Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Public Safety

Good afternoon and welcome to today's Assembly Budget Subcommitee Number six, which covers public safety. We will be hearing a number of issues today, including proposed trailer Bill for two grants to local entities and the Office of Emergency Service. Speakers are listed in speaking order for each of the items.

Please keep your remarks within the allotted time communicated to you by my staff and remember to introduce yourselves prior to speaking. We will now move to our first issue with the Office of Youth and Community Restoration.

We have on our first issue Katherine Lucero, Director of Office of Youth and Community Restoration Jennifer Ramirez, Department of Finance Selena Norell Lee, Department of Finance Orlando Zavala, Legislative Analysis Offices and Drew Soderbergh, Legislative Analysis Office.

Good afternoon. My name is Katherine Lucero. I'm a retired Superior Court Judge and former prosecutor and the current Director of the Office of Youth and Community Restoration, also known as OYCR. As you are aware, OYCR is not a regulatory body.

However, OYCR is the only state governmental agency that focuses on the health and well being of incarcerated children and youth, children and youth on probation and the children and youth families and communities impacted by the youth justice system, including victims and survivors in those communities, and the promotion of public safety.

Pursuant to the most recent data published by DOJ, youth crime has not increased beyond pre Covid levels. Sustained Petitions Based on DOJ data in 2019 there were 25,886 sustained petitions and in 2023 there were 15,919 sustained petitions, which constitutes a 38.5% decrease in looking at both arrest and sustained petitions in juvenile court.

Youth crime does not appear to have increased beyond pre Covid levels and I wanted to have that level set while we talk about the JJRBG funding formula.

The formula improves outcomes for youth because the formula no longer focuses on a factor that is based on how many youth are incarcerated, such as the 2018 DJJ number, but it focuses on giving the county enough resources for the number of youth between the ages of 10 and 17, for the number of youth who have adjudicated 707B offenses which are violent offenses, and for the number of youth who committed offenses these offenses but were not placed in a secure youth treatment facility, and the number of youth who are placed in a less restrictive placement after they have been placed in a secure youth treatment facility.

So youth who are diverted from the secure youth treatment facility and youth who are are committed to the secure youth treatment facility but are what is called step down which is authorized by the law.

The new factor replaces the 2018 DJJ number and builds in the concept that LRPs less restrictive programs are part of the youth continuum of care when a youth has committed a serious crime but does not need a long term multiple years of incarceration when the youth is committed to an SYTF but can spend part of that baseline commitment time in a less restrictive program which includes safe and secure placement in the community.

This new third factor in the formula does move the infrastructure towards alternatives to long term incarceration when it is safe for the community and in the best interest of the youth which was a key part of Senate Bill 823.

The manner in which we have a ramp up in this formula revision allows for counties to prepare for the less restrictive program continuum of care which also ultimately benefits the youth. In our youth justice system.

We are hoping for sustainable alternatives to the secure youth treatment facility that are well designed in partnership with all key government stakeholders as well as community based organizations.

And that is why OYCR has invested $15 million in grants to 11 counties and continues to look for ways to support counties and communities in building less restrictive programs for youth. I am available to answer any other comments with regard to your Committee staff comments if desired. Mr. Chair

Thank you so much. Moving to Department of Finance.

Jennifer Ramirez. From the Department of Finance. Nothing further to add.

We don't raise concerns with proposal and here for questions. I'm here with my colleague as well. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Just follow up questions more on the aspect of the Native American youth that are in this program. Also, has there been any data collected as far as Native American population within this areas?

The total number of youth on probation is not is not reported and the length of stay on probation is not reported by any source at least in a public way for statewide consumption. DOJ does have total numbers of youth dispositions to youth on probation. However it does not break them up into Native youth.

The BSCC also has numbers for tracking youth who are incarcerated, but it is not broken up with a Native youth segment. Our OICR collects what's called the SYTF AB102, AB169 data.

Those are bills that were passed that allowed us to collect data about the youth who were being who were seen to be committing the 707Bs convicted put into SYTFS at this point. We do know that from our last data sources that 386 youth were placed in the SYTS in 2024. 1% of those were Native youth.

The total that we are seeing is 1% of that roughly 400 number and that's 37 secure youth treatment facilities in the State of California. They're all over the state. Which took place the place of the DJJ that the three facilities that closed in 2023. Three facilities were closed for good.

They started out with 13 in the 1990s, but the numbers had dropped so low and the law passed to re elect the youth to their county. So now we have 37 secure youth treatment facilities. Currently we know that there's about 500 youth in those facilities. And what we're seeing from our data collection, it's about 1% native.

So within that 1%, a lot of times people will look at that 1%. But per capita wise we can see an increase within the Native American population. But also looking at different regions, regions where individuals are coming from could be a higher population within those areas.

I would encourage continuing to look at those areas as we know that the Native American population does suffer at higher areas per capita wise on some of these issues that we're talking about here today. And seeing that grants are going out, I want to make sure that we're adequately addressing those issues also.

So the 1% that you're talking about when we put it together to per capita wise and then region, maybe there's areas in there that we need to look at. But also hearing that data isn't being collected. So how do we know that we're getting the resources to the right communities that drastically need it?

So those are areas that we want to continue to look at. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any further comments? As now we'll move over to issue two. Issue two will be trailer Bill proposal. Orlando Sanchez Zavala, Justin Ottoman, Francine Byrne from Department of Criminal Justice Services and Drew Soderbergh legislative analysis offices. LAO.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Orlando Sanchez with the LAO. I'll provide some brief background on the SB678 program or the Community Corrections Performance Incentive. Then I'll pass it over to the Department of Finance to present the governor's proposal. We also have recommendations on that that I'll hold off until the Committee hears that proposal.

But county probation Department supervise people after a felony conviction. There are different types of felony supervision and the county Department supervise people in order to receive services to deter crime and various other activities that happen.

People can be incarcerated from community supervision, including in state prison for a new prison eligible crime or if they violate in some cases the terms of their supervision.

The program was established in 2009 to accomplish three goals and those were to reduce the rate at which people are sent from community supervision to state prison create state savings and improve public safety. It did this by rewarding counties when they sent fewer people from their county, county supervision, community supervision population to prisons.

So the state achieves savings when fewer people are sent and then this program transfers some of that, shares some of those savings with the counties. So how it works is when a county sends fewer people based on a historical rate, they then receive a portion of those savings.

And notably counties are expected to spend those funds on evidence based practices, meaning research has shown that these are effective at diverting people from further involvement in criminal justice system. The formula has been frequently modified since 2009. It's been some of those changes have been due to policy changes, sentencing changes, such as the 2011 realignment.

The modifications for the formula were generally made in an attempt to continue to provide counties with funding unrelated to in cases where policy change would have affected their performance. And the most recent modification was in 201516 which I then referred to as a modified formula.

This was put hold in 21:22 during the pandemic, again due to concerns that county awards and performance would be affected by some of the changes happening during the COVID 19 pandemic.

As a result of this hold, counties received a set amount each year and under current law, the hold will expire and the modified formula will start will begin again. I'll turn it over to the Administration, introduce their proposal. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Justin Adelman, Department of Finance so at a very high level, what we're intending to fix the problem is that the existing modified formula that are counterparts at the LAO mentioned significantly, it kind of compares the prior year and then a historical baseline. And because of that there's some volatility year to year.

So that a probation Department can do very well one year and then in the subsequent year, because they did so well that prior year, they're kind of punished for that. And so the way that the existing formula works is that they're kind of having to constantly meet this very high standard.

So what the Administration is proposing to do is because we've had this hold in the last few years and probation departments have performed very well when the funding is stabilized is to establish a new maintenance payment which is about 80%. It's.

Sorry, it's 80% of the proposed formula and it's about a $20 million reduction from that Covid level freeze that would be kind of an ongoing set payment.

And then in addition, we're proposing to make modifications to a separate component that instead of comparing the prior year of performance for the probation departments, they would be compared against the years between 20212022 and 2023. Kind of. That would be the set new baseline. So they would be performing against that standard.

We're also proposing a growth factor on the maintenance payment that would be associated with the community corrections performance growth payment. It's a 2011 realignment payment. It wouldn't impact those funds.

It would just be kind of an annual addition to those funding so that there's kind of growth over time because the payments currently, they haven't really been modified since 2011. 2012. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Francine Byrne

Yes, hi. Thank you. I am Francine Byrne. I'm Director of Criminal Justice Services. I have no additional comments, but I'm happy to answer any questions about the role of the judicial counsel or evidence based practices.

Thank you. Orlando Sanchez, again with the LAO. We agree with the Administration that a change is necessary for this program. A couple of years ago we completed a report that highlighted the existing the modified formula I discussed earlier as several problems that it's not as clear cut whether the program's achieving its intended goals as it was.

This is because the effects of the formula have been impacted by policy changes which make it difficult to distinguish whether the prison population, crime or state savings are a result of the program or a result of some of these other policy changes that have happened.

