Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Public Safety

I'd like to call sub 6 on public safety Budget Committee to order. This Budget Committee will cover public safety. Today we will be hearing May Revision proposals from a number of departments. We've asked departments to provide a general overview of the May revision and to speak on a few key proposals.

But the Department of Finance and other agencies are available to answer questions on any other proposals listed in the agenda or the May revised letters. We have representatives from the Department of Finance, the various departments and the LAO to speak on the proposals. Please remember to introduce yourselves prior to speaking.

Subcommitee Members will have an opportunity to ask questions and comments after presentations from each Department. And public comment will be available at the end after all departments have presented.

Before we begin with the first item, I want to thank the Department of Finance, the various State departments and the Administration who for their work in putting together the May revision into the ALO's office for the quick turnaround of analysis that we'll be talking about today.

I want to also thank the Members of the public and stakeholders for coming to this hearing so that we may hear your priorities. We know the budget situation is very difficult with many future unknowns.

But what we do know is is that we need to make difficult, informed decisions this year to mitigate the harm to vulnerable Californians and protect the progress we have made as a state. I look forward to working collaboratively with the Administration and the Senate on the thoughtful budget that reflects our shared values before we move forward.

We have Members that are on the daisy from the Assembly. Would any Member like to make any comments? Thank you. Prefer to wait. Assembly Member Macedo, you're good. All right, we'll move to our first issue. Office of Emergency Services May Revision Overview and General Fund Solutions. Comments from Legislative Analysis Office. Please Go Department of Finance or LAO. Who wants to go first?

I think I'll go first and then the LAO and Finance.

Okay.

I make comments I'm going to give. Like taking your comments Seriously, Mr. Chair. We will do really quick updates on our most significant BCPs and one reduction. There are five BCPs. I'll talk but then in your agenda lists more as well.

Our first issue is a relocation of Red Mountain communication site which is a net increase of 23.2 million. General Fund to address costs of special equipment to traverse narrow and remote access roads as well as changes to the apparatus needed to construct and provide on site materials for tower Assembly.

This project is to construct three new communication facilities to replace the Red Mountain facility at the following sites. Rattlesnake Peak, Alder Camp and Big Lagoon. The next proposal we have is a federal authority adjustment.

We're proposing a one time increase of 1.2 billion Federal Trust Fund authority to reflect updated projections for reimbursement from the FEMA from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for eligible disaster costs. Our third proposal is a state and local cybersecurity grant program. This is actually our third round of grants for local and state cybersecurity.

We're asking for 605,000 in state operations and 11.5 million in local assistance.

For this next round of grants, the Administration itself is requesting that Control Section 90 be added to authorize the Department of Finance to augment any state Department or agency appropriation for costs necessary to continue recovery efforts for the damage caused by the Eaton fire and Palisades fire in January of 2025.

These augmentations will be within the cumulative total of the 2.5 billion authorized in control sections 90 and 90.01 of the 2024 Budget Act. And then finally for our proposals we have a.

We're requesting provisional budget Bill language to ensure the amount available for expenditure for the state emergency telephone account is sufficient to support next generation, our new next generation 911 system.

We've specified that no augmentations can result in the monthly 911 charge exceeding the rate in effect as of January 12025 which is $0.41 per month per phone line. We have one reduction proposed in Cal OES budget. This is a reduction of 49.7 million.

This was appropriated in the 2022 Budget act for the flexible cash assistance for survivors of crime program which was a one time program pilot program that we proposed at that point. We're proposing to not Fund the program at this time and achieve that savings in the next fiscal year. That's it for me.

Well, thank you so much. Any questions? Comments from the dais Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah, I have just a brief question here on the VOCA funding, which is the Victim of Crimes Act. It's been cut the past two budget years and the federal funding has been cut the last couple years. So I'm pretty sure it's probably going to happen again. Yeah, There doesn't seem to be any contingency funding this time. Am I missing something?

