Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration and General Government

[Background]

All right, Budget. Senate budget Subcommitee number four will start in 60 seconds.

All right. Subcommitee 4 of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee will come to order. We're holding our hearing today at the State Capitol in room 113. We will provide an opportunity for public comment following the conclusion of our discussion items, and all Members of the Subcommitee are present. So let's establish a quorum formally.

And would you please call the roll?

For purposes of establishing a quorum. [Roll Call]

All right, we do have a quorum. Our order of business for today is we'll take up the items for discussion on our agenda first. After the items for discussion, we'll open up the hearing to public comments. Once public comment is concluded, we'll take votes on all the items, both discussion and vote only.

Our focus this morning is on the Civil Rights Department. And so we invite representatives of the Department to please come forward, ask you to provide a brief overview of your core function.

I know the Subcommitee is quite familiar with the core functions of the Department, but also status report of major programs and any actions taken in response to the administration's efficiency orders. Welcome.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair Cabaldon and Senators, my name is Kevin Kish. I'm Director of the California Civil Rights Department. I'm joined today by my colleague Jamie Gillette, a Deputy Director at CRD who oversees our civil rights investigation function. We're here to answer any questions that you have.

I'm happy to briefly introduce our Department, give an overview of the items, or we can jump right into your questions, however you prefer.

Why don't we proceed to a brief overview and then. I know I have a question with respect to the reorg as well, but then there may be others, but.

Understood.

So CRD is California's civil rights enforcement agency. Every year we received thousands of complaints of civil rights disputes from the public. We have a statutory obligation to investigate every single one of them that is jurisdictional under the laws that we enforce.

We resolve as many as we can through formal and informal mediation, and we prosecute in our discretion, selected cases in court to vindicate the civil rights of Californians. We also have a very robust outreach and education program around the state in multiple languages. We have a regulatory function interpreting the laws that we enforce through regulation.

And we operate special programs like the California Pay data collection program, the recently launched California vs Hate resource line and network. We support the Civil Rights Council and the Commission on the State of Hate, among other initiatives. Today we are here on three affirmative items. One is the proposal to extend. Extend the California vs.

Haight network for an additional year.

We're also here on two items related to chapter legislation, three positions to implement AB 2499 to enforce a range of laws transferred to our jurisdiction from the labor Commissioner's jurisdiction and two positions to implement SB 1340, which lifts for the first time since 1959, state preemption of local enforcement of employment civil rights protections.

Great. Thank you. So I would like to turn to the Governor's reorganization plan just for a moment because the Civil Rights Department and Senator Smallwood-Cuevas has raised this issue many, many times in the consideration of that plan.

Can you give us, at least at the outset, some background on what proportion of the of the work that the Department does is related to housing and homelessness.

And if you have any insights you can share with us about the decisions about where this Department should fall should the agency organization happen, can you give us, I know you're going to give us the administration's official position, but if you have insights to share with us about how that you know how the Department and your colleagues in the Administration have worked through the the appropriate placement of the Department in order to fulfill its statutory mission.

Yeah. Thank you for that question. I do not have insight as to why in 1980, when the then Department of Fair Employment and Housing was created at the Department level, it was created with the structure that it has. There are multiple models for how civil rights enforcement can be conducted at the federal or state level.

One model is for it to be housed within an Attorney General's Office. That is the model in several states. There is the model of quasi Independence. So this is the model of the EEOC at the federal level, with five commissioners appointed by the President who do not report to anyone else.

There is an administrative adjudication model which our Department used to have. So the bottom line is there are many possibilities for how this work can be structured. We have been since the REORG in 2012, part of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency.

That agency has been described by a former leader of that agency as the island of misfit toys. We are there with a bunch of other departments. Some of them we collaborate with and have overlapping jurisdiction and work to do with them. Some we do not. But that's where we are.

Remember that the misfit toys are the heroes at the end of.

The heroes of the story. I agree. Yes. Yes. So with this proposed reorg, we are proposed to go with housing and homelessness and not with consumer protection.

From my perspective, there is no clearly more intuitive place for us in state government the reality is our jurisdiction extends beyond the formal oversight of any existing state agency. You know, we do the employment stuff that would be labor. We do housing and homelessness stuff, we do contracting. There's. There's all kinds of hate, violence, human trafficking.

So our jurisdiction is broader than any one agency is going, that exists, is going to oversee. Housing and homelessness. Of the complaints that we receive from the public, housing makes up about 30% of those complaints. Employment does make up the majority.

There is a difference in our enforcement structure, though, in the statute, which is that when we find reasonable cause to believe that there has been a violation of a fair housing law, we are required statutorily to take action.

Compare that to the employment context, where we exercise discretion whether to take action or not, even if we find that there's reasonable cost to believe. So what the statute formally requires of our Department and has for many decades, is that we sue somebody in housing if we believe that there's been a violation of the law.

This transforms our Department essentially into a legal aid, a mandatory legal aid function for fair housing in the State of California. There are many ways to think about that, but what it means is that although housing complaints make up only about 30% of the complaints that are filed with us, it's about.

It's at least half of our litigation docket because of the difference in the statutory requirements that we face. So that's why we're proposed to go with housing. I do think that it makes sense to house fair housing functions with other housing functions. I think that is an effective model.

And so here we are.

Yes, Senator Small Cuevas.

I appreciate that overview. I guess my question just as a follow up to that, so in the Housing Department, is there enforcement capacity? Are you in an enforcement unit or are you. Like how. I guess, how are you. Who are you reporting to within the housing unit?

I could see enforcement being where given the litigation, giving the complaints that come in, that's an enforcement function. So much of housing, as you know, we're investing in a whole lot of other things and not as much in the enforcement side.

So just curious, where would you be reporting to within the housing sort of the, the immense, the massive, sort of expansive role that the Housing Department plays.

So under the proposed reorg, we are. There's no proposed change to our function or structure. So we remain a Department at the Department level. We would be reporting to the agency secretary of the proposed housing and homelessness agency, just as Housing and Community Development would be. So we would be co equal Civil Rights Department.

