders to support the field outside.

Obviously the 67 destroyed facilities outside of that any other facility that won't be able to resume operations.

We are working. We know we do have some damage facilities as well and I don't have it at my fingertips, but I can follow up to see if they're get you a number of non operational facilities.

At this point I think the number is super important. I think it's like if it's creating a service gap in that area, I think it's more important.

No, understood. And we can answer to the service gap question because we are trying to work to make sure that people can get back into the facilities and continue to provide the services. Thank you, thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. We will now move to issue item number nine, state operation reductions and vacancies.

Zero, there you go. Thank you. Chair, Members of Committee, my name is Yang Lam with the Department of Social Services. So in regards to issue number nine, just know that the Budget act, the 2020 Budget act, does require state agencies and departments to identify and implement efficiencies and to produce ongoing budgetary savings.

So in the department's effort to try to achieve those savings, we were very. We focused on ensuring that there are minimal impacts to our ability to deliver core services to recipients of the programs that we administered. A few other solutions have no impact, such as shifting costs to federal dollars.

We're maximizing federal dollars and making some change to our IT expenditures. But there are some impacts, given that we made some temporary hiring pauses. Some of those impacts from a long line of just not being able to provide technical assistance as needed for folks who are asking for questions. But that's already been done with that.

We're already done with the hiring bots. Want to note that as we're working to find greater efficiencies, we're hoping that we can continue to minimize impacts overall to the departments, and we continue to provide the services as needed.

Thank you. Any comments from LAO? Yes, Angela Short with the LAO. Given that the state faces a difficult budget year, we do find that it makes sense in times like these to attempt to identify government efficiencies and operations reductions.

That said, at the same time, it's very important for the Legislature to understand the details of these changes and any potential impacts to programs as such. We appreciate the detail that the Department has provided about the reductions and efforts, and our understanding is that the Administration will be providing more detail about the overall statewide reductions this spring.

Therefore, we will look forward to reviewing that information once it's available and sharing out our findings with the Legislature at that time. Thank you.

Thank you. Any comments from the Department of Finance?

Department of Finance? Nothing further to that. Okay, thank you. Any questions?

All right, well, thank you all so much for your presentation at this point. We will now move to public comment. Any witnesses that would like to testify today, please come here to room 1200. Please try to limit your public comment to 1 minute per person to allow for all individuals to be able to be heard today.

And we will begin.

Thank you so much. Madam Chair. Carly Stelzer, on behalf of the California Behavioral Health Association, mental health and substance use providers who operate across the lifespan providing services to over 2 million Californians, thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment today. A few points on what was discussed by the Panel on Housing.

CBHA supports the maintaining of State programs to expand access to transitional and permanent housing. The Housing first model coupled with supportive services include wraparound. Including wraparound is a stabilizing factor in the long term health and well being of individuals and families.

This is particularly true for older adults, one of the fastest growing segments of our population who are at a heightened risk of social isolation, depression and other behavioral health conditions stemming from housing instability and homelessness. On adult services, CBHA supports the maintaining and funding for SSI and SSP programs rather than the proposed reductions in the Governor's Budget.

SSI and SSP are critical aid programs for older adults and individuals with disabilities who are often Low income and at heightened risk for housing stability or homelessness. Cutting the ssip, ssi, SSP benefit in uncertain economic conditions puts these vulnerable populations at risk for homelessness and associated mental health outcomes. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Carlos Marquez, on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association, thank you for featuring panelists to highlight the outcomes of bringing families home and home safe. I want to just speak to items 12 and 6 first.

We did cost out what it might take to continue one time funding for bringing families home and home safe along with additional one time augmentations for HDAP and HSP. We believe that that would be in the arena. 472 million in 2526.

We also wanted to report that about 28 counties have closing one or more of these programs and eight additional counties have reported plans to ramp these programs down without additional funding.

On the second item of the TBL complaint process, we have been engaged with the Administration in ongoing conversations about the locally driven complaint process which we certainly prefer over a state hearing process for these non entitlement housing programs. The trade off clearly being between funding and standing up new architecture.

And we do not believe that the state hearing process is the gold standard for due process. In fact, 30% of cases that have been filed with the state hearings have actually not been heard. So moving on to item 6. Social worker caseloads in IHSS are between 300 and 400 cases per social worker.

So we look forward to working with the Administration. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Santosh Siram with Chinese for Affirmative Action. We are a recipient of one California funding to conduct education and outreach in Cantonese and Mandarin for our Asian immigrant population. We're in support of the Governor's Budget on this issue item and the advocate's proposal for increased funding. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Armand Feliciano on behalf of the Asian Law Caucus. The Asian Law Caucus is a legal civil rights organization dedicated to serving Low income and immigrant communities. We are in support of the California One program and Immigration Legal Services. These are critical services at this time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties. We're in strong support of additional funding for the Bringing Families Home program and Home Safe Program. Given the success of these programs and the continuing need in our communities on IHS statewide collective bargaining, CSAC was an active, active participant in the CDSS workgroup.