Also, there's some components of the formula that do not align with the original goals. And finally, it's unclear whether counties are actually using these these evidence based practices, which is an important feature of the program.

But we do find benefits of the program or the state continuing to Fund practices that research has shown are effective as mentioned by the governor's proposal. Under their proposal there's three payments and we have recommendations on each of those. We recommend modifying the first two and rejecting the third. And I'll go through each of those here.

So for the proposed performance component, we recommend that the baseline and there's a calculation that uses 2021, 2022 and 2023 and that we find that using 2021 has is affected by the COVID 19 pandemic. So using that would artificially lower the baseline for counties.

We find it it's more accurate and more reasonable to use data that's not affected by the COVID 19 pandemic. So that would be 2022-2023 instead of that. And this won't change at a statewide level. This won't Change the payment a whole lot.

But it could have some impact on some of the smaller, more rural counties that some of these changes could then affect a little bit more. Also, the Legislature could in the future consider updating this formula. Especially some changes are coming down with Prop. Or have been already implemented with Proposition 36.

So in the future the Legislature could update what that baseline is to the extent this affects those. A couple of other kind of technical components of the formula is one is that it uses an average cost as opposed to a marginal cost. So what a marginal cost does it mostly focuses on food, clothing, etc.

What a person in state prison. Some of those costs. We find that using that is more reasonable. An average cost includes other components such as like prison staff as part of that formula. So that could affect the amount that the state actually saves.

And it's closer to attach for every one person a county diverts it's a marginal cost is a more reasonable approach on that. And then another kind of key flaw in the governor's proposal is that it assumes that everyone is released into state parole as opposed to a different so some of those not.

We know from historical data that about half of the people who exit prison are released to parole. The underlying assumption in the governor's proposal is that everyone does so. So that would be affecting kind of the performance component and it doesn't adjust for the average time that people spend in prison or on parole.

So the Legislature could also consider adopting a different percentage of savings that it transfers. Under the current administration's proposal, they recommend transferring 25%. The Legislature could choose a higher amount or lower. And that just depends on the goals and how you weigh these two goals.

A higher percentage would provide counties with more resources and a stronger incentive and but it would create less state savings and then lower percentage would do the opposite. So that wraps up the first kind of performance component. In regards to the maintenance component we heard about, we find several problems with this portion.

First, it's not clear why the Administration selected 103 million statewide. This makes up 80% of total grant awards. Second, it's not clear which specific goals this is tied to. For example, the maintenance is not connected to any specific practices. It's not connected to any specific amount that counties would need to reach.

And it's also not connected to actual state savings. But we acknowledge that if the state were to Fund only on performance, there'd be a significant decrease in the amount that counties receive. To the extent that counties are using this towards these programs, that could have negative implications. Then finally, the growth amount.

Currently the program doesn't have a growth amount built in. We think we find that this is approving it would be problematic in that it has less legislative oversight. It's not connected how much a county spends on this. Rather, it's connected to realignment, which is sales tax and vehicle license fees.

And that doesn't necessarily tie with costs that our counties are incurring. So we instead recommend an alternative that would likely take some time to build out. And this would require some additional steps for the Legislature to take. And I'll go through some of those steps from now.

So convening a group of experts to identify which practices would allow the state to reduce the most amount of prison commitments would be a good first start. We think the Board of State and Community Corrections, known as the bscc is well positioned to take on this role since they already promote effective local and coordinate correctional efforts.

Now we also recommend directing the BSCC to collaborate with experts to estimate what savings the state can achieve through these practices. And then the Legislature would also need to establish how much it's willing to spend on this program. From the Administration, we heard about 103 or the proposed is 103. The Legislature could choose a different amount.

And then we also recommend requiring the BSCC to have a larger oversight role of the program. That would include auditing the counties and making sure that they're using these programs are evidence based and that they're regularly evaluated. And as I mentioned, this will take some time for the Legislature to implement. The Legislature instead prefers something more immediate.

We recommend some simple modifications to the governor's proposal. The first is rejecting the growth amount since that has less oversight, as I mentioned, and it's not connected at county cost.

And then the second is given that the governor's proposal doesn't include oversight mechanisms, we recommend adding those by tasking the BSCC with taking on that greater role to both audit and in cases where county is out of compliance, working with them, providing technical assistance to get into compliance or risk losing some of this funding that's not being targeted in that way.

Then third component from the governor's proposal is that if a county doesn't receive funding under the 2 that's above 200,000, this would bump it up. We find that that minimum guarantee disconnects the awards from actual performance and it doesn't advance the state's goals. So we recommend rejecting that portion as well. Now, that was a lot.

Happy to take questions on any specific portions. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Department of Finance. You care to respond.

Yes, thank you. Justin Adelman again, Department of Finance. So we wanted to kind of respond to all of the components for the first piece of the LAO's recommendation. Specifically the performance base, you know, the average versus the marginal, what date range we should use for the baseline.

We're open for discussions on those and we think the LAO's recommendations for those are reasonable. As far as the maintenance payment recommendations, we wanted to highlight a couple of issues or points on establishing kind of a stable funding source for that. I will note that before the COVID 2019 pandemic, the average revocation rate was about 3.37%.

In that period since COVID 19, when we've had stabilized funding, the revocation rate has actually been significantly lower. It's about 3.17%. So again, we think there's merit in kind of providing a stable maintenance funding source for probation that, you know, year to year they have some consistency and they're familiar with what their payments will be.

Additionally, on the $200,000 minimum, we want to note that that's currently an existing statute. It largely affects smaller counties, counties like Alpine, Del Norte, Shasta. And the existing formula already includes that 200,000. And it's also a relatively small part of the methodology. Currently it's about 1%. Actually it's less than 1%.

So we recommend maintaining that and then that's kind of it for our responses. One final one, sorry, is on the recommendation to increase the Board of State and Community Corrections oversight of this. The Board of State and Community Corrections currently doesn't have any involvement with this performance grant.

So the Administration is kind of opposed of establishing a whole new audit framework. We do want to note that the Judicial Council does provide annual reports that kind of survey and follow the evidence based practice use of probation departments and that that evidence based practice use has increased over the years.

In 20102011 when this program was starting, about 44% of the probation departments were using evidence based practices. And in recent report, I think that number is around 70 to 80%. So there has been an increase in the use of evidence based practices.

And again that's why we're kind of promoting a maintenance stabilizing to maintain that use of evidence based practices and the performance itself, which we would again note that the methodology itself rewards.

And rather than kind of highlighting evidence based practices itself, we want to reward and, you know, pay counties for reducing the people they send to prison, not just using those evidence based practices.

Well, thank you for that. There was also brought up Lao brought up the county cost and the county involvement in some of these things. And talking about a premise of those that were released will go into state parole versus the counties and those types of things. Would you care to elaborate a little bit on that?

Yeah. So again, back to the kind of average versus the marginal rate on whether or not individuals are going to parole. I think these are kind of technical changes that we're more than happy to discuss with the Legislature or the lao.

Okay, LAO, would you care to follow up?

Drew Soderborg, Legislative Analyst Office so in response to some of the points on the maintenance payment, the Department of Finance said indicated that the change in the revocation rate pre and post Covid was due to the stability of funding. Well, that's certainly possible that it was due to the stability of funding.

It's not clear that that was what drove those changes. Although the 200,000 minimum grant amount that was mentioned, they did indicate that that is a small amount. And it is a small amount, but we think that it should be eliminated simply because it's not consistent with the goals of the program.

And then finally, with respect to the suggestion about BSCC monitoring, while it is true judicial counsel does conduct a survey of counties to see the type of programs they're implementing, it's important to note that they don't check to see whether or not those are actual evidence based practices and they're being implemented in the way that that's being described.

Evidence based can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. So we think it's important that we have a rigorous definition that BSCC ensures is in place.

So you believe that BSCC has a better approach on monitoring evidence based programs?

Yeah, from our perspective, because BSCC has experience conducting oversight of the activities of locals, they're just better positioned to do this, whereas that's not really a function that the judicial branch normally engages.

Thank you, Department of Finance. Any follow up questions or comments to that?

I think again, it's somewhat reasonable for having BSCC have some oversight. But we do note the judicial branch does have relationships with probation and the courts. So again, we think the nexus is more aligned with the existing performance from the judicial branch.

Well, thank you. It sounds like you're both are still going to be working out some issues that will bring it back. I do want to talk about you mentioned 80% performance or the budget that was moving forward into some of these areas that might not have data for them. 100% performance, 11% incentive programs.

Can you talk about how you're shifting that Money. And now how is that all going to be accountable for?

Yeah, so it's just kind of a technical delineation between the share of the program on what is performance and what is maintenance. I know the agenda mentions that it's 11% performance. It's closer to 20% under the actual formula. And then 80% is just kind of the breakdown.

And that was kind of to mirror the existing component one and component two elements of the current formula.

So rather than 100 to 11%, you're saying it's more 80 to 20?