Housing and Community Development and the other departments under this proposed new agency. We'd all be there together at the same level reporting to the agency secretary.

Because you did mention the 30% of your litigation docket in that function. Do you. Does this new structure provide more capacity to do those cases? Meaning are you gaining staff? Are you gaining enforcement? Are you gaining investigators through housing to.

Does this allow more capacity to do your work so that there is hopefully other ways that your capacity could be expanded with this reorganization?

I appreciate that this proposed reorg proposes no change to our staffing or structure. So we would be exactly as we are today. We would be the same tomorrow if the reorg goes through.

So to follow up. So the. Is there. I don't know the history of the structure that existed before. Would you say 13 years ago or 14 years ago?

2012 was the last reorg that created Business Consumer Services.

Okay. And has the Department always existed in this form or did its functions used to be dispersed across agencies?

Its functions were not dispersed across agencies. 1959 was when the first statewide employment and public accommodations civil rights protections were put into place and placed within a Non Department level body that had the authority to conciliate disputes. At the time, it was believed that simply telling people that they were discriminating was going to solve the problem.

That was the model when Fair Housing protections passed In California in 1963. Those Fair Housing protections were placed within the conciliation authority of the then Fair Employment Practices Commission. It was a Commission and that was the. So from the beginning, from 1963, this body, this government agency, has had multiple functions that are not reflected.

For example, in its name it was the Fair Employment Practices Commission enforcing fair housing laws. From the 60s on. 1980, it becomes a Department. The structure of the Department in 1980 is administrative adjudication, meaning people file complaints. The Department hears them in a kind of an administrative hearing similar to a Berman hearing at the Labor Commissioner's office.

Issues a finding like makes a decision on the merits and then that decision could be appealed to court. The Department was represented by the Attorney General's Office. 2012 the Department is transformed into a public prosecutor, meaning we file our own cases in court. There is no administrative adjudication.

We do not make determinations on the merits of the cases before us. We select from these cases which in the interests of Californians or we are going to litigate.

And there's a. Is there a tight synergy between the employment side and the, and the Fair Housing side or are they?

The same stuff that-

Same exact people doing it all. It's not two, it's not two cohabitating units?

Well, we have, under Jamie's leadership and the investigation division, we do have separate investigators for housing. In terms of our litigators, our mediators, our outreach and education, our regulatory function, it's all the same people who do. Not just employment, not just housing, but all of the civil rights laws that are within our jurisdiction.

Okay, I have a follow up question on that. And then in that scenario, how do you relate to a labor and workforce agency? How do you relate to the housing agency? What is the, my sense is there's gotta be some partnership, some interdepartmental collaboration and resource sharing. What does that look like?

So we have obviously informal relationships with many departments where we talk about issues. We have formal memorandums of understanding, for example, with the Labor Commissioner's office in certain areas, including in the enforcement of the Equal Pay act, which is under both of our agencies jurisdiction 2 and 4.

So that allows us to freely share complaints or cross refer complaints for processing or analysis by the other Department. We have similar, we have a similar agreement with a portion of the Department of Consumer Services that deals with appraisals for potential appraisal discrimination. Right.

So we have formal MOUs that allow us to share information complaints to get the expertise of other folks. We do not, we are not stuffed or structured to resource share in the sense of sending folks out with the Bureau of Field Enforcement that is part of the Labor Commissioner's office.

So that is not something that has been part of our staffing or structure in the past.

And I'm curious. So in that not having the, is that a statute? A statute issue of not being able to co. I'm going to say use the term co enforce, for lack of a better term. Is that a, is it, is it policy wise or is it just this?

I don't want to, for lack of a better term, siloing of the way that the agencies operate.

You know, I thank you for that. I think that we are relatively unsiloed at the moment in part because of the leadership that we have and that those agencies have. As you know, for example, like Lilia Garcia and I worked together in legal aid in LA for a long time. So we all know each other.

There are statutory barriers to certain forms of collaboration that relate to our enforcement authority.

So for example, if we're talking about the Labor Commissioner's office, and I don't want to get too outside of my zone because I don't work for The Labor Commissioner and I don't purport to speak for them, but they can go into a workplace, they have a field enforcement team.

They can determine whether there are statutory violations of laws that they enforce. They can issue penalties on the spot or later and then enforce those penalties in their own hearings and then ultimately in court. We have no penalty function.

We do not walk into a workplace or a housing development or a business and say, hey, we can determine that you have violated civil rights laws.

We act as a public prosecutor, meaning we investigate, we put together evidence, and then we file a case in court that is adjudicated by the courts and by state or federal courts in our state.

So we have different enforcement structures and powers which can make it difficult to go together, for example, into a workplace and say, oh, you're going to do this and we're going to do that. On the other hand, there are areas of clear potential collaboration and actual collaboration.

So for example, if someone files a complaint alleging a violation of the California Equal Pay act, that they have not been paid equally for success, substantially similar work as someone of a different race or gender, and that complaint goes to the Labor Commissioner's office and the Labor Commissioner looks at it and says, actually, I think this is more aligned with a Civil Rights Department complaint because perhaps there are other allegations of discrimination that would fall under our jurisdiction.

They can simply give that complaint to us under our existing MOU and we can take it from there, or vice versa.

And where does your jurisdiction fall on? And I know California has invested a lot in having a way to ensure that we are bringing underrepresented populations into our public infrastructure work. And that's something that, you know, my colleagues and I in the Senate worked on with SB 150.

As we are building this climate resilient future, we are wanting to ensure that some of the infrastructure challenges of the past, where we really excluded certain groups of Californians from opportunity, that we, you know, are building this climate resilient future in a way that brings in groups such as women, for example, black workers, for example, groups that have been marginalized in some of those spaces.

How, and I know your department is charged with looking at, you know, how fair the these contracts are and are they, you know, fully bringing in, in fair ways, underrepresented populations into our public investments, which we also see as an anti poverty strategies, as many of those underrepresented populations are unfortunately in much of our safety net because of historic barriers.

So I'm curious, how do you do that work and where does that capacity fall within the sort of the rubric of, you know, the housing and the labor and employment work and, you know, the individual complaints that you all see.