No, I think you've. I think you've expressed the situation correctly. VOCA has been. We've been losing federal dollars for our VOCA program in California.

In the last budget, the Legislature, the Administration agreed for a one time augmentation to keep the programs the way they were Currently operating at this point, we are waiting for our federal allocations. We still don't have a dollar amount that would be needed to maintain that same level, but we don't.

So we're still waiting from the Federal Government to receive our allocation.

It's unfortunate. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments from Committee Members?

Yeah. Does anybody else have anything they'd like to add?

Hi, Heather Gonzalez with the LAO. I would just like to let you know that while it is true that we have not received the federal dollars yet, the Fund, the underlying Fund that provides the funds for Voca from the Federal Government is actually in an improved condition.

And the cap they do, an annual cap of how much you can take out of it each year has been increased over last year. That doesn't necessarily mean the dollars will arrive or in what way because there is a formula, but it is a little better than in past years.

I'll take any optimism. Thank you. Any further comment from the panel?

Sure. Hi, Heather Gonzalez with the lao. So, of the OES proposals that are before you today, we have comments on, and these are brief, but as follows.

With respect to the next generation 911, we recommend that you adopt this proposal because not to do so could place the functioning of the 911 system in jeopardy or further delay rollout of the next generation 911 system.

However, we think you could get a closer actual estimate of the amount of additional funds that are necessary by asking OES to provide you with information now on what they think it will cost to maintain the legacy 911 system for an additional year while we wait for the cost estimate of the improvements to the next generation system that they're seeking to make.

So both of those sets of information. In addition, we recommend provisional language to require at least quarterly progress reports on this project as it has faced challenges and bears watching. With respect to the state and local cybersecurity request, we don't have any concerns about this proposal other than the risk of the loss of federal matching funds.

Since this is a program with a large federal share, we recommend that you ask OEs to prepare options for the program in the case that federal funds are reduced or eliminated. With respect to the request for changes in federal trust Fund authority, we think this is a reasonable proposal.

But we would recommend modifying the language to ensure that it's clear, crystal clear, that this authority enables reimbursements only so that other dollars can't somehow flow through this. And then with respect to the Section 90 changes, we don't have any problems with this proposal.

But we would like to see expenditure reports, if not monthly, as had been done in the past, at least quarterly. And I'm here for questions.

Thank you. Department of Finance.

Perfect. Tess Scherkenback with the Department of Finance. Thank you. Just in response to some of the LAO's General comments, we do have a number of Department staff from Cal OES. They're here to answer programmatic questions and anything on specific proposals.

So I'll leave it to them to kind of respond to more of the programmatic issues that were brought up.

And then just on the reporting requirements that the LAO's recommended for SEDNA and then also for the control Section 90, I think the Administration is certainly open to a conversation about that and so certainly willing to engage in and kind of what those will look like. So certainly I'm willing to engage on those.

And then just wanted to make one additional comment on the Federal Trust Fund Authority. I think that, you know, respecting LAO's comments, we think that the existing provisional language in the item already contains the kind of specificity that the LAO is requesting.

And specifically it does contain the clarification that the funding flowing through this item, it's already limited to only reimbursements that are related to disaster response and recovery. So we just think the existing language is sufficiently covering that.

But again, if the LAO has concerns on that, happy to discuss further and look at the language as it stands and explain our position on that. So thanks.

Thank you. I do have a couple of questions centered around the VOCA aspect of it and also the assistance for victims of crimes. Crime $49.7 million. So victims of crime. We fought for VOCA funding last year and we believe it's a priority again for this Committee for VOCA funding.

But looking at how now we're doing away with $49.7 million for flexible cash assistance for victims of crime, how are we then going to manage funding for these resources and programs for victims of crime in the State of California?

Well, with respect to the Flexible Assistance for Survivors grant, we agree that certainly this is a was an innovative program. It's a very, it was a pilot program. It provides greater flexibility in terms of providing cash to victims that other programs do.