We look forward to the release of the report and continuing to engage collaboratively on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kim Rothschild, California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS in support of the Governor's Budget for Public Authority Administration funds. And we support CWDA's request to increase funding for social workers who are evaluating IHSS caseloads and consumers. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Ted Jackson with the Marin Center for Independent Living, along with our local partners, St. Vincent DePaul of Marin and Front Porch of Marin, we urge you to support the Home Safe $88.8 million budget request. Our experience in Marin emphasizes that because there are no vouchers available, people are not moving out of shelters making more beds available.

Also, congregate shelters are often inappropriate and even dangerous for Adult protective service clients. HomeSafe is the only funding source that can be used to move these vulnerable people into a much safer motel while we seek housing solutions for them.

In addition, because of the pandemic, rental assistance has sunset, HomeSafe is a critical source to prevent eviction and not stress the motel room supply needed for other clients. Older and disabled clients can't wait. They need immediate help and Home Safe funding helps us to stabilize their situations while we work to resolve. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, Elaine Wolf Robatis, Co Executive Director at Immigrant Legal Defense. We are here to urge you to support the current level of support for Immigration Legal Services and during this desperate time for the communities we serve, to support the increase of $60 million for immigration legal services.

Just in the past two weeks, our agency alone has had 12 individuals picked up out on the streets in the Central Valley, in Northern California and on the Central coast. Individuals who have families here and who some of them who actually have immigration relief.

But because of the policies and the encouragement for rampant immigration enforcement, our families are being impacted. Now, if we hadn't been these people's attorneys, they would already have been sent back to their home countries. So please continue to partner with us and augment the support you've shown. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Laura Polstein with Immigrant Legal Defense urging you to maintain the current funding for one California and additionally augment it. These are really terrifying times for our communities and the clients we serve. One of my roles is mentoring new attorneys through a state funded fellowship program in isolated rural areas.

And what we've seen in these past couple of months is increased enforcement in places like courthouses, schools, schools on the street. It's really kind of a very desperate time and much needed. The current level of support and the additional amount. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Siobhan Waldron. I'm also a managing attorney at Immigrant Legal Defense. We ask that you continue to support Immigration Legal Services funding in California and augment the funding by the $60 million request.

We serve individuals throughout the entire State of California and not only individuals, but entire families and communities in many parts of the state, especially rural and traditionally underserved places. We also see a great need in cities where people think, zero, there's services there, there are services, but there's not enough for everyone that needs them.

So we ask that you please continue to support Immigration Legal Services. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jean Yamasaki, managing attorney at Immigrant Legal Defense. I also joined my colleagues in urging the Committee to continue to support and maintain the support that we have and then the additional allocation of the 60 million we're asking.

We serve people in almost every single county in California and we just ask you for the support so we can continue to do that. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Hello. Christina Lee, managing attorney at Immigrant Defense as well. Along with my colleagues, I echo the request that the Committee support the current budget for Immigration Legal Services and also to increase the budget to $60 million. There's currently a lot of fear in the community amongst all Californians who have status and don't have status because they have.

They know somebody or a family Member does not have status. So we need the services to support the communities out there. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello. I also work at Immigrant Legal Defense and I'm also here to ask you for support of additional funding for immig Immigration Legal Services. Everyone is very stressed. Our students, clients are very stressed and we need more funding, more support. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. I'm an attorney with Immigrant Legal Defense as well, and I'm here to urge you to protect the annual funding that we have and also increase the 60 million requests. I work with students in California who are very stressed and anxious of not having a legal service provider in a time where they're being targeted.

So I respectfully request that you increase the funding. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. On issue one, I oppose elimination of the Bringing Families Home program and Home Safe, both programs that successfully kept those in the child welfare system and adult protective system housed.

We also want to support continued support for The HDAP and CalWORKS housing support programs also for very vulnerable communities. On issue four, I also support the Immigration Legal Services funding that is in the budget at 75 million and support the advocates request for 60 million more.

And then on the proposals for investment under SSISSP, we want to support reinstatement of the automatic cost of living increase. This helps with the affordability crisis for this population. Grants have not kept up with the cost of living and they're desperately needed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi Chair and Members. Gabby Davidson with the California Association of Food Banks here to uplift a budget request from the Californians for SSI coalition on item 10. So as we recently saw with the wildfires in LA, emergencies can happen to anyone at any time.

Yet the more than 1 million older adults and people with disabilities living on SSI cannot save for emergencies. Number one, due to the Low grant level that makes it hard for folks to afford their day to day needs and number two, due to the asset limit that's placed on SSI recipients.