Thank you. One of the first things that we do in every employment, actually in every complaint complaint that we receive, Jamie, is confirming, is ask whether they are a state contractor. Because if they are a state contractor, then it triggers certain other protections and certain other questions that we are going to pursue in investigation.

So a lot of our work in monitoring the compliance of state contractors with anti discrimination principles is through that individual complaint processing process and including enforcement of government code 11135, which prohibits discrimination in all state funded programs and activities.

There is a separate model of contract compliance enforcement that our Department has statutory authority to conduct, which is essentially affirmative proactive monitoring and auditing contracts. This is a function that has historically been performed at the federal level by the Department of Labor through its Office of Contract Compliance Programs.

Our state, our Department has in law an office of Contract Compliance Programs that has not been funded since 1993. There was a staff of 12 up until 1993 during an earlier cycle of budget reduction. At that time, that function was eliminated and has not been restored at this.

Time, though we are investing billions in public contracts. You're saying there isn't a way of affirmatively reviewing these proposals and contracts to ensure that Californians have fair access to those contracts? That that isn't happening under this authority that you, this Department once had, since 1993.

The authority has existed for longer. The program existed until 1993. So it's been more than 30 years since the program has not existed. So, correct. There is no function of affirmatively monitoring auditing contracts. This could be desk audits. This could be on site audits.

Our work to ensure compliance with anti discrimination principles under various legal authorities by state contractors is conducted through the complaint filing function that we do.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Appreciate.

I also want to say this sort of dialogue and deeper understanding is, is an essential reason why I've been insistent that the Department directors and agency directors, where possible, be here with us so that we can not just start with, not just start with the BCPs, but really understand the direction, the trends, the institutional issues and context that the departments engage in.

And so this was. This is an example. And I appreciate you being here and being willing to engage in these questions outside of the lines of your portfolio.

But in a way that is helpful for us applying some of those insights here, it's on the reorg piece because Senator Niello and I are also on the Little Hoover Commission taking up some of these same questions. It sounds to some extent like you are more like the EEOC in your functions that you are.

Maybe not a silo, but I'm trying to imagine whichever agency you're in, if I were to stop by a meeting next year when the agency secretary, whichever it is, goes around the room that if I look at you, you'll be on your phone doing something else when a.

Why am I in this meeting and, and they're like, why are you in this meeting?

We're all trying to build housing or we're trying to do this other thing and you do this specialized function over here that has relationships with labor agency, maybe looks more in some respects like some of the enforcement and complaint resolution functions of the other consumer protection agencies.

It seems like you fit, maybe not misfit, but fit in lots and lots of places, but none perfectly sort of fundamentally because of the role that you play as a, as a, in the litigation side as opposed to program delivery. I mean, are we? I mean, is your? Are we?

Is it, is it a, is it a futile exercise to try to find the perfect place? Should there be a governor's office of civil rights enforcement? I mean, are, as you've thought through some of these issues.

And again, I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to get you to in any way to say, you know, I think the Governor's reorg plan is not the right one. Let's take that for granted at the moment.

But in terms of helping us think through how, how what the right design is, both so that we can make the right budget calls, but also, you know, the right amount of the right approach to accountability and future legislation. If we're.

Is there, is there a golden answer here or is any solution organizationally going to come with its trade offs?

Thank you for that question. I think it's the exact right question. I've been in my job for 10 years, to my surprise. I've worked with a lot of other state and local civil rights enforcers across the country with different models and different structures.

And I can very confidently say that there are benefits and drawbacks to every possible structure of civil rights enforcement and government, including where it's located, what it's enforcement authority is. So I do not believe that there is a perfect place. No.

Okay. Senator Niello.

This kind of gets at that. We represent three quite different districts here. Senator Small would gave us more of an urban core type. Senator Cabaldon has a lot of rural areas. My district is dominated more like by typical suburban areas. Do you find the same sorts of issues coming up everywhere?

Or are the kinds of issues that come up quite different and predictable based upon the nature of the area?

That is a really lovely question. A really interesting one.

Lovely question. That means you don't like it.

No, I actually do, but we could spend all day talking about it. I think that there are different realities in different geographic areas and different structures of human development. I think some things cut across the board. Some of the things that we.

So, for example, I really like talking about this stuff, so I promise I'll talk for a minute or less and then let you. Sexual harassment, rural, urban, suburban, across industries, across contexts is somewhat of a common constant.

Although there are certain industries where we can expect to see more industries where people are working alone when they are working at night, when there are serious gender imbalances in a workplace where alcohol is consumed, where there is pressure to make customers happy, for example, in the restaurant industry.

So we can see certain types of violations that cut across. Other types of violations that we see are more dependent on industry, I would say, than geography. There are certain things that happen in agriculture that you're less likely to see in entertainment or more likely to see in construction. So things like that.

What I would say in terms of geographic region, and this is not a surprise to anyone in this room, is that our state resources are not distributed equally in terms of resources available to people who experience civil rights violations or really any other type of violation.

So one of the things turning to, for example, California versus hate that we've realized is that when we are trying to connect people with mental health counseling resources after an experience of hate, it is very difficult to do so in rural areas of our state because the providers simply are not there.

So one of the things that we've been looking at in conjunction with the Commission on the State of Hate is promising practices related to the remote provision of mental health services so that people who experience certain types of violations in rural areas of our state can access services that are more readily available to people who live in Sacramento, the Bay, LA, wherever.

So to some extent, yes, we do see differences.

Would that suggest any value in considering dispersing your functions to community based organizations or local governments with funding?

So dismantling the civil rights Department and essentially farming out its functions to non governmental entities?

I'm asking the question in a very free form way.

Okay. Again, I think there are benefits and drawbacks to every possible model. One of the problems with separating out the Civil Rights Department's enforcement functions. So a team goes to labor and workforce development, a team stays with housing, a team goes to consumer protection. Wherever is that.

We benefit from economies of scale in what we do in the sense that we've got 10 people doing education and outreach in a State of 40 million people. Those same 10 people help us put together trainings for housing providers, for employees who are re entering the workforce after having been incarcerated. They do it all.