And so we are excited by the program, but due to revenue constraints, that's why it was proposed for elimination at this point. And it's a one time program. So we always look at one time issues first for reduction proposals for Voca itself.

Like I we were really trying to see again what the the federal this is the latest We've got, you know, as a lot of times, this is a first for federal issues. This is the latest we've gotten without receiving from the Federal Government what our allocation will be. So we are eagerly awaiting.

I love the optimism of the Legislative Analyst Office, who was close to the federal budget picture. So we're hopeful, but we're waiting to see how that all works out.

So waiting to see how that all works out gives promise that there could be something in there for the Voca funding backfill. I know at a hearing that we had our last hearing, I believe we centered around VOCA and we talked about dollars, and it came to 130 something $1.0 million.

So I know that it's an area that's fluctuating, but hearing that there could be promise once we get a handle on what's there and what truly needs to be in the budget.

Tess Scherkenback. Department of Finance. So just, you know, want to provide the clarity. Again, we do not know yet what our number from the Federal Government will be for the VOCA program. And as a result of that, we.

We really were eyes wide shut on what a number would be for a state backfill at this time and what necessarily, you know, we would have to do for that.

So at this point, the May revision does not contain a backfill for Voca funding, given we don't know what the federal amount yet is or what the backfill would need to be.

That being said, we're certainly open to conversations with the Legislature as we go forward and hopefully receive that amount of federal allocation soon so we can, you know, make more informed decisions, and that can inform our discussion with the Legislature on this going forward.

Thank you so much for that. It does remain a priority for this Committee with the Voca funding and victims of crime in General. I want to thank you as now we move to a judicial branch. Oh, hold, please. Assemblymember Macedo.

Just really quick. I have here a commitment was made. I come from the Tulare area. The flooding was really, really bad. Obviously, with the Tulare Lake flooding, is. There money in the budget to reimburse local districts, like the Tulare Lake Drainage. District, for the work done in the 2023 flooding?

I know that that was in the talks over the past couple years, but that has not come to fruition. So I was just curious if anybody could give me clarity to that.

I don't believe there is. When the flooding occurred, there may have been. We may have had some state funding that was used for our Drayo account, but that account is used only for funding that is in that particular fiscal year for state funding ahead of it.

Federal reimbursements themselves keep coming for disasters as far as 1015 years back. It takes a long time to get the federal funding reimbursed. So in that way, funding is still coming back for prior disasters.

If you want to get into, if you need more specifics, we can get back to you and sort of look up what the status is for that disaster.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.

Any other questions, comments from the dais? All right, we're going to move on to our next issue. Judicial Branch. So as we go through this, these discussions, we'll start with the the Department Judicial branch. Then we'll go to the Department of Finance and LAO. Yeah, sound good? Let's start with the Department Judicial branch.

Good afternoon, Assembly Member Ramos. I'm going to this is Zlatko Theodorovic from the Judicial Council. We're going to have Mark Jimenez from the Department of Finance review it. And we're here review the May Revision. We're here for questions.

Hi, Good afternoon. Mark Jimenez, Department of Finance I'll be providing an overview of the May revision to the Governor's Budget for the Judicial branch. The budget includes 2.7 million in the budget year, decreasing to 100,000 in 27-28 to implement the Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act.

SB549, a one time reduction to of 20 million General Fund to backfill the state court facilities construction Fund to reflect updated revenue projections 9 million ongoing General Fund reduction to trial court employee health benefits to reflect updated benefit and retirement rate changes in the budget year, statutory changes to courthouse surplus property disposition and various appropriations reappropriations for existing projects.

The budget also includes a few General Fund solutions to address projected budget shortfalls. When thinking about these solutions, we're looking for savings that have not yet reverted to the General Fund or funds that have not yet been encumbered. We also considered historical expenditure patterns to determine if funds for certain programs may be right sized.