Yes, because the maintenance payment right now is proposed at 103 million and the total grant would be 126.5 million. So that remaining portion is the 20% and then the 103 is the 80.

Okay. It still sounds like there's a lot of components that need to be worked out and discussed on this. So we'll be looking forward to seeing some of that moving forward. All right, well, thank you so much for that. Now as we move on to issue.

Three, if I may. Go ahead. Sorry about that. Again. Francine Byrne from the Judicial Council, it might be helpful to learn a little bit about what we do in terms of assessment. The assessment that we do of evidence based practice was designed by Dr. Faye Texman and

Dr. Ed Letessa, who are leaders in the field at that time. So it does actually, and it was rigorously validated in the field by our research team, it does actually go through risk assessments where it's a huge component of evidence based practice. And we ask about caseload sizes.

It goes, it asks about motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy, several things that have been identified as evidence based practices. And then we do occasional literature reviews to ensure that those practices are still up to date. And then, and we will ask the probation departments in a number of different ways how they're implementing those programs.

So it is a little bit more than just it's an assessment, it's not just a survey. I just wanted to make that clear. We don't audit the program. Programs. That's not our role. But we do a pretty rigorous assessment of what they've implemented.

So do you believe that there's enough monitoring going on, Francine, for evidence based. I will say we information to reach back to this Committee.

We are. Yeah, I think there is. We are starting up we site visits which we did pretty rigorously in the past, but they slowed down quite a bit in recent years. So we have actually just recently started redoing those. We are hoping to begin them in July to do more site visits each year.

We'll do a number of site visits and then report back on those in our legislative report annually.

So you anticipate doing those site visits starting up in July?

Yes.

Thank you, LAO. Any follow up? No. Department of Finance? No, but thank you so much, Francine. Now we'll move to issue three, okay?

Before we get started, we're gonna hear from a Mr. Crawford, personal testimony as a resident of Altadena who could sit up here on the dais and give us that information as a witness to these areas.

I want to thank you for taking the time to be here to give us insight to how the fires and residents in Altadena in specific, were affected by this.

Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to speak my testimony to everyone in this room. Thank you. My name is Torbjon Manor Crawford. I lived in Altadena, California, for 37 years until our community was destroyed on January 7, 2025, in the Eaton Canyon fire.

Along with my neighbors, I watched our town ravaged by what became the second most destructive fire in California's history. My family and I lived on the west side. We were the last to be notified, and some of us not notified at all. I live with the shame of having trusted an app to save my life.

At 3:30 am, I woke up to the house filled with smoke while the Watch Duty App still insisted there was no need to evacuate. No sheriffs, no firefighters on our street to warn us, only hurricane-force winds and our survival instincts.

Less than an hour later, I was laying on the floor of my mother-in-law's house when Brinks called to alert me that our smoke alarm had gone off. By then, not only our home was lost, our entire block was engulfed in flames. Pictures and videos cannot capture the true scale of the destruction.

Those lucky enough to salvage family albums might still reminisce about the beautiful city once nestled in the Eaton Hills. My family, like so many others, was left only with memories. Memories now scrambled by the trauma caused by Edison's negligence and the countless city and county failures that betrayed the very people they were sworn to protect.

Accountability is something I pride myself in. Growth is something I value deeply, having the humility to strip away the ego and admit when I'm wrong. Being responsible for lives is not just a job. It is a duty where critical errors are unacceptable. At least 18 lives were taken that night.

Matriarchs and patriarchs whose tribes and navigable tribes have now been forever displaced and dismembered. I watched elders, the same ones who invested in my upbringing, treated like afterthoughts. Who was there to check on them, the way they had always checked on us? No one.

Instead, they were left behind, turned into fossils under the rubble, still clutching the tools they once used to build their homes and businesses. Their lives now exist only through memories, while those of us left behind are somehow expected to simply move forward. With all due respect, thoughts and prayers were never enough. There must be accountability. Accountability for every being stripped of the right to peace that night. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony and bringing to the forefront real-life situation that you went through. We do offer our condolences. 18 lives that were taken that day. And as we start this discussion, we're going to be talking about some of the responses here from the state and issues that we could identify.

Most specifically, we'll be looking at overview of fiscal impact of major disasters from the state level and we're going to have testimony from Heather Gonzalez, LAO, Tina Curry, Chief Deputy Director Cal OES, Eric Swanson, Deputy Director Cal OES and Tess Schangerbeck, Department of Finance and we'll start with the testimony.

Hi Heather Gonzalez, with LAO so we were asked to provide some background for a state budget-focused conversation about the January 25th Southern California wildfires.

This presentation is based on an FAQ that is posted on our website and in the handouts, but in the interest of time, I'm going to do the abbreviated version here. And I wanted to start us off by talking a little bit about the Disaster Management Cycle that will be on page one of your handout.

The Disaster Management Cycle is an analytical framework that is commonly used by disaster management professionals, but it's useful for policymakers because it shapes both how disasters are managed in a practical sense and then also how we budget and develop disaster programs.

And the key insight from that framework that I wanted to use to set up our talk today is that disaster management goes in phases that repeat, such as the response phase, which happens in the immediate aftermath of disaster and includes firefighting, rescue, et cetera. Right.

And fighting the fire, and the recovery phase, which is the process of rebuilding homes and communities. With respect to the LA wildfires and their nexus to the state budget, we are currently looking primarily at activities, programs, and costs that are generated from these response and recovery phases.

So that's where I'm going to focus the talk today, starting with page three of the handout: key features of the State Disaster Response System. This is a bottom-up system. It starts locally, usually with local police or fire departments. As the scale of the disaster increases, resources are supposed to layer in.

Typically, this starts from neighboring communities through the mutual aid system, and then state, national, or even international resources are added in as necessary. Turning to emergency alerts, federal, state, and local agencies use a variety of alert systems, including subscription alert services that generally are opt-in and wireless alerts that are sent through mobile carriers.

This is also somewhat of a bottom-up system in a kind of a way in that the alerting authority is usually a local official who is the central actor during the emergency.

However, at the state level, the Governor's Office of Emergency Services or OES provides training, best practices, and a model local alert and warning plan that is designed to provide guidance to these local alerting authorities. Some of the key entities that are involved in wildfire response, and this is page seven if you're following along.

At the state level, include OES, CAL FIRE, the California Military Department, and some others. OES monitors and coordinates aspects of the response tasks, agencies, and facilitates the state's mutual aid system. The California Military Department provides support, like firefighting aircraft and hand crews. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the California Conservation Corps also operate hand crews.

And of course, CAL FIRE, which is the main entity involved in the wildfire response phase, and I mentioned it last year only because it's not the immediate subject of today's hearing. Turning to page eight, we can look at typical sources of state funding for wildfire response.

These include annual state agency budgets, the E-Fund, which provides funding to CAL FIRE for large wildfire response, and the state's Disaster Response Emergency Operations Account, also known as DREOA. DREOA accepts funds that have been transferred from the State Special Fund for economic uncertainties and distributes them to state agencies for disaster response operations costs.

In addition, existing law gives the governor broad authority to spend any available state funds to respond to a declared emergency.

Similarly, the legislature has broad authority to provide funding both through your general legislative powers and then also under the specific provisions of Proposition 2, which allows the legislature to withdraw funds from the budget stabilization account to pay for disaster costs.

Now turning to the federal government, typical sources of federal funding for wildfire response right this is the firefighting stage include the U.S. forest Service, which can provide firefighters, aircraft and equipment, and FEMA's Fire Management Assistance Grant program, otherwise known as the FMAG, which reimburses states for eligible mobilization equipment and supply costs.

FMAG dollars are usually provided on a 75-25% cost-share basis with the federal government picking up the larger portion of the tab. Now, in terms of wildfire recovery, this is page 11.

Wildfire recovery is also somewhat of a bottom-up process in that for individuals, it starts on the ground by documenting damages, initiating insurance claims, and filing for government assistance if available. Similarly, state and local government agencies begin by documenting damages to community facilities, infrastructure, roads, bridges, et cetera, and then marshaling resources.

Then, next, what happens when we've done the documenting and started these processes is debris removal comes in. Now, this can be done privately, but more typically, especially in large fires, cleanup services are provided and paid for by the government. After cleanup is complete, property owners and community leaders then begin the often arduous process of rebuilding.

Now, some of the key federal and state entities that are involved in wildfire recovery, again, page 13, at the federal level, the agencies and programs involved in the recovery phase largely depend on the type of declaration that is made and the specific provisions included therein when the president makes the declaration.

These generally begin with FEMA, but also can include the Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Agriculture, among others. At the state level, during recovery, OES remains a central actor. They manage the state process, marshal resources, and work with federal and local partners.

But other state agencies also may provide various types of support, including helping survivors get new IDs if they need to from the DMV, assisting with tax and insurance, or protecting someone from contractor fraud. Wildfire recovery assistance is available, but aid varies by recipient, program purpose, and provider.