So we really urge you to invest 20 million in ongoing funding in the next five years to revive an emergency grant program to provide financial support for older adults and people with disabilities. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi Trinh Von with Justice in Aging and also Californians for SSI which is also asking to raise SSI as grants back up to the poverty level where they were before the recession. This would help SSI older adults and individuals with disabilities to afford rent and food at today's prices and thus reduce senior homelessness and hunger.

Justice and Aging also supports the request to increase funding for Home Safe. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you Chair and Committee Members for your time. My name is Angelica Holgin, Director of Programs for Silicon Valley Independent Living Center. I'm here to ask that Committee to support the budget request to keep the APS Home Safe program running in 58 counties. Without the funding, this leaves thousands at risk.

APS Home Safe excels at prevent preventing housing loss and homelessness. Santa Clara County has been able to assist 439 vulnerable adults to date with eviction and prevention as well as housing stabilization. And we urge you to continue support us thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Peter Hansell representing AARP California. AARP strongly supports extension of funding for the Home Safe program. As you've heard, it's an overwhelmingly successful program and many of the programs are terminating and at risk of terminating, which we think would be a tragedy. AARP also supports the stakeholder proposal to provide funding for an ongoing COLA for ssp.

We are very concerned that the combined grant levels now are falling below the poverty level and we strongly support measures to correct that through an ongoing colon. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Weber Pearson. Members of the Subcommitee, Lee Pullen, Director of San Mateo County's Health Office of Aging and Disability Services.

Where Home Safe has been a godsend for our seniors ages 607080 plus over the last couple of years that we've operated the program for those who have been on the verge of losing their housing or in fact have lost their housing and living on the street or living in a broken down car if they were so lucky.

44% of the people who've come into the program have already experienced homelessness in the last three years. One out of five were a part of a multigenerational household where it was just not the senior. But others on the verge of losing their housing or had already lost their housing.

40% came to us so frail that they actually needed board and care for their housing. To date, 70% of the people who've come into the Home Safe system in San Mateo county, in partnership with others, we've been able to find housing for them, permanent housing, and we want to continue to work for the others.

So we appreciate your consideration of the program. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Senators. Kathy Sunderly Mcdonald for the California Pan Ethnic Health Network. CPEN support request for an additional $60 million for immigrant legal services that was discussed in item four. We absolutely appreciate the administration's proposal to continue the existing funding for these needed services.

But as you know and as you've heard, there is an increasingly hostile environment that our individuals are living in and that their legal services are working in. And we are very much in need of those additional funds to ensure that they receive the services and support. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and Member. This is Rebecca Marcus on behalf of Leading Age California to speak on issue one. We are the state's leading advocate for quality nonprofit senior living and care. Our Members see the real time success of the Home Safe program in their communities every day.

We urge the Committee to keep the lights on for this highly successful program rather than repeat what others have said. I'll just say that we align our comments with our colleagues in the advocacy community in support of the Home Safe program. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Committee. My name is Belinda Wells, and I'm an IHSS provider in El Dorado County. So I'm here in support and asking you to support our IHSS statewide bargaining. And I have multiple clients and four actually, and the two that are mental health.

And the reason why is because we don't have enough providers that want to do this type of work for the pay. So statewide bargaining will definitely put us in a better place. A lot of times we have to make choices between medications, rent, food, and things like that.

And the services that we provide often come at a cost to us as well. So we're looking forward to your support with statewide Bargaining. It will make a difference in giving us dignity and support, respect and pay that is needed for this work. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Romelia Eads, and I am an IHSS provider from Sutter County. I am here today to speak up on support of statewide bargaining for home care providers. IHSS bargaining is broken and it's creating a lot of undue stress on providers like myself.

Our work is already hard and stressful and we already feel and valued and underpaid. We don't then need our counties to tell us we aren't worth a living wage. Statewide bargaining is the key to the updating of the antiquated system. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lisa Coleman with the California Commission on Aging. We want to thank this hearing and thank the Department for their Presentation on what we refer to as the three gems in the crown of aging. It is, is CCE Home Safe and HDAP. We need more beds, more bedrooms. CCE gets us more bedrooms.

I'd like to point out that it's not just state money. It's money from the counties. It's philanthropic. It is developers. If you had a builder who wanted to build 100 bedrooms and he took 80% of the funds, then 80 of his hundred bedrooms would be for people that are on SSI or the Assisted Living Waiver.

But the remaining 20 would be available for people like myself that are fortunate enough to have made more than what would qualify for assisted living waiver, but not enough to pay for the traditional rent of assisted living. CCE gets us more bedrooms. HomeSafe is the tool in the toolbox for APS. You've heard so much about it.

HDAP is the specialized program where we're taking those highly skilled trained workers and we are getting them on the street to work with people to get them housed. But more importantly than getting them housed, we're getting them into housing that they can then afford based on benefits. Thank you.

Hello. Julie Mitchell, co-legal director at Cadison in Los Angeles and I'm here in support of the proposed one time additional allocation of 60 million for immigration legal Services. I wanted to highlight what we're seeing on the ground this year.