As such, the budget includes 20 million ongoing reduction to the pre trial release program and a reversion of up to 20 million in the current year, a reversion of up to 27.5 million of unspent funds for the jury duty pilot program pursuant to AB 1981. The budget includes statutory changes to eliminate the pilot program.

However, we maintain a certain baseline funding to implement that Bill, a one time reversion of 38 million of the unrestricted Fund balance in the Trial Court Trust Fund, a transfer of 34.3 million from the court Facilities Architectural Revolving Fund to the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, thereby reducing the General Fund backfill needed for the SDFC and a withdrawal of the 2.9 million General Governor's Budget cap Outlay proposal for the performance criteria phase for the New Tracy Courthouse and the withdrawal of 500,000 for advanced planning and budget studies.

That's the brief overview of the May revision to the Judicial Branch's budget. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Anita Lee with the LAO we have comments for you on two of the proposals as part of the May revision package. So so the first proposal relates to the 381,000,001 time transfer of unrestricted monies from the Trial Court Trust Fund to the General Fund.

We don't have concerns with the proposed amount, but one of the things that we wanted to flag for you is that there is no change in the budget Bill Language that was proposed in January that would provide the Department of Finance in consultation with the Judicial Branch, basically complete discretion in terms of how that's calculated and when that transfer occurs.

So because of that, we do continue to recommend that the Legislature modify that budget Bill Language in two key ways to ensure that there's appropriate level of oversight. The first modification would be for the Legislature to specify what sources of unrestricted funding should be considered for transfer and or guidance in terms of how to do that calculation.

The second modification would be to require that before any transfer occurs there is 30 day notification to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to allow for review and to consider how the calculation was made, whether there are any adjustments to the amount that you see before you.

Our second set of comments relates to the ongoing $20 million reduction to the Pretrial Release Program.

Also, as part of that proposal, we would note that there is a proposal to modify the budget Bill Language to allow for the reallocation of unspent monies amongst the trial courts as well as to then require the Judicial Branch report on any reallocations as part of their annual report.

So taking that modified budget Bill Language first, we actually think that that merits approval because it will ensure that you're maximizing the use of any funding that's provided as well as ensure that there's appropriate legislative oversight related to the reduction. We did just want to flag for you that the proposed reduction could reduce service levels.

Prior to 24-25 unspent monies were regularly reverted in conversations with the Judicial Branch. That was due to various reasons, for example ramping up the cost of programs, there were hiring challenges, etc. Looking at it today, you know, in 24-25 according to the judicial branch, they are on track to spend more, if not most of their allocation.

And so if that is the case, we would note that that would impact whether or how long people are detained pretrial. And so that is something that the Legislature may want to consider. And as you're weighing your priorities, it is a reduction in, in light of the state's fiscal budget solutions.

Sorry, in light of the state's fiscal budget condition. And so it does merit consideration, but that is a trade off you're going to want to consider as part of your deliberations. Thank you. Happy to answer question at the appropriate time.

Thank you so much. Any questions from the dais? Yeah, Assembly Member Lackey, Vice Chair.

I'm trying to, to comprehend this. Why the Department of Finance proposed cuts to the county level pretrial release program? What's the justification for that?

You know, we looked at the historical expenditure patterns and we noticed that at least in the past three years there's been about $90 million in savings. And so our thinking is, you know, this is just an attempt to right back towards the historical expenditure patterns.

We recognize that, you know, the savings were due to, you know, ramp up time and just the program was just trying to get it get its foot underway. But I think we're looking at historical expenditure patterns. We think that this is the place $20 million reduction to the pretrial program is reasonable.

We are maintaining $50 million or a majority of the funding for the pretrial program.

So how in the world are we supposed to Fund Prop 36 in any of this? I don't see any.

Right. So there is no funding for Prop 36 in the Judicial branch budget. However, we are providing funding for Prop 36 in, in other areas of the budget, including CDCR.

But that defies logic to me.