And for the purposes today of the committee which focuses on the state budget, I've narrowed the focus down to just, you know where you're going to find your funds and that the primary place for that at the Federal level is FEMA's Public Assistance Program, which is where most of the reimbursements to the state treasury for state costs will come from.

The public assistance program typically operates again on a 75-25% cost share. However, the president can increase the percentage to 100, which is what was the case in LA. And in addition to reimbursements, the federal government may also provide services such as debris cleanup, which would otherwise be quite costly to the state.

And again, this has been the case in LA. In closing, I've covered a lot of ground in this presentation, but I want to end with three points that have immediate relevance to the work of this subcommittee. First, cost drivers. During wildfire recovery and response, key cost drivers to the state include the scope and scale of the emergency measures, that is, essentially how much firefighting you might have to do and debris removal during recovery.

But there are other potential costs to the state, and these tend to be a little bit more long-term, including things like lost tax revenue and health care costs, other costs that kind of accrue over time.

Second, I want to point out reimbursements, as previously noted, key federal programs that provide funding to the state for wildfire response and recovery do so as reimbursements for eligible costs. This means the state has to front the funding and then apply to get it back.

Moreover, reimbursements are not dollar for dollar because not all costs are deemed eligible, and even then, if they are eligible, they still may take years to recover.

Third, those reimbursements that are received are likely to come through the OES budget, which is a function of this committee because of the way the state handles funding requests to the federal government for disasters. And thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you so much. As now we'll go to Cal OES.

Hi, good afternoon Chair Ramos, Mr. Crawford, members of the committee, my name is Tina Curry, and I'm Chief Deputy Director of the California Office of Emergency Services.

And I appreciate the opportunity to be before you today to talk about what our office role has been in the LA fires and the ongoing recovery, and our continued support to impacted communities. Cal OES's stance is to anticipate and act early to help communities when they need us.

In January, when severe fire weather and wind conditions were projected, Cal OES mobilized resources in a pre-positioned manner across Southern California to augment local first responders in that area. CAL FIRE, Federal fire agencies, and others also moved resources into Southern California for additional surge.

Now, if you recall, the weather conditions that were predicted in Southern California in that time were across a wide swath. So it was we knew that the conditions were bad, didn't know if or when or where fires would occur.

So we're making strategic decisions to position resources so that they can quickly respond and go to where they're needed. National Weather Service deemed this a particularly dangerous situation. That's a term that used to be used for hurricanes, tornadoes, other no-notice events, but increasingly it is now also being used for fire weather.

Palisades and Eaton fires began on January 7th, as we know, at peak, more than 16,000 personnel were fighting to extinguish these blazes with crews and equipment from all over the country. Ultimately, these fires burned nearly 38,000 acres, tragically took lives, destroyed over 16,000 structures, and more than 13,000 of those were residential.

One of the biggest losses, no doubt that the state has seen. A state of emergency was declared that day, and by the next day, we had secured a federal disaster declaration. Numerous state executive orders have been issued since to provide flexibilities where we need them to speed recovery as needs of the disaster have evolved.

Coordination is probably one of the most important tenets of Cal OES's mission. As the LAO alluded to, we put into place a whole-of-government effort immediately. All the state agencies, federal agencies, private sector, anyone who has a part in whatever emergency were managed are called into a central hub called the state operations center.

And the reason we do that is to make sure there is one cohesive organization that is responding efficiently, that is responding effectively and immediately to support local government, particularly in the beginning stages of a disaster for life-saving needs like firefighting, evacuation, sheltering, medical health, et cetera. And then that's the sustained needs as that event goes on.

It was many days until these fires were contained. Cal OES doesn't just operate this from Sacramento. We have personnel on the ground, so we deploy our staff.

We are there at command posts, we are there at local emergency operations centers, because importantly we need to understand immediately not just the information about what's happening, but what are the needs of the local officials so that we can move those in, whether they're from the state agencies or federal government.

Alert and warning is vital to the safety of the public, and it was in these fires. Our state warning center every day provides training, technical support, and redundancy to this system, which are operated again as mentioned, across the state by local alert authorities.

LA County had challenges with its system and its functionality, and found that at some point early in the disaster that it was not working and that it needed to be transferred to Cal OES State Warning Center. So that role we play to be redundant was employed in real time in those events.

And for about three weeks, the California State Warning Center was running the wireless emergency alert. So, one of the modalities that emergency officials use to alert the public was managed out of the warning center. Now, Cal OES doesn't have the decision-making for where and when alert, that still is in the hands of local officials.

So that required, we stood up a 24/7 operation within our 24/7 operation so that we can instantaneously understand and relay those wireless emergency alerts on behalf of Los Angeles County during that time.

And we retained that authority until LA could be sure that their system was working and they were able to take it back. And in fact, during that time, during that three weeks, there were several alerts.

As you know, there was other conditions of fire weather, it was January, we had storms that occurred on the backs of these fires. And so there was, there was needs to maintain vigilance and to be able to alert post fire mud and debris flow are always a concern in wildfires that are near urban areas and infrastructure.

They are particularly a concern when a fire occurs in the rainy season, like it did in January. The massive watershed protection mission led by OES involved hundreds of personnel from Water Resources, State Geologic Survey, CAL FIRE Conservation Corps, the National Guard, all working in partnership and in support of and with Los Angeles Department of Public works.

In about 19 days, those crews cleared debris from debris basins, installed about 60 miles of protective material. So things like K-rail, straw wattle, you know, ways that we could, if there was a debris flow, that it would be channeled in such a way that it would keep people safe and keep homes safe.

And that was done ahead of significant storms. There were many of them in following the fires, but the most significant one was in early February that fortunately did not have a lot of impacts. With a federal disaster declaration, Cal OES establishes what we call a joint field office alongside with FEMA.

Within days of the fire, excuse me, and while still in response operations, we had that, what we call JFO stood up and staffed in Pasadena. Like the State Operations Center for Response, the JFO becomes the hub for state and federal coordination for all the aspects of disaster recovery. Now, this is not done in a vacuum.

This is done in the same supportive structure that we have for local communities to make sure we can understand and deploy the things that they need as recovery goes on. Also, we are positioned on local task forces as they're mobilized, whatever organization structure the local governments assume.

There are several, several cities, certainly the City of LA, County of LA. We want to make sure that we're positioned in whatever structure, recovery structure, they have set up. So we're doing both things. And the JFO is kind of the hub where all of the resources flow.

We're also embedded in community meetings and local council meetings, board of supervisors, press conferences, you know, again, whatever the needs are, so that we're interacting directly with the community and providing information, listening and understanding how, again, we can best support the different things that are happening.

We've had a lot of wildfires in California, but no two are alike. We have to kind of take this suite of programs and resources and understand quickly what are the specific needs of this particular event and then apply. So it requires flexibility at the same time, a lot of structure, as the LAO described.

The sheer magnitude of these events also warranted what we call direct federal assistance through FEMA. This means the federal government takes on an entire mission directly. Notably, this was included the household hazardous waste cleanup for the properties that were destroyed and damaged, as well as what we call private property debris removal.

Under phase one, the hazardous waste component, about 300 tons of hazardous waste material was removed by the US Environmental Protection Agency. And that was done pretty rapidly and completed on February 26.

Phase two, which is the private property debris removal that comes in behind the hazardous waste, started, you know, almost simultaneously with that in early February and is underway as we speak by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for households that have opted in. Most households have opted into that program. Some have not.

Some have undertaken the debris removal on their own. These programs are at no cost to the property owners and at no cost to the state, which I'll get back to in just a minute.

Army Corps is also cleaning debris beyond homes that were lost, but also for schools, commercial properties, multifamily, you know, all the different types of infrastructure that was destroyed by these fires. For these fires, it's significant to note that the federal government authorized funding for emergency costs at 100% for 180 days.

So when you think about the firefighting, this debris clearance, that typically would have a cost share emergency operations center, all of the response that was undertaken, that is going to be funded at 100% of federal share. And typically, there is a 75-25 or some kind of split of costs. Now that's for the emergency costs.

That does not include the repair of damaged infrastructure and what we call permanent repair and restoration or rebuild, which is at the typical 75-25% cost share at this time. Generally, I won't belabor this because the LAO very nicely described the different kinds of disaster assistance.

So, what we have for the LA fires is what we call public assistance for government costs and public infrastructure.

There's individual assistance, which is for households, individuals that have losses, and then also something called hazard mitigation, which is on top of the FEMA money for the rebuild and the individual assistance, which is for hardening of structures and improvements, and resilience. Over and above the pre-disaster state. Fire management assistance grants were mentioned.

That's another form of federal public assistance that's sought typically in the early part of a fire when it just begins before it's contained, when we think it could become a major disaster or threatens a lot of infrastructure and homes.

And we have a number of those in place, and in fact, had those in place immediately for Palisades and Eaton. Of course, ultimately, those were moved into a major disaster declaration. The state can also provide its own disaster assistance when there's a governor state of emergency.