If you are going to farm out the functions, the investigative functions, maybe you can farm out because we've got teams that are devoted to some extent to different areas. Really, it's just housing that's carved out. You lose the benefit of that economy that we have. So there's not going to be 10 people doing housing and doing employment.

And they benefit from learning from each other and from doing the work in housing, in employment, in hate violence or whatever it is. So I think that you lose capacity if you break the Department up because there are so many people who are doing so many different things. Right.

Our litigators are not just litigating housing, employment, whatever. They're litigating across the board. And so a single attorney might have a couple housing matters pending in court, a couple employment matters pending in court. You can't split that person. Right. So I think that you lose something.

Are there models of essentially grant making models that might be more familiar from a context like the Department of Social Services, where you essentially fund community organizations to do some of the work? Yeah, that model has existed.

That model exists, for example, in the fair housing context where HUD historically has funded fair housing organizations to provide resources and support. I have my back turned to you guys. I'm sorry, I can't see their faces if they're telling me. Kevin, please.

The expression like time to shut up now.

Time to shut up now. So since we've arrived at that point, I will.

Well, thank you.

Yes.

And then that. I appreciate that question, Senator Niello. And we in the Legislature have also expanded the protected classes in the state. So you have 10 people now. I don't know. And the time that you've been in the 10 years, you know, those 10 people are now having to protect so many more.

And we have a new Bill that we're going to talk about so soon and that I was proud to author where we do talk about building partnerships with our local communities to be able to expand the capacity of CRD to do this important work. But if you could share, who are you protecting?

What is that list of folks who are now under the care in charge of CRD to ensure that they are protected, number one. And then number two, you know, we've heard from so many departments that have come before us and they, you know, there may be 50 people who are managing the software for some accounting office.

And you're in. And what you're saying is that there are 10 folks who are responsible for protecting the civil rights of every Californian.

It just seems to me that this has been a Department that has been understaffed and overburdened and we, you know, know about the backlogs for, for many years that, that you all have been trying to, to dig from out of.

So I want you to, if you could share a little bit about how the enforcement mandate has expanded over time and why we are still at such a small step staff, whether it's decentralized or whether you have this economy of 10 people, the scale is just not there for what you are doing.

Why has the Department been robustly and vigorously supported in expanding the capacity? And we did not talk about the big elephant in the room. There is no EEOC. So we are holding the line.

So, I appreciate how you are presenting this, but we are in a crisis situation for civil rights that we haven't seen since these bills were passed, quite honestly. I mean, this is reversing all of the civil rights that people have died to reach.

And here we are in a moment where we are reversing 6070 years of struggle. If you could just talk about the efforts that the Legislature has had to making sure that everyone is protected. But also why is it that we are still at this very, I would say, inadequate capacity and particularly now.

Thank you. There was a 2011 Senate oversight report that is public that described the then Department, it was called the Department of Fair Employment and Housing as critically underfunded and failing in its mission. That is a historical fact since my appointment. So in the past 10 years, our department's budget has tripled.

Our staffing has increased by 70%, 70%, which is an extraordinary increase for any Department. But make no mistake, right? Our Department, as we sit here today, is a small Department. As we sit here today, we have 337 authorized positions, full and part time. That is what it is.

Every time that the Legislature passes a law expanding our jurisdiction, adding to the types of protections that we are charged with enforcing, it is a priority of mine and our legislative team to make sure that we provide an accurate accounting of what it would actually take to enforce that law.

And so that's what we do in terms of who we protect, it is every single person in this state. Right? It is not the case, as I think there was a historical understanding that, oh, there are protected groups. Certain groups are protected from civil rights violations. No, we're all protected. Our civil rights are all protected.

We all have multiple overlapping identities that are protected in our access to housing, in our access to jobs. These civil rights laws are not about individuals getting compensated for their rights being violated. They're about keeping. They're about allowing people to participate fully in the life of our society. Right. These are peacemaking laws.

They're public laws, fundamentally, to get people into jobs and to stay in jobs, to get people into housing and to stay in housing. So every single person in our state is protected. The 10 people that I mentioned are our education and outreach team.

Those 10 people did not exist before the Legislature decided in 2018 to fund a pilot education and outreach program with three positions for our Department that we have since expanded, thanks to the support of the Administration and the Legislature, to 10. So those are the people responsible for getting the word out to Californians.

We know that there are communities who do not access government services. We know that there are communities who are experiencing discrimination. Our role, our work, and our goal is to identify where, why, and how we can best reach them.

And so a lot of that work has been done through the network that has been created through California vs Hate, which was developed as a program after more than 100 community meetings that we held across the state with all different kinds of communities, all of whom have civil rights, all of whom are protected from hate.

And so I think that we are on a road in California to having really, actually robust community engagement in our civil rights work. But we do that with the resources that we have.

Is the federal implications on that work with the team of 300 in a State of 40 million people.

It's hard to predict, you know, regardless of what has happened or been happening at the federal level, the number of complaints that have been filed with our Department have been increasing year over year. Last year, 2024, I was just talking to Jamie this morning, we received more complaints than ever before in the department's history.

We received more housing—we investigated more housing complaints than ever before in the Department's history. That is separate and before changes at the federal level. So, we've already seen this process of people turning to our Department more and more.

I think there are possibly many reasons for that, including that we are doing a better job of actually investigating those cases and taking action where action is warranted, and also a better job through our outreach and education function of letting people know that these rights exist.

So, regardless of what's happening federally, we have seen Californians turning to us at increasing rates. To the extent that the Federal Government stops providing services, or reliable services, I think it's fair to expect that we would see increased filings as well.

This doesn't affect your funding in any way from the Federal Government? There's no impact there?

We have—we do have federal funding through formal partnerships with the EEOC and HUD. At this time, there is no news that that funding will be impacted.

All right, thank you. Now, we'll turn to the specific budget change proposals related to the Department. You survived round one. Congratulations, Director. So, we'll move to Item 2 on our agenda, which is California vs. Hate Reporting and Resource Hotline. Did you want to provide any additional background on the budget change proposal?