So with Prop 36, we typically we don't Fund the courts on a workload basis unless they're able to fully demonstrate a significant workload increase.

What we have seen, estimates of, of workload data and potential costs to the courts, we continue to monitor and will work with the judicial branch in, you know, should funding be needed in the future. But there is no funding in the May revision for the judicial branch for the implementation of Prop 36.

It appears to me that they've not only failed to acknowledge Prop 36, but they've taken money away. They've taken money away from a very starving part of our judicial system. And that would be the judicial branch. And I find it extremely frustrating. I don't understand it.

I should note that what we are maintaining in the May revision is $40 million to the trial court to the trial court operations budget. And this certainly will support any staff resources and any increases in workload facing the judicial branch.

Well, it seems like we're budgeting more for prisoners, but not about not supporting the courts that sentence them. That doesn't seem logical to me.

Well, we are providing some resources, as I mentioned. We. We'Re reducing funding to the pretrial program, but we are providing resources to support the core operations of the judicial branch to support their courts and their core workload.

Okay, I guess that's gonna have to be sufficient.

Any other comments? Assemblymember Macado, Any questions?

Thank you very much. First, I guess the question I would have is building a little bit off of the Vice Chair's comments. I understand the argument that the $20 million reversion may be, according to your perspective, consistent with prior spending patterns. But humor me if you will.

If there are service reductions in a very tangible way, if I am a person navigating the justice system, what are those real impacts? Like when we say service reduction, what specifically are we talking about?

Maybe I'll have to defer to the.

I guess, are you saying that I'll be held in pre confinement longer or. I guess if you can just paint a picture. I understand that it's a little nebulous, but what are the service reductions we're talking about?

Well, it's not necessarily. Well, only point I want to make is that the 20 million isn't necessarily targeted towards any particular pretrial program. This is just a General reduction to the pre trial program, currently budgeted for 70 million, now reducing to 50 million.

But I don't have any specific information on what that looks like, what the impacts look like on the ground. But I'll defer to the judicial granted.

Preliminary in so much as. Again, this is Zlatko Theodorovic. I mean, just a week ago, and we're still assessing the impact. But obviously fewer resources at the probation level means that there's, you know, fewer options during the pretrial process. Ms. Lee might have had some thoughts that she wanted to add as well.

I think, Assemblymember, part of your question is stemming from our comments related to potential impacts. And so these funds go out kind of roughly on a formula basis.

And so different courts and counties are in different places in terms of how they're choosing to use the dollars, whether the court keeps some, whether it's all going to probation, et cetera.

And so if you know, in 24-25 there are plans to use most or all of those dollars, a reduction of 20 million depending on how it's going to be distributed is going to have impacts. And so that can look a little different potentially from county to county as the judicial branch indicated.

It's really early on, so we don't know exactly what will happen. But I think it is reasonable to say that it's possible, possible that you can have individuals being, you know, detained pretrial a little bit longer. It might impact, you know, whether they're, they're released pretrial, et cetera.

And so I think that that is an important consideration because you know, the Legislature in more recent times has been taking action in that area to focus on, you know, when individuals are released, et cetera.

Okay. I appreciate the answers there. And that's where my mind was going was now if cost is a factor, the cost continuing to confine them and keep them in custody, that's going to be a factor the courts have to consider with fewer resources.

I should note that we are providing provisional language that allows for the movement of funds from maybe a county where they may have excess Fund to a county that may have a greater need for formal resources. So I think yes, we're cutting back on the pre trial program.

However, we are providing some flexibility to move money around to sort of mitigate the harm or mitigate the impact. I hear what you're saying, but we're also trying to solve for the budget shortfall, but also trying to be.

Yeah, totally. And I'm glad you brought that point up. And I don't mean to give you a hard time.

I mean $20 million in the grand scheme of the entire revise might seem like a small thing, but from my experience with the justice system, people that are detained or not detained pretrial, it can have real impacts on our communities. So I appreciate you engaging in that line of question.