We have seen a 500% increase in the need for community based and ally based Know youw rights trainings. 500%. We're also seeing constant federal policy and law changes that have not only taken a toll on the community but also frontline legal service workers. A case that would have previously taken five hours to complete.

We now expect to spend about double on. And all of this is matched with federal funding cuts and insecurities that threaten our ability to do this important work for Californians.

We've received federal same day stop work orders for multiple legal services grants totaling around 10% of our org budget and we expect to see more alongside other nonprofits in California. Additional state support is desperately needed.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Hi, my name is Robert Copeland. I am a Member of Dog Fight which is disability rights group here in Sacramento and part of CARE California Retired Americans. We need SSI up to the federal poverty level and we also need more affordable housing California because people are struggling.

People got to pay the rent, rent, food, utilities and people on SSI cannot do it lifetimes or live in substandard housing. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello chairs and Members. My name is Priscilla Ramos. I'm a partially DOJ accredited representative with the Education and Leadership Foundation. We are a nonprofit centered in the Central Valley. We provide legal services, immigration legal services such as removal, defense and affirmative services as well.

I am here to express my support for the protection of the current funding as well well as support for the increase of 16 million for the vital immigration services. The Central Valley has unfortunately been recently hit with Ayes rates. So now more than ever we do require an increase in funding to be able to assist the community.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon and thank you for your time. Chair and Members. My name is Jennifer and I'm also with the Education Leadership Foundation. I am here to support the increase of 60 million in the funding. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, Chair and Members, my name is Belquis Carino and I represent the Education Leadership foundation, an organization dedicated to providing essential immigration services throughout California Central Valley. I am here today to strongly urge you to increase immigration legal services programs by $60 million. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, Good afternoon, boarding chair and Members. I am here today to express my support for the protection of the current funding and also to express my support for the additional 60 million for vital immigration services here with Education and Leadership Foundation. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and Members, my name is Cassandra Solis. I'm the advocacy program manager with San Bernardino Community Service center servicing in the Inland Empire. I'm here today to speak on behalf of the families who are feeling the lasting impact of an era marked by fear and uncertainty under the Trump Administration.

At Sbcsc, we witness this daily families struggling to stay together, navigate complex legal systems and secure a future in a place they call home. I am here to urge you to not only protect the 75 million, but to support a 60 million increase so more families can access these essential services. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. My name is Julio Demos. I'm pastor and I've been serving as a pastor for the last 14 years and San Bernardino area and I'm here to support the increase on those 60 million for legal services in the community. It's not just a number, but it's supporting the families to keep them together.

I was detained by immigration in October and they traumatized my kids in the car and they took me away for almost a month. And that same day, my wife, she had a stroke.

Because what we went through and what we experienced that day until today, if it was not for those services, I don't know where my family will be or my kids. And I'm asking you for that support for the community. It's more than just a number. It's keeping families together and keeping the community together.

They're not defending just criminals. There is good fathers out there, mothers, and also people they support and they work for the community. They pay taxes and they work every day hard to make every city and every town better. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee. Noah Potomo representing California Rural Legal Assistance foundation in strong support of the One California Legal Services Program. We're also a recipient of the program. We appreciate the maintaining of the 75 $1.0 million plus the 10 million that came out of special session.

We are in support of the stakeholder proposal to expand and build capacity specifically in rural areas where our farm worker commun live and Work and are providing food on our table every day. So thank you for your consideration in these unprecedented times. Thank you.

Hello, Madam Chair. Alana Hitchcock with 211 California. We're here in support of the budget request by Senators Ochoa, Bogue, Reyes and Valladares. A strong 2 in 1 network around the state.

We currently have 15 uncovered counties is essential for disaster response as we've seen seen in the LA fires, as well as for supporting all of our most vulnerable communities, including those non English speaking ones and those afraid to reach out to government. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Weber Pearson. My name is Danielle Bautista with United Ways of California. Also here in strong support of the budget request by Senator Ochoa-Bogh, Grove and Valladares for funding vital 211 services. We must safeguard and bolster these investments in our safety net programs to protect our most vulnerable communities.

And As a trusted source, 211 Information and Referral Services provide individuals across the state to connections to community health and disaster related services. To that end, the top three reasons why people call 211 include housing, food relief and utilities assistance. And in 2023 alone, 211 answered 2.5 million calls and texts.

And for that reason again, we strongly urge the Committee and the Legislature to support the budget request for 20 million in one time funding for FIDO211 services. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairwoman. My name is Hector. I'm here on behalf of the Inland Coalition for Immigrant justice coalition of over 35 organizations in Riverside and San Bernardino. County. We are here to talk about the specific need for legal services in the Inland Empire.