The California Disaster Assistance Act works a lot like the FEMA programs for public agency, very similar types of things that are eligible. This can be authorized for events that don't qualify for a federal declaration, so don't art to such a scale that is warranted. Or they can also help offset the cost share of FEMA program.

So the state program kind of falls into as a support to offset some of the local share so they don't have to bear the whole 25% that typically is in place for FEMA.

Individual assistance helps individuals, households, renters that had disaster losses to repair damages to their homes, replace essentials, secure temporary housing, and other costs that are not covered by insurance. As an indication of need for the LA fires.

FEMA has had so far over 260,000 applications for the individual assistance program, and they've approved over 122 million across a number of programs. And I won't list them all, but depending on the survivor's need, they're routed to different kinds of programs that fall under that individual assistance general umbrella.

FEMA also activated something called Transitional Sheltering Program for those who were not able to, for example, get a hotel and pay for it and get reimbursed or a check from FEMA.

They actually do contracts with hotels and direct pay for survivors that need that level of support to stay in a hotel if they're evacuated from their home or if the've had lost their home.

The Small Business Administration also plays a role in disasters, and they've issued over $2.2 billion in disaster loans to individuals as well as to businesses for the fire so far. Survivors have visited 2, 1-stop disaster recovery centers that have been opened in the fire areas over 70,000 times.

And there they can get in-person services from a whole variety of agencies, whether it's Department of Motor Vehicles to replace driver's license, the utility companies, nonprofits, local city and county services, as well as FEMA. And those centers are still open, still receiving a couple hundred of people every day.

A lot of them are following up on their FEMA application and just wanting to talk to somebody to help them, help them navigate those services. So that was just a very brief overview of the programs that were in effect in, are in effect in LA and what Cal OES does both in the response and the recovery.

Eric is going to go into more detail on the financial aspects of these disasters. But I'll close by saying that much has been accomplished in over three months since these devastating fires.

But there is a lot ahead, a significant road ahead, challenges ahead for survivors as they continue to recover and rebuild, and communities navigate the decisions that are before them to recover.

We will learn from these events so that we can do better in future events in California, and we remain as focused today as we were in early January to anticipate needs and continue to support the survivors. Now I'll turn to Eric after his remarks. You may have questions for us, thank you.

Well, thank you, Chief Deputy.

As Tina mentioned, I am Eric Swanson, Deputy Director of Finance and Logistics Administration.

I'm going to cover disaster funding and LA fire-specific funding from a very high level, and then we'll take a minute to get into sort of the status of federal support in general at Cal OES. California provides financial assistance for disaster response efforts in various ways.

For local first responders, we have the fire and rescue pre-positioning, and we also have a law enforcement mutual aid program, and they can provide reimbursement for eligible activities.

Locals can also request funding from the California Disaster Assistance Act funding, which provides financial assistance from the state for costs incurred by local governments as a result of a disaster.

State agencies, as I think Heather and Tina mentioned, Heather Gonzalez, may be able to receive supplemental funding, including the Disaster Response Emergency Operations Account, which has addressed the financial impact of critical disaster response activities.

To receive a federal major disaster declaration, Cal OES must demonstrate that the disaster's impact meets federal FEMA thresholds, which are based on the area's consumer price index. FEMA funding is sought for eligible response and recovery activities tied to the declared incident. Applicants typically have six months to complete emergency work, with the option to request extensions.

Permanent work, which involves construction and review, can take years. On average, it takes about eight years to fully close out a federal disaster, including project completion and receipt of all reimbursements. Project reimbursement timelines vary based on several factors, many outside of California's control.

These include the project size, scope, complexity, and whether it requires additional FEMA review, such as environmental and historic preservation. These factors affect how long FEMA takes to review documentation and determine eligible funding. If the state disagrees with FEMA's decision, an appeals process allows for submission of additional documentation or justification.

Other delays may stem from news disasters nationwide or an insufficient funding in the Disaster Relief Fund without a continuing resolution. To address the significant impacts of the 2025 LA fires, the legislature approved two control sections which provide funding to state agencies for disaster response effort. To date, over 286 million has been allocated to support these efforts.

Earlier this month, the use of these funds was expanded to provide support to LA County and cities within LA County impacted by the fires. At this time, it is premature to estimate the full cost or potential FEMA reimbursement for this disaster. Applicants are still assessing damages and collecting costs, and the necessary documents to claim reimbursement.

Cal OES will continue to provide support to applicants as the claims are developed to maximize federal reimbursement for California. As Tina mentioned, FEMA, in coordination with the US EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, is still leading the debris removal activities at this time.

We are not privy to costs incurred by the federal government for these activities, however. However, initial estimates were approximately $3 billion. We continue to work with FEMA to expedite these efforts in the LA area.

Now I'm going to shift gears a little bit here and talk a little bit about the status of FEMA federal funding in general, which includes non-disaster activities.

I need to give you the caveat, too, that what I'm going to tell you now is as of today, it feels like this story changes every week and every month. So it may be different to what happens tomorrow based on the number of court cases and reviews going on at the federal level.

With the federal administration change and its associated executive orders, all FEMA reimbursement requests are taking longer to be approved. Additional levels of review are now required at the national level to ensure programs and related expenses are aligned with the administration's priorities.

Through this additional review process, the state must provide additional justification and documentation to support the reimbursement request. So we have still been receiving federal funds, and we are working very closely with FEMA on a number of efforts, and we are still working with them to receive the funding that the state requests.

However, it is taking a little bit longer than in the past. But I'm going to mention one particular federal announcement that happened, and that is the cancellation of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program. And that impacts both current and future projects.

Based on initial guidance from FEMA, 550 million will be lost from grants that were selected but not yet awarded in California. 320 million will be lost from projects that are underway. Many of these are for large infrastructure retrofits or residential wildfire resilience through ignition-resistant retrofits and defensible space in the most at-risk parts of various counties.

Many of these communities have secured outside funding to cover part of the local batch commitment from state or philanthropic sources, meaning that without the federal funding in the BRIC, they will also lose that non-federal investment as well because of the grant deliverables not being met. So that was a really high-level look at funding.

We thank you for this opportunity to update you on LA fires and disaster funding. We're here for any questions you may have.

Thank you so much for that and the overview of all the work that's being done. Now we'll turn to Department of Finance.

Hi there. Tess Scherkenback with Department of Finance. No comments at this time, but we're here to answer any questions you may have.

Well, thank you so much. Bringing it back to the dais for any questions, comments on this issue. So hearing the overview, but also hearing from the personal testimony, how are the resources gravitated towards certain communities and others? Is there a process to ensure that all communities are getting the resources that they need?

Yeah, I can talk about that. So I mentioned the operations center that we have. That's just the physical location. It's important that the state and federal agencies that are coming in from all over the country are actually in the community area and have access to.

So there are certain things that are, you know, we described that are, you know, we're constrained by the fact that the FEMA programs allow for certain things and this is what's eligible. So we're working really methodically with every, you know, we have hundreds of applicants to the, to the public assistance program. Just an example.

Even though it's, you know, we know it's LA County and political subdivisions of the state, but also there are nonprofit organizations, there are schools, there are school districts, there are individuals. So each individual entity has the ability to work with us and work with FEMA to figure out how their needs match what those programs can provide.

So that's happening every day. Most of the lift is on the recovery portion. Of course, the debris removal, just because the Army Corps is providing the service doesn't mean there aren't all kinds of kind of community involvement, community issues that are going to vary from place to place and questions that those residents have.

So a big part of the recovery job is to understand that. The way we understand that is to attend. The local officials down there have been very organized in having town halls, community meetings on weekends, nights, you know, just all time. It is a big part of what we do. It's an important part of what we do.

And then we can talk to people about, explain these programs. A lot of us aren't familiar with this until something happens. And so the public information and the public relations, if you will, to explain, you know, this is what is, these are the deadlines, here's what happens when you call. And then, and then those centers having them there, one is in UCLA, one is in Altadena, and making that a constant presence. You know, those have been open since early following the disaster. They will stay open.

We're working with FEMA to make sure that as long as we have people coming, many of those 70,000 visits are repeat people that are needing to come over as they start to understand, you know, what they need today, tomorrow, and the next day, they're going to need different services and to have access to those.

So I hope that answers, you know, yes, there's a hub. It's very organized, it's very structured, you know. But a big part of it is just making sure that we're present and kind of understanding needs and then figuring out how to solve, you know, whatever those are. And it may not be a government solution. It may be that we're working with a private partner or philanthropy or what have you. So it really is something that's tailored to the event, but it's informed by as we understand what the community needs.

Well, thank you. And you did mention in your testimony that there were some flaws within the County of LA's emergency system. And at some point OES did take that over. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that, specifically with Altadena, if that's an area?

Well, I understand it was LA County and their territory that they're responsible for warning, and it was specific to the wireless emergency alerts. So there's different programs that these alerting authorities have. A lot of them are opt in. They use them for emergencies, but they also use them for, you know, kind of other types of notifications to the public if there's important information.