What I can say is I'm very proud of this program. It is a program that was supported by the Administration and the Legislature to—not just to be a hotline, right? Actually, people don't need another place to call and say, "something bad happened to me" and have nothing happen.

But as a result of our community engagement and as a result of pretty deep engagement with scholarly research, over decades, about what people who experience hate need, we developed a resource line and network that directly connects people, who report either online or on the phone, with services, resources that they identify as needing.

This is a non-emergency hotline for people who have experienced acts of hate, including hate crimes, but not limited to hate crimes. It is available in 15 languages online and essentially, unlimited languages, up to 200 languages, when people call. It is operated through the statewide 211 network, in every county in the state.

And folks who call, if they choose, they can just report, they can report anonymously, and they can get access to all different kinds of services through what we call "care coordination." Sometimes people are looking to contact law enforcement. We can and have helped them fill out a police report or contact their local law enforcement agency.

Sometimes people don't want any law enforcement involvement at all. We have helped those people access mental health services, access housing services in the communities where they live. So, the proposal before the Legislature in this budget is to extend this program for an additional year.

All right, thank you. Finance, any comments? Legislative Analyst.

Paul Steenhausen, also with the Analyst's Office. We don't have any issues with this proposal.

All right, then we'll return to the Committee. Questions or comments? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

I had a question, in terms of how do you track the effectiveness of the Program, in terms of how folks are navigating it, the reporting process, and what are those metrics? How do you—what metrics do you use to do that? Especially moving forward, we want to know the success of the Program.

Yeah, so this was really a first in the nation type of program. There are some other states that have enacted some things. So, we wanted to be sure that we were incorporating program evaluation, in from the beginning, and we have done so.

So, we have been working with UC San Diego, for example, on an internal assessment of the program. They've already made a lot of interim recommendations about technical things like, hey, change this question, this is keeping people, this is leading people in the wrong direction, or make sure that you're providing this information up front, etc.

They have also been conducting surveys of people who access the care coordination services and providing us with ongoing feedback about what people find. The big problem, that I will just volunteer to you, is that there are areas of our state where there aren't services.

So, there's very little that we have to connect people with, in certain areas. The big benefit is in self-reported mental health effects. I was reading one of the feedback reports this week.

94% of the respondents who were questioned by UC San Diego, who participated in care coordination through California vs. Hate, said participating, accessing this government service, improved their quality of life. That is an extraordinary statistic and one that I'm very proud about, in this Program.

And then how many—did you give us the data on the reports? How many reports or complaints have been filed through that hotline?

Yeah, so there is a difference in the data between the number of contacts and the number of reports of hate incidents. So, several thousand contacts in the first year of operation. The numbers have held steady throughout the second year, by the way. This is unsurprising to us.

We get many thousands of contacts a year at the Civil Rights Department about people who have all different kinds of issues that they would like help with, including interpersonal disputes, or landlord tenant disputes, or whatever.

Similarly, with California vs. Hate, we had over 800 formal reports of hate in the first year of operation, and those numbers have been holding steady—slight increase in the second year of operation.

And we can help connect people with services, regardless of whether what they end up recounting would meet the definition of an act of hate, or a hate crime, or not.

All right, thank you. Any further questions or comments on this Item? All right, so this is on our vote calendar for later, as well. Right? We'll be returning to this Item after public comment for potential action. All right, now we'll proceed to Item 3, which is implementation of recently enacted legislation.

Yes, these are the two enacted bills that I mentioned. One which transfers a range of protections, including leave protections for victims of violence, from the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner to our office. And the other which requires us to promulgate regulations and provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions in enforcing employment, anti-discrimination protections.

Finance, Legislative Analyst?

No issues.

Members of the Subcommitee?

Thank you. Well, I, you know, this is an important item. I don't say so myself, but in all seriousness, I, you know, Civil Rights is very important to me, in my past work. I work so much with individuals who lost everything due to discrimination.

I say it's the number one job killer for, for many communities and really appreciate, you know, these new bills, laws, that are going to make a difference, especially SB 1340, talked about the need for resources, the need for partnerships.

The most effective, proactive enforcement is having folks on the ground who know these communities are trusted messengers and can help build the partnerships to educate but also investigate and adjudicate these cases.

You know, proud of our Los Angeles Civil Rights Office who worked with you all and brought a big case against banks who were discriminating against the Armenian community of Los Angeles.

Had been happening for, for years, but because of the expertise of the local community and the inroads and trusted relationships, that case was able to be brought—and very proud of it. And it's not a one-size-fit-all. I see that this is, you know, a request for 1.2 million annually, if that's correct, for the implementation.

I think it's a modest investment for what clearly is so needed to deal with the challenges that we know exist and to build the relationships, to actually do the work. Because enforcement—you have to have so many incredibly, incredibly deep relationships to make a difference.

And you know, I, I'm curious about the, this request, and is that adequate funding to implement and to build the kinds of partnerships that can bring, you know, like this case in LA.

And we know there are probably thousands of other cases that are out there, that can help us build these, these partnerships with local governments, with community-based organizations and stakeholders. So, I want to just ask how we arrived at that and what input did local community in your sort of engagement?

I know you, you've done a lot of outreach and conversations with those local players. How did we arrive at that and is it adequate to fully implement?

And then, I also want to know, you know, when you talk about these MOUs between CRD and the local entities, how are they structured and how are we ensuring that it's consistent enforcement?

Thanks. I don't know if finance wants to say anything. Yeah.

Allison Hewitt, Department of Finance. So, this is a first tranche, as Director Kish can speak to. This is—these are the resources needed to do the rulemaking, which is going to be novel and complex and take years. So, this is the first tranche to support the rulemaking process. There's going to be community engagement done through that process.

And again, I'm taking the mantle from the Director a little bit here. But no, this isn't the everything. We anticipate that as the actual regulations are implemented and the locals are in engaging in those activities, it's possible there could be more, but the amount and scale of that workload isn't known right now.

So, this is an initial proposal to give CRD resources now, but the rulemaking is going to take some time. So, we're not in a position, the Administration is in a position, to know what that workload, that future workload, looks like until the regulations are in place.