The only other thing I would note is actually more of a comment. Mr. Chair, just the Vice Chair's point. I think his point is well taken that, you know, this portion of the revised doesn't have any additional funding for Prop 36. But I would mention two points. You've heard me say it before.

Prop 36 did not have a funding mechanism nor a promise for funding when it was presented to voters. And I have a lot of heartburn about that. But that's in the past.

What I would note is that on April 10, the Board of State and Community Corrections did release 127 million doll in grant funding and updated Prop 47 grant application criteria to ensure that substance abuse and mental health treatment under Prop 36 would be eligible for funding.

Obviously, the stability, the future stability of that funding is a question that we're going to have to grapple with. But I do think that's an important fact that we do have a little bit more flexibility with those Prop 47 funds. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other questions? We did have a hearing centered around Prop 36 and its impact and we did center around collaborative courts, but also on the treatment component, Prop 36.

So those are still areas that this Committee continues to look at as far as Prop 36 and what people are looking forward through the passage of Prop 36. But I also have a couple questions centered around the jury pilot program. Can you speak to how and why that was selected?

Henry Ha, Department of Finance when determining. The General Fund solutions, the Administration looked. At one time appropriations with unencumbered funds. So the funding for this program is. Set to expire at the end of this fiscal year.

So rather than reappropriating the Fund, the May revision proposes to revert the funds back to General funds to provide some relief there.

And so in the future, will there be funds available for this type of program, Jury Pilot Program ?

the mayor vision currently. Does not have any plans in the out years to restore the jury duty pilot program.

And I should note that we also have statutory changes to eliminate the jury duty pilot program.

If I may, Mr. Chair, just to give you a little bit of background for the moment, we've paused the program, but we do have six months of data that we've collected that we will look at and at least for that period give some results.

Though while not the full scope of the program, it will give some information and indication of the effectiveness for the six month period.

And I'm not sure and we could look into it if there was a reporting mechanism in that Bill reporting back to the findings. So you have six months data that you're going to report back to the Legislature on your findings.

Okay, we'll commit that to you.

Thank you. And last question, Judicial branch. Do you see any negative operational impacts from what's being proposed?

I mean, the chief has said that we need to be part of the solution and obviously there are challenging decisions that need to be made to balance the budget. We are appreciative of the 40 million that the Department of Finance mentioned and. And we are generally supportive of the budget as proposed.

Thank you so much for that. Now we'll move on to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Thank you so much.

So, we have the Department and then, Department of Finance, LAO, but however it works for you to present.

I'll start.

State your name.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Cynthia Mendonza and I'm the Deputy Director of Office of Fiscal Services. I'll provide a general overview of the May Revision and first, we start with our proposals.

So, CDCR proposed really only the highest priority request that we had at this point to address critical services, facility needs, and areas where we can no longer absorb the costs.

Items included in May Revision budget are $112.8 million roof funding reappropriation from the 2023 and 2024 Budget Acts to address reprioritized roof projects across the state which—and kitchens which were damaged by inclement weather and roof leaks.

We've also requested $22.1 million in '25-'26, $44.2 million in '26-'27, and funding through '27-'28 for the design and construction of critical fire alarm replacements at the substance abuse treatment facility in Solano State Prison, as well as $15.2 million in '25-'26 to support costs associated with a firewatch.

And we've also requested $21.5 million in '25-'26, $11 million ongoing and increased reimbursement authority and ongoing resources—essentially, resources and reimbursement authority to support full implementation of the California Advancing and Innovative—Innovating—Medi-Cal Justice Involved Initiative, which is CalAIM, and account for federal reimbursement. There are other proposals but those are the major ones there.

And then, due to the lower projected prison population and CDCRs need to reduce its budget, CDCR announced the closing of an additional prison by October 2026. At this point, no prison has been selected. CDCR is working towards the decision along those lines.