Senator Reyes, in collaboration with our coalition, has championed a budget request of $5 million for immigrant legal services and IE. And this is supported by Assemblymembers Carrillo, Garcia and Jackson. The IE is a legal desert with roughly 10 providers that do immigration legal services.

And of the 25 million allocated in the special session, the IE is likely to receive little more than 5%. This 5 million will Fund expanded services, including removal defense, which not many other providers provide, and most importantly, capacity building.

More funding for services is great, but only goes so far if you don't have providers to provide those services. And that results in regions with higher concentrations, getting more of those dollars.

Hiring attorneys is expensive, so as a result, some of our partners have Instead opted for DOJ accreditation, which getting someone accredited can start at $20,000, not to mention the cost to keep them on staff. Thank you. Yeah, thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Weber Pearson. My name is Faith Lee. I'm with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California.

I'm here to comment on issue number four in support of the current ongoing funding and also the budget as that were a 60 million doll as we're in strong support as well as a legal service provider serving mainly Southern Californians to serve more Asian Americans.

We actually have an Asian language legal intake program that is specialized in Khmer, Korean, Tagalog, Thai, Vietnamese, making sure that more Asian Americans are covered and they're able to access state services and any other services.

And I want to emphasize how much one California funding helped us really have in language outreach for these folks in case that they need immigration services. So we want to thank you for your support on this funding and we are in strong support of the $60 million budget ask. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Cynthia Valencia. I'm a legislative advocate with ACLU California Action. Here to support the proposed budget allocation but also support the increased ask for budget advocacy. The $60 million. We have seen a significant increase in immigration enforcement activities throughout the country, but also in California and these services are.

And the demand for services has significantly increased since the start of the year. So looking forward to getting the support on that. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. Tiffany Wyden with SEIU California and strong support of the continued funding for bringing family home as well as home safe. Also in support of the proposal to increase funding for IHSS caseloads and Administration within the counties related to immigration legal services and support.

And then as co sponsor sponsors of the proposal for investment related to IHSS statewide collective bargaining. Really appreciate Senator Durazzo for bringing it forward and is in strong support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Good afternoon chair and Members. My name is Anayeli Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center. I'm here today urging Members to not just protect the 75 million annual allocation for California's Immigration Legal Services program, but to support the increasing funds of 60 million in fiscal year 2526 so more families can access these essential services.

Our partners at Immigrant Defenders Law Center, IMDEF are one of the organizations that receive funding through cdss. I'd like to share with you one of the many stories that they have on supporting immigrant Californians. In 2022, IMDEF began representing a combat veteran of the United States Marines Corps.

After leaving the military, he faced undiagnosed service related PTSD which went untreated for more than two decades. In 2010 he was deported to Mexico and with the support of MDEF in 2023 he returned to the US under humanitarian parole.

State funded Immigration Legal Services help keep families together and safe by helping thousands of students, veterans, workers, families and vulnerable individuals access immigration relief. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello Chairmembers. Yesenia Jimenez with End Child Poverty in California. Just standing in solidarity with the words that my colleague just shared right now and just to add another lens to it as well. I'm a daughter of somebody who was deported over 12 years ago.

And unfortunately two years ago, the way we were reunited was when we buried him in Whittier, California. He was deported to Mexico even though he was Guatemalan. We're Maya Canjobal and was never able to return with us. And so all the points that are being shared here are very real stories that are happening today.

Families are being separated. We're seeing professors being deported from this country. California has a moral responsibility to stand with their parents and to stand with their families or immigrant communities. In addition, I agree with the comments of the SSI Coalition and we must end poverty for our seniors and disabled adult on ssissp.

Lastly, California is facing a dual budget challenge as projected deficits in future years with revenue growth expected to fall short, the cost of current services. We need solutions. We need real revenue solutions and we're here looking at you guys to figure out these solutions for us and stand with our families who are currently benefiting from these programs.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. My name is Anna Colby and I'm an immigration attorney with World Relief which provides immigration legal services free of charge across the state. I'm so glad that you're getting to hear personal stories this morning.

I'm also asking for an additional 60 million to the currently budgeted $75 million in the State of California for immigration legal services. Thank you to this woman who just shared that incredibly moving story. I also want to share a personal story of a client that we've served.

In 2019, we were able to help an undocumented client secure legal status. He's now returned to us five years later for help with his naturalization process. And he shared with us that in the last three years his juvenile daughter was unfortunately a cancer patient and thankfully is now in remission.

But he shared with us the importance that he that it was for him to have a legal status and work authorization in the three years that his daughter battled child cancer. And so these are incredibly moving stories of real California residents that are dealing with these really difficult issues.

I'd like to remind Committee that over 25% of the population of California is comprised of immigrants. And so we're asking for help with that. Thank you.

Thank you for the time, Chair. Ortense Rodriguez with the Acacia Center for Justice. I'm here in strong support of increasing investments in immigration legal services to further protect our community Members. But I'll focus my comment on the Children's Holistic Immigration Representation Project, also known as chirping.