Okay.

And can we talk a little bit more then about the regulations? What's the way that we ensure that the regulations are comprehensive, that can be applied, meaning practical, in terms of the capacity of these different partners, and that it's consistent across the state? You mentioned there are places where there are no resources.

And I know that, you know, for example, in Los Angeles, they are part of a broader network of service providers that do have statewide relationships. So, I'm just curious. Yeah. How will these—how do you plan to ensure that these regulations are consistent and practical and can be applied, particularly in places where we don't have those resources?

Thank you for that question. I mean, I do have thoughts about this. Part of it will depend on if this budget item is approved and becomes part of the budget. I want to let the leader, who will be in the role of an Assistant Chief Counsel at our Department, in charge of this work, lead.

Some of the insights that I have now is that you start conversations before you start any rulemaking, right? And of course, we are in conversation with some of the entities, especially in LA, but also elsewhere, that do some of this work at the local level.

But part of the work is identifying, in the same way that we did with California vs. Hate, who's impacted, and meeting with them in advance to ensure that their insights and expertise inform the decision making from the ground up.

So, I would expect that that would be one of the first roles of the person who will lead this work for us, if this becomes part of the final budget, is using our existing context and using those contexts to identify further context to understand everybody who needs to be at the table from day one.

And so, then, you build the rulemaking project on those initial conversations, which are not part of a formal rulemaking project. They're informing the creation of the rulemaking project.

Okay, and so the, and what's the, how does, what's the timeline for this process? How are you thinking about that, in terms of this initial investment? And then when do, when do we—when will we see those sort of more concrete structure and processes in place and the funding?

Yeah.

Request for that.

So, one thing I'll say is that the statute contemplates that local jurisdictions can already start enforcing their local rules, even in the absence of these regulations. And we, and we know that they are in certain places, and we are having ongoing conversations about that, and I think that is good because this is a long process.

The regulatory process, as I think you all know, itself, is typically about a year from the moment that formal regulations are introduced in the Notice Register in California, to when they are approved by the Office of Administrative Law.

Now, before you get to that year long process, which involves public comment, you have the process of understanding what is the—what are the regulations going to do. You're drafting them, you're drafting an initial statement of reasons. You might be holding hearings just at that preliminary stage, outside of the formal regulatory process, to get public input.

So, that rollout process could easily be a year. The formal regulatory process can take up to a year. So, I would not expect to see regulations for two years, from the time that the folks come on board at our Department.

With that said, you know, we already are, and we will continue to work with local jurisdictions, who are interested in enforcing local ordinances protecting against employment discrimination, to ensure that broadly, folks are working towards the same goals in the state when it comes to employment anti-discrimination protection.

Yeah. I'm concerned about the federal implications and the timing of this rollout and how do we do the most that we can to accelerate a sense of deeper enforcement partnerships and support for those communities, and particularly in communities where we are, where we don't have significant capacity?

And also, that, you know, that we have the funding that ensures that we are not at risk of having a legal framework on the ground that has no enforcement teeth. Because that is, you know, we don't want to.

It's great to do education, it's great to do outreach, but how do we make sure that we are remedy—have a remedy—for these violations and that workers are not left, you know, unprotected? So, I really was curious about that. I guess my final question is on the evaluation process.

And what is being, sort of, as you're thinking about through this regulation, regulatory process, what is the evaluative process, so that we ensure that the local enforcement has, you know, the impact on the workforce and particularly, for these tailored communities, as you say, across the state, there are certain emphasis and certain strategies will need to be employed, to address the types of discrimination that are pervasive to those jurisdictions in that area?

So, how will we, what will be a metric of evaluating that process and how well it's working? And is that rolled into the, you know, costs for how this work will be done?

Yeah, I'd say that this initial tranche does not contemplate a formal evaluation done by the state of local effectiveness and enforcing local ordinances. But that is something that I agree is an important element and I'd be very interested in having our staff work with your office to understand what more could be done on that front.

Appreciate it. Thanks.

Just a quick point, and this is not to make any comment on the policy proposal here, nor to criticize the Department for requesting the funding, because you've been given legislative direction.

But as a larger issue, I'd just like to point out that late breaking news is more than suggesting that the May Revise next week is going to be tackling at least a $10 billion deficit. And this is new spending.

And I just want to add that it's also at a time where there has been a complete erasure of EEOC Civil Rights enforcement, even in our large cities. Our LA County EEOC Regional Office, you know, our San Francisco Regional Office has been completely closed by the Federal Government, in order to hold the line.

And I, quite honestly, you know, when you think about every Californian's rights needing to be protected, a 1.2 million annual allocation to build the partnerships just doesn't seem adequate, at a time when so many of our communities are facing discrimination. So, you're right, Senator Niello. We do have hard questions.

And unfortunately, the questions are being made harder by a Federal Government that is dismantling funding and the infrastructure too.

...without any effect from any federal actions. That would be over and above that, according to initial information. Now, but again, I was making no comment on the policy, nor criticizing the Department for asking money to fulfill what is a, to them, a legislative requirement.

Just the mere fact, before the budget, before the federal budget, late breaking news is a $10 billion deficit that we're going to be facing, whereas the January proposal was, as the LAO said, roughly balanced. So, things are changing significantly.

I just throw that out as a cautionary point with regard to new spending, not just this item, but any others.

And I agree that we have to be cautious, but we also have to protect Californians.

All right. So, thank you, Director Kish and Department of Defense. I also want to just note that the figure that's in the budget, the proposal, is within the—it's well within the boundaries of what our own estimates were in the appropriations process here.

And although that—we don't treat that religiously—it's an important indicator that you are trying to right size the budget allocation and the rollout, based on that—are in a way that's consistent with at least what the legislation that the, the Governor signed and that the Legislature passed, anticipated.

So, this, this item is also recommended for approval on a vote later today, with the important caveat with all of the items that we have taken up so far, particularly, but not exclusively, in the General Fund that we will, we will likely return to many of them after the May Revise.