The Wireless Emergency Alert is the one that's actually a national program that is, you know, sponsored by the federal government, but is built into the cell phones. It was. It's our understanding that they're still kind of figuring out the full after action on that at the county.

But that's the part the interface with the Wireless Emergency Alert, and that's the part that Cal OES is responsible for providing a backstop because we are an alerting authority as well. And the Wireless Emergency Alert, or WEA, is very standardized. It's also something that we could step in and do because it works the same in every community.

So that is, you know, whatever the challenge was, we knew that they needed help. They asked Cal OES to do it, we did, and then we kept it until they were assured and could assure the people of Los Angeles that it was fixed and that they were able to begin delivering those WEAs again later in January.

So OES has now released that back to the county as far as alert system?

Yes.

How long did we actually stand in and provide the assistance?

It was about 21 days, I believe, about three weeks.

Do we know when we started?

I do not have that in front of me. I can get that to you. It was in early January, I believe.

Well, thank you. Thank you for that. And we do know that the different cleaning up debris that are there, that the Legislature and the Governor did move forward with $2.5 billion. So we did send resources that that way. Right. And so we heard testimony on some of that. But there is constraints at the federal, the state, and the local levels. We do see this 100% of 180 days of emergency costs. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that too? Because that goes away from the 75 to 20%, 25%.

Yeah. So basically it means that some of the services at the federal government are direct. So there is no reimbursement that we'd be seeking at any percent, which is the Army Corps, the US EPA, anything that's considered a direct federal mission. Normally there would be a cost share that the state would have to contribute to those direct federal missions. That is waived as part of this 180 day 100%. It also means for the local government and local agency, you know, public infrastructure costs, the local officials will still have to front the cost.

For example, they have likely, you know, paid their staff for overtime, worked, you know, in the early part of the disaster and continuing. So that is still, you know, cost that they incur, but it will be reimbursed by FEMA at 100% for that first 180 days versus only 75%.

So it is something that the federal government has authority to do, at least at this time. They fund no less than 75%. And in some cases we can make the argument to increase that cost share. And, in fact, that's what occurred for those emergency type expenses that the government agencies, the local governments in the affected area, as well as for those federal missions.

Thank you. And then we talked about public assistance with those that are still trying to navigate through the loss of home, loss of a loved one, loss of different things that are out there. How do we continue to reach out to those that are in need to make sure they're getting the resources they actually need to fulfill that component of it?

Yeah, absolutely. Getting that information out to the public is just something that is has to be constant and it has to be in unison. You know, OES is one voice. I hope that we're making a difference in contributing our voice. But also working with non-government organization, community leaders, local elected officials, just, you know, the Governor has issued numerous appeals to the public to apply for these programs. Don't wait. The deadlines have passed, but that doesn't mean, you know, if there are extenuating circumstances, that FEMA might not consider a late application.

But a lot of times people apply, then they go to work with their insurance company. They're not really sure what they might need from the different FEMA, and so later then those needs become apparent. And so that's why we encourage people to, you know, follow up, come to a disaster recovery center.

Even if it's been months since you've had to kind of access anything from that application, there might be services that are needed now. But getting the word out is just such an important part of this because, again, a lot of people have not been through this. Most of us have not faced this. There's not. It's not something that's intuitive. They just need help, and it is our job to make sure that that is accessible and to make sure that we are communicating that to those who are affected.

And the communication to those individuals that need to hear the message and resources that are out there, there's forums at the local level that the state is involved in to make sure that those resources and the word about those resources is reaching those that drastically need it?

Absolutely.

And how are those forums conducted? And do you know if those areas, especially Altadena and some of the other areas.

Yeah, there's, you know, there's elected leaders that have sort of taken the helm. Yeah, at the local level. And held scheduled, regular town halls. They are on a cadence, you know, whether it's weekly, you know, at the beginning it was more frequent, you know, or resource fairs. It's really.

We have an entire operation that's just dedicated to keeping track and making sure that we know where the events are and where we need to be and so that we can send people to the locations to answer questions, to provide information, to staff a booth, what have you. But that is something we get.

Eric and I get reports on, you know, what are we doing this week, and it's a calendar that's filled with things. And if there's more that we don't know, then please, please share that information if you hear something where we can be and so that we can make sure that we've got people and information.

Definitely, getting that information out to those that drastically need to know that that information is out there for them is something that we want to make sure that we're letting the community know. Maybe even create some type of fact sheet of what resources are available from the state aspect that we could get out.

And talking about that, I know we talked, heard a little bit more about the federal funding sometimes is being in flux one way or another. And the state did declare a declaration of emergency also. So what funding is there, what resources are there where now that the state continues to move forward on versus what the federal government could be at one point and then the next day not involved in?

So we still have the control sections that you and your colleagues set up in January are still active and the state has a. So all state agencies are involved, and there are a number now that are have temporary bases in Southern California. And they can access those funds for activities related to both response and the initial part of recovery. And that's how it's being funded.

Also in the, you know, we know that this process is going to be longer than most disasters. And so the recovery effort is likely to take a longer period of time where, you know, we're looking to make sure that those processes continue, you know, in future fiscal years as well. Because this is not, you know, a two month process. This is going to be a long term process to fully recover from these fires.

Thank you. And thank you for that. And the term that we keep using, wildfires, and knowing that this was more in an urban setting, has that changed any of the definitions of funding or resources that come out to these areas, specifically Altadena and some of the homes that were destroyed in neighborhoods?

I think what the character, you are correct in identifying the characteristics of this particular fire and that it was in an urban setting. But we still, it doesn't change at all the state and federal funding picture related to wildfires. But certainly I think Tina mentioned in her opening how impactful it was to residential houses, greater so than many of the most recent disaster we experienced.

And I would add that the declaration is for wildfires. And what Eric said, it doesn't change the availability of the funds or the eligibility. But it also included winds. There was hurricane force winds. Some properties in Los Angeles also had wind damage that may not have been affected by a wildfire.

So that would also be covered if an applicant were to make a claim to FEMA for damages. So how we characterize and include the full kind of definition of the type of event that occurred is important for that. And so I just wanted to point out that winds alone are an eligible component to apply for assistance.

Well, certainly. I think when you look at the situation that happened, especially in the area including Altadena, that we're going to have some type of reporting mechanism to learn, right, what worked, what didn't work. Certainly the emergency response and alert system that's there. But terminology also wildfire versus urban.

I mean, this was a lot of homes that were destroyed that now the state is moving forward with the Governor's Office and the State Legislature approving certain funding to go out to that way, so it shows the state is responding to those things. But we still need to look at a report that would come out. And I know that OES has led the way in some of those reports coming forward. We'd be interested to see how any of those definitions change for future funding into some of the areas that drastically need it.

One of the concerns is making sure that on the state aspect, within this Committee, within this budget, within the financial obligations, that we are making sure that residents truly know what is available to them as they continue to pick up their lives and try to move forward. We want to make sure that that is happening, whether it's through some type of communication, different things, that's the expertise of those around the table here and giving testimony.

But on the state aspect, we did move forward, but we want to make sure that residents truly understand what is available to them and the resources that still is available to them, despite of what people might be hearing within the different news sectors and different things, but what's true and what's not, right.

And so we want to make sure that residents get caught up in that turmoil, that they truly understand that the state is responding, that the state is available for resources, and moving resources forward. But somehow making sure that that communication is reaching them from the state perspective.

Local communities, local agencies still have their hands to deal with certain issues at the local level. But we want to make sure that the state resources and what's available is reaching those, those that are out there that drastically need to have that information and assistance in applying for some of these grants.

Right, from different areas, different funds. I think we talked about it. FEMA, making sure that people are gravitated towards what truly is needed and the resources the state has. Certainly people lost their IDs during that time. Let's make it easier for them to get that information back and get their lives back together.

So with that, I wanted to see if there's any other comments, follow up comments from anybody around testimony. I do want to give comments to our lead testimony here. From your eyes and what you've seen and what you heard today, if you have any comments.

I think for me, it's the process of making things easier for people. A lot of people are displaced. So if I have to, if I'm now in Eagle Rock or if I'm out in Silver Lake or something like that, like, I can't make these meetings, I can't get to these places. If I'm applying for any type of funds or grants, I'm missing pieces of information, I can't make deadlines. You know, a lot of stuff is hurdles. And there's a lot of times certain families are placed before others.

You know, I do understand that certain people need things more than others, but being pushed back in the line, especially like for our family, is, you know, like fighting to get Red Cross money, fighting to get the second round of the Red Cross money that just hit. Like I'm giving, I'm calling them and they're telling me I need to have a invitation number.

I'm like, why do I need to have an invitation number when specifically, like, specifically you guys are saying I'm in the burn zone, like, my house was not damaged. My house is gone, everything is gone. And I have to go through those type of hurdles.