ChIRP provides essential legal representation and social work support to unaccompanied children in deportation proceedings across California. These powerhouse teams, funded by chirp, have successfully helped children enroll in school, avoid homelessness and labor trafficking risks. TRIPS funding will run out at the end of June.

At the same time, many of our providers will experience a complete termination of their federal funding. This means that over 4,000 children in California as young as toddlers might lose their legal representation while in active deportation proceedings, and some providers might even fold.

With these augmented funding assignments, California has an opportunity to ensure that no child is left to represent themselves. For this reason, I ask that the state commit to increasing investments in CHIRP and One California and other vital immigration legal services that are needed now more than ever.

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Abigail Esquivias. I'm with Social Justice Collaborative, a nonprofit based in Berkeley, protecting immigrants across the Bay Area, Northern California and the Central Valley. We're speaking in support to protect the 75 million in the Governor's Budget for immigration legal services and the increase of 60 million.

Our organization, like many providers, delivers Know youw Rights presentations. We stand in front of community communities and tell them your best defense is to meet with a qualified legal service provider. And then in the same breath, we know that the wait lists are long and some are full. Many people don't have time to wait.

As of October 2024, over 2,000 people were on a waitlist for state funded legal help. That same month, our office saw surgeon calls. SORRY has continued to receive a high volume of requests for services. The need keeps growing, but the resources have not kept up. Last year, SJC provided approximately 1100 free intakes.

But for every story I can share today, another person is left without access to legal services. Our team, like so many legal service providers, works hard to meet the demand. But we need additional support and resources to be able to meet this moment. Thank you.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and Members. My name is Luis Guerra. I'm with the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, a national organization that support the many of the providers that have been speaking today here providing training and technical assistance.

We're here in support of the maintaining the ask for 75 million in addition to the increase in funding by 60 million. Wanted to share a story of one of the projects that could be supported by the increase in 60 million is what we call right now is the Immigration Legal Services Support Project.

That's funded through a one time allocation through CDSS which has helped over 80 providers accept expand the number of accredited reps and attorneys serving our communities. Accredited reps are trained and credentialed by the Federal Government and are vital in addressing attorney shortages, particularly in rural communities.

In two years, our project has increased the field of accredited reps statewide by 25% and it's leading the country. This additional funding will sustain and grow this critical workforce and ensure that our frontline legal service providers are there to protect and empower immigrant families. Thank you.

Good afternoon Madam Chair. My name is Javier Vazquez Baez with Central Alpha Media. We're a local non profit organization based in Fresno and we're here in strong support of the ISF funding on the budget, governance.

As a legal service provider and being on the front lines, we can tell you many stories about how our family has been affected in the Central Valley. Not just in Fresno county, but hard to reach areas like Kern, County, Kings county where there's no legal service providers and are easily placed to unscript released individuals.

So we're here in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. Mario Gonzalez with Centro De Familia. I'm here in support of on California, ensuring that the 75 million that have been allocated continues to be allocated as well as asking for the 60 million that would allow us to continue doing the work that we're doing.

As the speakers presented during the earlier session, these funds are not just for legal services, but also for informational outreach education services.

During the month of February, we within our Office conducted over 30 different know your rights sessions because we know that if our immigrant community knows their rights, know how to protect themselves, they're less likely to be picked up and need the legal support long term. So please continue to help us with that. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello Madam Chair. Members, thank you so much for your time. My name is Ibrahim. I am the policy specialist at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. We're a national clearinghouse for immigration law and policy, but based here in California.

I am here in strong support of issue four, specifically to keep the 75 million that has been allotted in the California and Governor Newsom's proposed budget, but also requesting an increase of $60 million to that funding.

As a program administrator of part of this Funding, we could tell you firsthand the impact these state dollars have had on immigrant families across the state. So we just urge, especially in the moment that we're in. I heard from different colleagues expressing the different stories. It is a very tumultuous space in the immigration law and policy space.

So all these state dollars will be transformative to our immigrant families here in California to keep families united. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Annie Thomas, on behalf of the California alliance of Child and Family Services, our organization advocates for nonprofit community based organizations that serve children, youth and families in public human services systems. We want to express our strong support for the Bringing Families Home program.

These supports are crucial for the families we serve to reunify with their loved ones.

We do want to raise concerns about the impact of the recent Executive orders on unaccompanied minors and what this will mean for the programs our Members offer to these youth, including foster and probation youth, through the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement, offering housing, education, translation services, family sponsors, assistants, among others.

We will continue to stay engaged with CDSs on these issues. Lastly, some of our Members assist undocumented youth in obtaining legal services before adoption. So we strongly support California's continued investment in this. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Nicole Wortelman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership, echoing a lot of other speakers and being supportive of the administration's $75 million for immigration legal services as well as the $60 million stakeholder proposal.