But this, but, but there's, this is a legally required function. The budget is appropriate. Our questions have been answered. So, we'll move then to our next and final item before we go to public comment. And that item is Community Conflict Resolution and Conciliation Program. Oh, sorry. We have, we have two more.

This is, this is your item if you would like to, yeah.

Yeah. So, the, so, the budget doesn't contain an appropriation for, for this purpose. And so, maybe if you could lead off with what I mean, will this entire function program disappear? Do you have a different plan for how to proceed in the—with this approach? Why don't we, why don't we start there?

No different plan. We will retain the decades-old statutory authority to provide community conciliation, in California. We will retain the infrastructure that we've built over the past two and a half years, which includes regulations, templates, and forms, and we will try to respond to community need in the best way that we can, with the resources that we have.

All right, Finance.

Blair Huxman, Department of Finance. I would just add to that that yes, it is possible that absent CRD redirecting resources are identifying an alternative funding source, the funding would not have additional funding to continue.

Do you, do you have any—can you share with us any background about why this particular function within the Department was identified for the—this potential savings?

Yes, the Administration proposed and the Legislature approved these limited-term resources, enhanced limited-term resources, in '22-'23. One of the considerations in making it the enhanced resources available on a limited-term basis was recognition that the state's fiscal condition is always subject to change. Based on the current fiscal outlook and the lack of available General Fund resources, the Governor's Budget included very few new investments, and many difficult decisions were made in many areas of the budget.

And there are actions happening at the federal level that have also called into question the future of available funding, related to a number of federal programs.

And then that being said, we would note that the Governor's Budget is a starting point, and we expect to continue this conversation through the spring.

Legislative Analysts, any comments? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

I, I had a question about that because I was thinking about the tragedy in Monterey Park and then the Half Moon Bay mass shootings, and all were hate-related, that this, you know, Department played a significant role in stepping into that.

When we—when we say we will not fund this program, are we—how will you be able to really step into those kinds of future incidents? And unfortunately, we know they do happen and unfortunately, we know it's often too much for us to bear.

And so, I'm just, you know, what, what how will the Department manage that without having this, you know, dedicated unit to respond and to do this work?

Something that your question prompted in me is an observation that it actually doesn't matter if the event was in fact motivated by hate, if that's what the community perceives, right?

And so, one of the benefits of California vs. Hate and of the work that crew has done over the past two and a half years is responding to community need where it is, regardless of a legal determination, or whatever might happen in a criminal or civil investigation going forward, and I'm proud of that work.

So, we continue to have the authority to do what we can, and we will try to respond as best we can when events inevitably occur that impact the feeling of security and safety in their own communities that Californians have.

And can you say more about the federal—have you gotten any indication that this kind of a program will be able to receive funding? I mean, you talked about how certain funds have been untouched at this point. What, what's the indication about these federal grants for these types of programs?

This program received no federal funding. There was no federal partnership.

But is there a sense that there is some funding that would exist for this, or to offset the fact that we are not investing at this point?

This program was based on the federal Community Relations Service, which is housed within the Department of Justice and has, as its founding moment, helping negotiate the safe passage of Martin Luther King Jr. and marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the march from Selma to Montgomery.

That program is slated for—to be removed from the Department of Justice.

Thanks.

Department of Defense. It looked like you had perhaps something to share.

This is a very technical point. It's all to say that there was actually no funding for this program in the' 24-'25, the current budget. CRD redirected resources to be able to continue their activities. But it's a minor point to say that it it's not in it—proposed in the Governor's Budget.

It was also not included as a part of the 2024 budget, in negotiations between the Administration and the Legislature.

Anything further on this one? All right. This item was for information only. So, now we'll proceed to our final item, which is before we go to public comment, Item 5 is Enforcement, Investigation, and Conciliation Anhancements. Your time has arrived.

So, in the 2022 Budget Act, the Legislature approved a PCP for Enforcement and Investigation and Conciliation Enhancements. And that PCP provided three years of funding to CRD to hire additional staff. And there was two goals there.

One, to decrease the wait time from when a complainant comes to us and submits an intake form, to when we are able to interview them, and then secondly, to increase how many conciliations, and that's cases that are settled by investigators in our enforcement division. So, that funding does expire on June 30th this year.

Any comments? LAO?

So the, and we have in this in the overview document, the data on what's actually happened with wait times as an example of conciliations, so the—I wasn't here when the when this when these funds were originally, initially appropriated—but is it—was it a theory that we would for this three-year period cut deeply into the backlog, which would then, would then help us both help get those issues reconciled, but also speed up the process for everyone else, and/or was it that this three years of investment would result in process redesign, or, you know, any other changes that would structurally and permanently change wait time?

Or were we just buying three years of reduced wait time and we can expect it to go back up to 120 days next year?

Yeah, thank you for that question. So, the thought here was we were requesting those positions to, yes, address a backlog, at the time. At the time of this funding, we were seeing 120 day wait time and we wanted to decrease that to make our services more accessible.

We were able to accomplish that, not to the degree we had hoped to because of the increased number of complaints that our departments received over the years.

But yeah, addressing the backlog and then also working on what other efficiencies we could come up with, in order to continue with the decreased wait times and increased conciliations. It's been a good success, like I said, although we didn't get to the goal that we originally wanted to.

But I think we have learned a lot about resources and shifting and being able to do our best to increase the wait time for the public.

Can I—I want to offer just one observation about the concept of backlog. Our Department does not have a backlog of complaints, in a traditional sense, in the way that some other government agencies that receive complex complaints from the public might have it.

When we initiate an investigation, we have a statutory obligation to complete that investigation within one year, and we d. So, when there is delay in our process, that delay happens on the front end because we are completing every investigation within one year.

That can mean that people who file with us newly, before we start the investigation, have longer to wait before we turn to them and initiate a formal investigation. So, that's the, it's kind of a front log in a sense, and that is what this proposal aims to address.

So, then, what should we expect to happen next year, to the backlog, the front log and the wait time?