So those type of things, and I understand you guys aren't with the Red Cross, but those type of things are really, they're draining. And like the process of a lot of stuff is just really draining mentally. So losing your home and then having to just get up, like, hey, I have to, you know, a lot of people have to go to work. In those times, during work, they can't get to these centers to fill things out. It's.

And from my experience, people have been very helpful for the most part, but there's just so many hurdles, and the hurdles are just exhausting. And that's really why I came up here because it's exhausting. It's April now, and since that day, no sleep, no peace. And in my testimony, you know, as a human, you, your God given right is peace. And I feel that the corporations and the people in charge need to make that peace more attainable.

Well, thank you for that. And know that your personal testimony to this Committee and those that are here giving witness to these areas sees the frustration that you're feeling at the local level. And so we want to make sure that that's resonating. That's why we want to make sure that, at the state level, what we're responsible for and the resources that are out there, that we're making sure that people truly do know what it is. And NGOs that you're talking about, we do place a lot of trust in them.

So maybe there's ways to get that information back to them, what we're hearing in this Committee, to make sure that there is frustration. Because the hurdles that you talk about and what you went through, there becomes frustration, right, where then all of a sudden people just disengage altogether.

And that's not where we want to be in the State of California. So I want to thank you for coming up here and giving that testimony, taking of your time to be here because you found it important enough to make sure that we truly understand and hear that frustration and those hurdles that are there. And when you are moving forward on these application processes, maybe there's a way that we could identify what's being asked of the individuals, the residents that are there that lost their homes.

And if it's something that the state could be engaged in, Department of Motor Vehicles, some of those areas, maybe we can make it easier to get that documentation to them, especially if they're having to apply for certain things that are being denied because they don't have that that they lost in the fire.

Those are areas probably that we would like to see looked at and see if we can make some of those materials, documentation easier to get to. So I want to thank you for your testimony and letting you know that it does, this, this Committee does hear you and hear that frustrations, hurdles that you have to go through. This is the State of California. We did move forward on legislative budget that moved forward with the Governor and those areas is what the gentleman was talking about as far as reimbursements. But we do want to make it easier on our part.

Deputy Director, thank you for your time and your willingness to be here and to talk about these issues that are important, not only to us as a Committee, but to the livelihood of those that have been impacted by this fire. But also looking forward to that report, that report that starts to look at.

Maybe there's a different definition of what happened here within these fires. Maybe the wildfire scenario, maybe there's different things that we need to capitalize on. You know, those that work, those things that didn't. Certainly the alert system, we want to make sure that that's fixed before anything else starts to move forward in those aspects of it.

Any closing comments, remarks? Anything back at the dais? It's all me. But I think it's important that we heard firsthand from what people are still going through down in the area. And if there's any way that we could continue to move forward to make sure that the resources that we're responsible for is reaching those that are there and making it easier if they're being requested, especially with state documentation, and we can make it a little easier for them. So thank you for your testimony.

As now we move to issue four. Thank you so much. Issue four, Reappropriation of Law Enforcement Mutual Aid. We have Eric Swanson, Deputy Director, Cal OES. Don O’Keefe, Chief of Law Enforcement, Cal OES. Heather Gonzalez, LAO. And Tess Scherkenback, Department of Finance.

Yes. For our next issue on the agenda, as you mentioned, I am joined by Chief Don O’Keefe, who's our Chief of Law Enforcement at Cal OES. In this proposal, Cal OES requests the reappropriation of approximately $22 million General Fund with an extended encumbrance to June 30, 2029 to continue to support and assist local law enforcement agencies that are deployed through the Law Enforcement Mutual Aid System. The LEMA Reimbursement Program was established as a three year pilot program in the 2022 Budget Act.

This allows local and law enforcement agencies to request reimbursement for mutual aid costs such as traffic control, evacuation support, or the prevention of looting before, during, and post a disaster to alleviate some of the financial burden for requesting and donating local law enforcement agencies. All eligible costs are submitted by the state to FEMA for eventual replenishment of the General Fund. We're here to answer any questions you may have on this program or any other questions you may have.

Well, thank you so much. Is that all the comments from OES?

Yes. I'll be here to answer any questions, sir.

Thank you. Thank you so much. LAO.

We... Heather Gonzalez with LAO. And we recommend that if you approve this request that you also put the program in statute. And as part of that process, we recommend working with OES, law enforcement, and other stakeholders to ensure that the program goals are both clear and consistent with legislative priorities.

In addition, we recommend that the Legislature direct the program to provide you with some outcome data that will give you the information you need to determine if the program is meeting these goals. For example, one of the main arguments made in favor of this funding is that small rural law enforcement agencies struggle to front the costs of the mutual aid system and that it can be challenging for them to have to wait a long time for reimbursement.

Yet these funds are available to all law enforcement agencies across the state, not just those in small rural communities. And there may be good reasons to do this. We're not commenting on that. But our view is that if you put it in statute and you have consistent and deep information on how the program is operating, you will get more accountability and better oversight.

Thank you for that. Tess Scherkenback, Department of Finance.

You got it that time. Tess Scherkenback, Department of Finance. I think, just to respond to the LAO, that the administration is certainly willing to engage in discussions on reporting requirements for LEMA. I think we would just want to make sure that we're looking at it within the scope of existing reporting requirements, but certainly open to the conversation on that for sure.

Thank you so much. Department of Finance or OES, care to comment on the smaller agencies?

I think I would align... With smaller agencies in general? I think that was sort of the goal of the program. This was an important, even for even for big agencies, this was a tool that we used for the LA fires. I think when it originated we were thinking of rural, rural counties, and it certainly that probably is its greatest use for those counties to not... Counties in general and local law enforcement are very willing to help out. That was part of the mutual aid system that was described by Heather Gonzalez originally in the hearing. However, we, you know, if finances are a concern whatsoever, we want to make sure that that process is a quick decision so that locals will aid each other as a disaster occurs.

Well, thank you so much for that. And any comments on the request of putting in statute?

I think we'd be happy to work with your staff and the LAO on this issue, and we can, if we can come up with something that would meet the Committee and the LAO's needs.

Thank you so much for that. Any other comments on this issue? No. Thank you so much. As now we move to issue five. Issue five is an Update on Federal Support for Cal OES Victim Services Grants, VOCA Funds. Eric Swanson, Deputy Director, Cal OES. Gina Harrington, Grants Management, Cal OES. Heather Gonzalez, LAO. And Tess Scherkenback, Department of Finance.

Getting better each time. For our final issue, I'm joined by Gina Buccieri-Harrington, and she's our outgoing Assistant Director of Grants Management at Cal OES. We were asked to provide an update on the status of federal Victims of Crime Act funding.

The new federal fiscal year allocations have not been released, so the amount allocated to California for the VOCA. But we do want to note that the amount allocated to California for the VOCA Grant has decreased from 396 million for the 2018 award to 87 million for the 2024 award. Now I'm going to...

Your staff pushed me a lot to try to come up with a figure of what, what might be needed. But what I'm going to tell you is what figure I'm going to give you is going to be wrong because we're going to find out eventually what the federal allocation is going to be, and it's just a matter of timing on when that will happen.

But we've estimated to maintain the current service levels without any decrease in services, Cal OES would need a federal grant award of about 224 million. In 2024-25, Cal OES received a one time General Fund allocation of 103 million and reallocated those unspent funds from prior years to address the gap by decreasing federal funds. If the 2025 award amount is consistent with that 2024 award amount, Cal OES would need approximately 130 million to maintain the current service levels.

130 million to maintain the current service levels. However, your caveat was that we're not sure what's going to happen at the federal level from this point moving forward, I guess. All right, so any comments on that at all? Any others?

I'm just ready to answer any questions as they come up.

All right, sounds good. LAO.

We don't have any specific comments on this, but we can describe how the federal process works that might be helpful. So the source of funds for this are basically fines, fees. It's not tax dollars, it's money that is paid to this account for people who are trying to make essentially restitution.

And this amount goes up and down over the years. And in order to handle that up and down part of it, Congress every year establishes a cap on how much money can go out the door. And then from there, underneath that cap, then funding is distributed by formula to the various parties that get it.

And so where we are right now, as my colleague mentioned, is that we're waiting to find out kind of, we've got the amount for the year, we know the cap, and then we're trying to find out from the federal government how the money is going to be allocated according to the formula to the states. And that's your big variable right now in terms of knowing kind of how much money the feds would give you that then if you did choose to do some sort of state amount that you would then meet in order to calculate.

Do we know when that figure will be done? Because of all the different turmoil that's...

We do not. We do know that the cap is higher than it was last year. It's about the same amount that was in the federal fiscal year 23. It's like 1.9. And that is, that cap has been set in law. In the continuing resolution that provided funds for the federal government through the rest of the year, that was established there. But we are still waiting for the agency to distribute funds, and there have been some changes in staffing at that particular federal agency.

Thank you. Department of Finance.

Just here to answer any questions.

Thank you so much.