Thank you.

Hello Chair and staff. My name is Bruno Wisad. I work with the California Immigrant Policy Center. California's historic investment in immigration legal services is an investment in California's families, economy and future. Tens of thousands of California youth, college students, workers and family rely on these core services every year to keep their families safe.

California's legal services programs need an increase of 60 million in fiscal year 2526 to reduce the long wait list, meet the high demand for legal services and protect the safety and rights of California's children and families from the ongoing immigration raids and deportations across the state. In January, immigration agents conducted mass raids in Kern. County.

Recently there were arrests, reports by LA Times of large scale raids in Los Angeles. These raids terrorize communities and make children and families afraid to go to school, work hospitals or access public services and programs.

By increasing funding for immigration services, California can continue protecting children and families from deportation, empowering people to contribute to the workforce and economy, and creating a state where all families can thrive. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Cynthia Gomez. I'm Deputy Director of State Policy and Advocacy with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights CHIDLA here to speak on item four. CHIDLA is a statewide organization with offices up and down the State of California.

We're also a legal service provider, and each one of our offices has a Member of our legal services Department in the respective offices serving the community. As a legal service provider, we can speak firsthand to the need and the importance of maintaining the current allocation for legal services.

Day in and day out, community Members come to organizations like CHIDLA and like my colleagues here, seeking critical legal services that help maintain them with their family and in their communities. In a time where we're seeing increased attacks by the Federal Government, this need has only grown.

So we're also asking not only for the maintaining of the current legal services allocation in the budget, but also an increase in services. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'll be interpreting for the next speaker.

Buenas tardes, presidente y miemblos Del comite, El Centro De Recursos, Centro Americanos y Vivo in Los Angeles, California. Asido miogar pormas De treinta.

Hello, chair and Committee Members. My name is Lorena Cepeda with Careza in the Central American Resource center, and I live in Los Angeles. California has been my home for over 30 years.

Legales De Immigration De California y Pedir Que El Estado aumente sesenta milliones en fondos para servicios legales De Immigration. I'm here to ask you to protect the $75 million for California immigration legal services programs and to ask the state to increase $60 million in funding for immigration leg Administration.

I ask you to see this request as a priority. I ask you to see Immigration Legal services as one of the best tools you can provide us to protect ourselves against the attacks of this new Administration.

I have tps and I emphasize that these legal services that you have supported with have benefited me and my entire family in the past. I wish the same for immigrants in California who now find themselves in even more difficult times.

Gracias por Su attencion.

I ask that you continue to support these immigration legal services and respond to this moment with an increase so that more families see your support. I thank you for your time today. Thank you.

Hello, chair and Members. My name is Cristel. I'm with the CARESEN Central American Resource center in Los Angeles. I'm a student at East Los Angeles College and I work for the Los Angeles Unified School District.

I'm here today urging Members not just to protect the 75 million annual allocation for California's Immigration Legal Services, but also to support an increase of 60 million in funding so more families can get access to these essential services. I can tell you firsthand how valuable these services are because I benefited from them.

I was able to get a free representation on my campus from my attorney and Higher Education Immigration Legal Services project. Because of these services, I was able to get help with my. Excuse me, with my DACA applications and learn how I was eligible to get a green card and was represented in my application for permanent residency.

There are thousands of students like me who rely on these services to continue their education, to work legally. Excuse me. And to build a future in this country. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Hector. The last time I stood before you, I was an engineering student. Today I am a proud public servant for the City of Los Angeles and a recent Cal State LA graduate.

I would not have the opportunity to become a civil engineer without the legal representation that this funding provides through services like Garrison. Every morning as I say goodbye to my beloved mother on my way to work, I live in fear of the thought of her being ripped away from my life.

This nightmare is a reality for many other Members like myself who wouldn't have a fighting chance without the services that this funding provides. It was this very act of humanity that inspired me to become a public servant. I jumped at the opportunity to volunteer as a disaster relief worker during the Palisades fire.

And I will continue to fight for California because California fought for me when I needed it the most. That is why I urge you to preserve and strengthen the funding for legal services representation now more than ever. It is an investment in the future of California.

And I also want to give you a heartfelt thank you for all your support in the past. Thank you.

Hello, Madam Chair and staff. My name is Shane Henson. I'm a public policy advocate and legal aid attorney with Inner City Law Center. ICLC is a nonprofit located in Skid Row, Los Angeles dedicated to providing free legal services to homeless and at risk homeless folks throughout LA County.

Today I wanted to highlight the importance of the Bringing Families home program. Item one. Over 35 legal aids, homeless service providers and community groups have signed a letter requesting the Subcommitee restore funding to this essential program.

Established in 2016, the BFH program assists families who are dealing with twin crises, the specter of homelessness and the separation of their families. BFH provides numerous services to participating families, including rental assistants, housing, navigation, legal services and more. Today, we Reviewed countless stats of BFH's program's efficacy. But what does BFH look like in practice?