Yeah. So, it's possible that our wait times are going to increase, given that we don't have the proper resources and fewer physicians. We do have existing resources that are still dedicated to these functions, and they'll continue to do their best to complete these investigations, and we'll be monitoring the metrics as we process these cases.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Well, I, you know, the, the front log is when you have a worker who's trying to figure out, do I have to leave this job? Can I stay, stay in this job, you know, or I've been fired. And I know it was unjust, and I still have to pay my rent this month.

You know, that, whether it's a back or front, it's, you know, it is leaving workers in a, in a, in a place of suffering. And, and the longer it goes on, the harder it is, and I've seen that in real time, in real life for folks. And I want to commend you on the work of working through this backlog.

And I want to say—or front log—and I want to say the reason being is because of the severe cuts to this Department over time, where you just keep cutting and cutting and cutting until you get to the bon and it's, you know, the community and the workers who, who end up suffering.

And as you mentioned, we only will expect that this will be worse, given the earlier report of the spike in cases and complaints that you're getting both on the hotline and in your office. I want to, you know, just from the other item to this item, that's what our Civil Rights Office is to do.

We are supposed to be educating and intervening in those tragedies. We are also making sure that we are moving cases, sort of in our operations, expeditiously. And when you are, you know, not investing in these services, you know, many of our communities are going to be hurt.

I, I appreciate that there is a drop, but we know that there's going to be more suffering to come. And, you know, I don't want to make speeches, but I just wanted to say that these two things go hand in hand. That, that service, that outreach, and also the operations and how quickly we can move through these, these complaints.

So, again, what are the federal implications on this backlog? If you are using resources to fill the gaps for crew and you're using the resources to fill the gap for the Federal Government, you're asking for $1.2 million. How in the world is this—how is our ability to provide the level of protection that Californians need, how is that going to happen?

And so, again, I asked the federal implications on the backlog. Do we see what will they look like once we get into next year and the following year, given the lack of investment and the federal cuts that are happening? Are we going to lose the little bit of momentum that we've been able to gain?

So, we are paid contractually by the EEOC and HUD to process complaints that could have been filed with them but were filed with us instead, or that are transferred by them to us. And as I said, as of today, there's no indication that that funding is going to change.

So much of our staffing is tied to these complaint filings, the number of complaints that come in the door, and we'll just have to see, right? As I said earlier in this hearing, our complaints were on the rise last year, before any change in Administration.

And so, we will continue to monitor very closely to see what's going on with Californians as they try to access assistance in resolving civil rights disputes.

And is there any liability implications of us not being able to process these cases on time? I'm curious, is there, you know, any lawsuits, federal interventions, any consent decrees around how our backlog if, if we do get to a point where we're falling back in sort of the—back to the numbers that we had in the past, what risk or exposure do we have, as a state?

The Legislature has told the Department that it must complete its investigations, with very few exceptions, within one year from the time that a complaint is signed by a person who seeks our Department's assistance, and we are in compliance with that statutory requirement. There are not statutory requirements for how quickly we must respond to a person.

However, I just want to say that I think 10 days is too long, right? We at the Department understand what people are facing if they've received that eviction notice or they've been targeted for a layoff that they feel is discriminatory at their workplace. We understand what delay means for people.

It's simply a matter of numbers and how fast people can get to us. We've actually automated our initial appointment system, on a DMV model, so that when people contact us in our online filing portal, they can see the next available appointment open to them. That's actually quite helpful in terms of managing public expectations.

We don't want to see those numbers increase. We know what it means and we'll do our best to keep them as low as possible.

There's no—so, if, in terms of the pre-log question, there's, there's no risk of any lawsuit, should those, those out—I understand the one year. I'm, I'm talking about the folks who are waiting. There's no sense that there could be lawsuits against the state, brought by those individuals who say, I'm trying to move my case.

This is interfering with my ability to get a determination. There's no exposure for the state for lawsuits or liability, in that case?

We have not identified any exposure, in part because no one is required to come to our Department, right? Any number of these people, every single person who files a complaint with our Department can also pursue private enforcement of civil rights. We know what that means too, right? Not everybody has access to a lawyer.

Not every case is going to be taken. There are legal deserts in the state of California, but our Department does not provide a mandatory stop on the way that somebody has to enforce the civil rights protections that we enforce.

Thanks.

All right. Thank you for the, for the—for being here with us and for the for going over the five items with us. I also want to salute Senator Smallwood-Cuevas who has made this Department and its functions and its critical mission for Californians, you know, a cause.

And she is the—she is the champion of a Department that otherwise would—has—often been overlooked and taken for granted as a misfit toy.

And so, I just want to say thank you to Senator Smallwood-Cuevas for shining a constant light and dollars, when we can, on a Department that is serving an increasingly critical function for Californians, in all the ways that she has indicated.

And understand this is one of the few departments we're where we've gone through things that weren't in the budget to highlight what those consequences may be, particularly given the situation at the federal level. And so, we will see next week, the May Revision, in the space too, and there will be difficult choices.

But I think the—including in this Department—and I know that even in the Governor's Budget there are choices, there are augmentations, and there are cuts, and we will be facing the kinds of challenges that Senator Niello said. But this isn't—this is a critical, a critical function for the, for the people.

And it is, I hope, the Department of Finance, you're probably done with your work when the mayor revised on this.

But that what we see is that priority, both in terms of the overall—in terms of the Department itself, that we're making the right choices within the resources that there are, but also, you know, advocating to assure that we have the resources necessary, at a critical time when so many people's civil rights are at risk.

So, thank you for being with us today. Thanks, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, of course to Senator Niello as well, on the item. And now, we're going to proceed to public comment.

So, we invite anyone that's with us today to please—that wishes to provide testimony to the Subcommitee on any of the items that we've taken up, any of the Civil Rights Department items, to please come forward to the stand-up mic. Seeing none, we're now going to move then to our votes.

So, we have several items for votes on today's calendar. Okay, so we have Items 1, 2, and 3, and so, we'll start with Items 1 and 3 item. Item 1 being our vote-only item on the California Education Learning Lab and Item 3, the implementation of recently enacted legislation, both of which are recommended for approve as budgeted.

Is there a motion? It's been moved by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

No further business to come before the second. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.