And I could add to that a little bit. In the last two years, in 23 and 24, we received our amount at the end of March, so we were able to have a better idea. This year it's been a little different. And they're looking at, well, end of April is this week, but middle of May is what we've been told. So that's where our challenge has been, is we just don't know.

Okay. And it keeps moving from March to April now to May.

Yeah, that's what we have heard. Yes.

Okay, well, thank you so much for that. I know that this continues to be a priority here at this Committee to continue to look at that. Last year, we looked at it also, and now we're looking at it again. I think it's something that we're keeping our pulse on, you know. Well, thank you so much.

Now, as we move to our last issue. And our last issue will be issue number six, which will be informational only. If there's any questions from the dais on issue six, we have people that could answer that. If not, we will go straight into public comment. Public comment is there. Please state your name. You have up to one minute to speak on public comment.

Mr. Chair and Members. Ed Manning with KP Public Affairs. I'm here for California Public Television and SpectraRep. May wonder why California Public Television would be here at this hearing. Actually, the state has invested in a data casting system, which plays a critical role in the early warning issue that you've been wondering about for Altadena residents.

If you look at the history of wildfires in California, Sonoma County, Paradise, now LA. There have been continued problems with the cell phone network and its limitations and being overwhelmed. Problems of either under warning or over warning. California Public Television has partnered with the state, SpectraRep, and OES to do an early earthquake warning system.

Basically, California Public Television towers that broadcast signals cover the vast majority of the state and aren't dependent on the cell phone system. Those towers have been hardened through a program funded by FEMA to withstand almost any natural disaster imaginable.

And the state has invested in the last several years in basically putting receiver boxes out, continuing to build out the system for all of the public television stations so that we are plugged into the USGS system for early earthquake warning. It takes one to two seconds.

And those receiver boxes, which are deployed at emergency centers and counties now, they're deploying these receiver boxes, can receive the signal and instantaneously take action. For example, in a fire department, they could roll up the doors instantaneously so that the fire trucks could get out.

This system, if, we have a budget request into this Committee for $5 million, that would build out about 5,000 more receivers and would allow us, not only to do the earthquake warning system, but but to do wildfire notice alerts through what's called the IPAWS system.

And you would have to both upgrade the existing receiver boxes and invest in new boxes that could be deployed in schools, hospitals, first responders, et cetera. So the reason we're here today is because of the hearing subject and to to put that request in front of the Committee. Thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon, Chair Ramos and Members. My name is Sarah Weber. I represent the Sacramento LGBT Community Center. The center works to create a region where all LGBTQ plus people thrive. We support health and wellness, advocate for equity and justice, and work to uplift our diverse and culturally rich LGBTQ plus community.

LGBTQ plus people are disproportionately likely to become victims of crime, with heightened risk of experiencing hate crimes, domestic violence, and homelessness. Funding from the Victims of Crime Act is critical support for vulnerable members of the LGBTQ plus community, including LGBTQ plus youth in the center's two year transitional housing program.

Through this VOCA funded program, young people who have been victims of crime are given the tools and support they need to process the trauma they have experienced and leave the program prepared for independent living with the resources they need to thrive. By allocating $176 million every year for the next five years, the State of California can help to ensure that survivors of violence, including our clients, have these life saving services to turn to in their time of need. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon, Chair Ramos. Grace Glaser. I'm almost too short for this. Grace Glaser on behalf of Valor US and the California VOCA Advocacy Alliance, representing 250 organizations. We just really appreciate your commitment to this issue and would love to work with you and Cal OES as we identify what the final number is. At this moment, requesting 176 million every year for the next five years. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Good evening. Kimberly Lewis representing the California Coalition for Youth, and we would support the VOCA General Fund backfill for a couple years. It is a very important program and OES is one of the few that actually supports our homeless young people who are experiencing homelessness.

Especially the California Youth Crisis Line is one of those programs that gets some VOCA dollars. Our General Fund asks, our allocation has been the same for 10 years. Last time we got an increase was in 2015-16 to be able to roll out our chat to text counseling services.

And so any additional dollars that you can support to help us impact our reach and outreach and to be able to have some behavioral health counselors to support our young people on the line would be really important. And appreciate your time and attention. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hi. Good evening. Hello, Chair Ramos. I'm Leela Chapelle. I'm here from the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking. We're the nation's oldest and largest human trafficking service provider. I'm here today to urge the Committee to pass the budget request of Assembly Members Gonzalez, Rubio, and Bonta to reauthorize 30 million to augmentation to the Human Trafficking Victim Services Fund, which originally passed in 2021, was reauthorized in 2023, and we are now here again because these funds will go away.

And it funds 31 service providers across California that all work together to ensure that thousands of survivors of human trafficking get the services they need to survive and to build lives. This is less than one one hundredth percent of our state's total budget. And these services are critical. And that is why we're here today to request your support. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Lareesh, and I am a survivor of human trafficking. I'm here today to share how critical it is that California reauthorizes the 30 million in funding for human trafficking service providers. My abuser disguised himself as one of a person that could help my family. But very soon after we started dating in 2009, he began exploiting me. Living in a vicious cycle of abuse and fear keeps survivors from leaving their traffickers. Like many, I thought a lot about my escape, but I didn't have anywhere to go for help.

Without the support and the services of CAST, I wouldn't be where I am today. Survivors like me need long term support to heal and to move forward. This budget request is more than just funding, It's a lifeline. Thank you for listening and standing with survivors. Please reauthorize this funding so others can get the support they need. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. My name is Jessica Lucia, and I am a sexual assault advocate with Empower Yolo. I am also a victim, a survivor, and a warrior of sexual assault. Although the details of my story are unique to me, they are similar to those who have been also victimized by such crimes.

Empower Yolo serves survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual assault, and childhood sexual abuse with essential support throughout the criminal justice process, individual healing, and crises they are experiencing. Without funding for these services, survivors will have a lack of these life saving supports through such a traumatic time.

There is a very good chance that each of you knows someone who has been a victim of crime or maybe yourself. My question to you is, where would you turn if you, your child, your grandchild, or your parents were victims of crime? What are you going to do to protect funding for these life saving services for your family, your neighbor, or your friends? Before I conclude, let me remind you of something that should be undeniable. Victims of crime do not choose to be victimized.

They do not ask for harm, and they certainly do not deserve to suffer further by having the very resources they need to heal stripped away from them. By cutting funding for essential services, we are not just denying help. We are sending a message that their recovery doesn't matter and that what the perpetrator did to them is okay. That is unacceptable. I implore you to do your part and protect these resources. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hi. Good evening. My name is Kim Gutierrez, Anti-Human Trafficking Services Program Director at Community Solutions. We provide support services for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking in the Santa Clara County area in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I am here not only to urge you to definitely support the bridging the gap between the VOCA funds that would be coming, but also the $30 million reauthorization for the human trafficking funding as well. I've seen firsthand how critical access to emergency shelter, safe housing options, confidential, wraparound case management, advocacy, and legal services are for survivors.

Community Solutions is a recipient of the Cal OES Human Trafficking Victim Assistance Program funds, and last fiscal year through these funds we served 157 survivors with over 8,000 different services, 119 survivors with legal services. And without these funds, we would not be able to continue to provide the same level of support. Especially knowing that we do have both the Super Bowl and the FIFA World Cup coming to our area. So definitely please urging you to support the reauthorization so that way we can continue the work to meet the growing long term needs of survivors.

Thank you thank you for your comments.

Good evening. Josh Gauger on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California commenting on issues 1 and 2 in today's agenda relative to the Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant. This funding is to deliver programs and services to youth who have been committed, who have committed the most serious or violent crimes, and funds are used for both secure treatment facilities and less restrictive programs.

Placement in either setting is a judicial decision and generally we do not think it's in the best interest of the youth or public safety to attempt to leverage funding to influence judicial decisions, as proposed. Probation departments need the funding as stable as possible to invest in ongoing programs and services to meet the needs of the youth as they transition through the juvenile continuum. Otherwise we worry they could end up in the adult system.

Relative to the SB 678 grant program and trailer bill language proposed by the administration, it has successfully decreased reliance on incarceration in California and saved taxpayers over $1.0 billion in state prison costs. CPOC supports the administration's proposed changes to the formula.

While the changes will reduce the 2025-26 allocation by more than $10 million compared to the current statutory proposed framework, proposed changes to the formula strike a delicate balance between enhancing stability through performance maintenance payments and encouraging further reductions in prison admissions with where appropriate through refresh performance incentive payments. We're encouraged by the similarities between the LAO's recommendations and the administration's proposal, and we look forward to continuing conversations throughout the spring and summer. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California. We are in strong support of backfilling the VOCA, Victims of Crime Act funding that the federal government has shorted the State of California. And we are also in strong support of the Human Services, Human Trafficking Services Program, re-upping that funding. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Usha Mutschler on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association. As it relates to item number four, the State Sheriffs support the reappropriation of the Law Enforcement Mutual Aid funds as proposed in the Governor's Budget. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments. Any other public comment? Hearing none. Sub 6 is adjourned.