Today, I wanted to highlight how BFH transformed the life of just one of our clients. Ms. Hathaway, who is not the client's real name, is a single mother who after bouts of homelessness, lost custody of her daughter in 2023. Through hard work, she found a job housing and regained custody of her daughter Amelia, another pseudonymous.

However, her work as a caregiver required her to be away from home for long periods and she was forced to seek new employment to care for her daughter. Unfortunately, Ms. Hathaway fell behind on rent as she was looking for that new job and was given a notice to pay. The renter quit her unit facing eviction.

Inner City Law Center's Bringing Families Home team sprung into action and successfully negotiated a rescission of the notice, used BFH's funds to obtain rental assistance for the arrears and settled the issue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Galen Dobbins with the California Coalition for Rural Housing. I'd like to align the majority of my comments with the previous speaker and ask that you fully support the Bringing Families Home program. It has fantastic outcomes and it deserves to have funding. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Emilia Maya and I'm an immigrant myself and I'm also serving as the Executive Director of San Bernardino Community Service Center. It's an organization that provides immigration legal services in the Inland Empire. The Inland Empire. Even though we're not at the border, we face the reality of a border community.

We have icbp, we have local municipalities that are very anti immigrant. And it is thanks to the funding that we get through the CDS program that we are able to provide services to our immigrant community. Stop removals. And that happens in our communities.

So I'm here in support of not only the current allocation, but also the increase in the funding, especially given the current situation. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Jessie Mabrey. I'm the CEO of Opening Doors. We're a Sacramento based nonprofit. We've been serving immigrants, refugees and survivors of trafficking for 30 years. Today we serve about 3,500 individuals throughout the greater Sacramento area.

I am here in strong support of maintaining the immigration and legal services funding as well as the additional $60 million ask in Sacramento County. Over 60% of our undocumented neighbors have lived here for more than 10 years. So when we're talking about these immigrants, they are woven throughout the fabric of our community.

There's another 61,000 Sacramento residents, US citizens who are living in mixed status homes, meaning living with undocumented loved ones. At opening doors, we turn away 40 eligible individuals for every one deportation removal defense case that we can take. The need is already very, very large and it's only going to get larger.

So this funding is incredibly important to help protect our communities. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Monique Hooks and I'm the Executive Director at Daybreak Adult Care. We serve seniors and family caregivers in Alameda County and we're current home safe provider. The end of Home Safe funds does not mean the sudden end of homelessness for countless seniors in our community who deserve better.

Over the last three years, Daybreak has worked with hundreds of seniors in crisis, many not having family to turn to for support, so they turn to us. HomeSafe allows us to prevent evictions, relocate seniors living in unsafe conditions and facilitate placements into permanent housing.

I'm here to ask the Committee support the budget request for ongoing funding and to Save the Home Safe program. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Bronson. I'm a case manager from Daybreak. I'm in support of the budget that saves HomeSafe for our clients. HomeSafe is a safety net. I've worked with seniors who have declining health, who lived in backyards.

But through HomeSafe, we've been able to get them stably housed, address their housing needs, address their medical needs and just find permanent housing. And I've worked with countless clients that had very similar stories. So our seniors deserve care from all of us so they could live with dignity.

We ask you to support the budget that same so safe. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, my name is Roger Skillen, Operations Manager with Daybreak Adult Care in San Leandro. I ask that you strongly consider the 88.8 $1.0 million budget request so that seniors at risk of being homeless and also losing other ancillary services to allow them to live in dignity and respect that they deserve.

I respectfully ask that you consider that and allow us to be able to help serve our community. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Good afternoon, I'm Wendy Peterson. I work with Monica Kirkland at the Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County. And in addition to the Home Safe budget request, we also ask that you support the budget requests from the California Commission on Aging for HDAP and for CCE.

These three programs address unique needs of older adults and in our county and many others, I know they've been game changers. So we need them. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Dan Okenfuss with the California foundation for Independent Living Centers and I'm here to speak in favor of home safe Continuation and also wanted to say a brief statement about IHSS and what it means for our independent living center consumers.

IHSS is the only program that allows any older adult or person with disability on Medi Cal who has a demonstrated need for support on activities of daily living, meal preparation, showering, toileting, household maintenance, et cetera, access to a self directed program wherein they are allowed to directly hire and supervise those who provide the care services.

IHSS serves over 860,000 Low income adults and individuals with disabilities. Largest LTSS in home program nationwide is critical so I urge your support for continued funding for it.

Thank you, thank you. Thank you to all the individuals who participated in public testimony today. If you were not able to testify today, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review or visit our website.

Your comments and suggestions are important to us and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you and we appreciate your participation. This hearing of Budget Subcommitee Committee 3 on Health and Human Services is adjourned. Thank you.