All efforts will be made to mitigate any impact on affected staff as well as the incarcerated population.

CDCR put forward trailer bill language, in addition to the resource requests, primarily along the following three areas, with work privileges for incarcerated college students, which increases the ability for full-time incarcerated college students to also have the opportunity to hold a job or participate in additional rehabilitative programming.

The second is the mental health hiring trailer bill language which is licensure of mental health professionals.

It broadens the pre-licensure waiver option to include all mental health professionals employed by CDCR, and then, trailer bill language that limits tuberculosis testing requirements to only those individuals who work inside prisons and then, allows those employees who are new to complete their testing within one week of their employment. Those will improve operational efficiencies within CDCR.

CDCR also put forward solutions with Governor's Budget modifications. There are four other—four Governor, Governor's Budget proposals—that were targeted for reductions to aid in reducing the draw on the state General Fund. Two proposals will be revisited in future budget cycles.

So, public safety radios—the radio replacement, we've—this is critical and important, but we are going to continue to monitor the equipment that we have and come forward at a future cycle, as well as the Americans with Disability Act facility improvements, to allow more time to go back and prepare some comprehensive facility-wide solutions.

Two other proposals were reduced in scope and those are the Air-Cooling Pilot Program, which is the pilot program to test alternative processes to cool facilities, as well as the COVID-19 mitigation efforts which reduces funding for staff and population COVID testing and discontinues wastewater monitoring.

Lastly, the Department plans to align with external consulting group to assist the Department in monitor—performing—analyses of various business processes and methods with the aim of modernization, improvement, and increasing efficiencies. The specifics are yet to be determined, but there is an added one-time $125 million placeholder to, as, as part of the '25-'26 budget.

With that, we're available for questions.

Thank you. Department of Finance.

Hi, Kimberly Harbison, Department of Finance. I'll offer a little bit more about the consulting group study and the savings that we've built into the budget.

So, the Department of Finance contracted with the Boston Consulting Group for a three-month contract to look at some of our larger General Fund departments, because we've done the efficiencies drill and some of those folks had trouble achieving the target.

So, we've asked this group to help us scope additional areas where we think we can find savings. CDCR is one of those departments, and we did build into the budget $125 million for the budget year, in anticipated savings, growing to over $600 million in budget year plus 3, so, that's '28-'29.

Some of the areas that we would like them to help us look at are headquarters efficiencies, contract management, overtime, and healthcare delivery service.

There is a $20 million request in the Department of Finance's budget to do an additional contract, that was heard in a different Subcommitee this morning, but that would be to partner with another contractor to help the departments do it, not just to do a study but to actually help them implement these changes and process improvements to meet the savings goals.

Thank you. LAO.

Caitlin O'Neil with the Legislative Analyst's Office. I'm going to present a few—our comments on a few issues. First three issues related to San Quentin Saint Prison and then provide some issues for legislative consideration on two of the withdrawal proposals—that withdrawal of January proposals.

And then, I'll pass it off to my colleague who will discuss a few other proposals, as well as give our Office's comments on the $125 million unallocated reduction.

So, first, as you'll recall, in January, the Administration proposed funding to staff the new educational and vocational center that's under construction at San Quentin, as well as to make various other programmatic enhancements at the prison, such as adding a bachelor's degree program.

At the time, we recommended providing funding for to staff the new building and then only providing the remainder of funding if the Administration was able to come forward with a plan, with a clear plan, for the for the prison and the that one that justifies, in the Legislature's view, the additional enhancements it was proposing.

At this time, it hasn't come forward with a plan and in light of the budget condition, the proposal comes at the request—at the expense—of other previously identified priorities. So, we do now recommend rejecting the full proposal.

The second issue related to San Quentin is that, with the May Revision, the Administration is requesting $1.6 million General Fund, one time, in the budget year, to finish renovating San Quentin's East Block, which is the facility that previously housed the condemned population and is being converted to house a general—general population in a kind of honor dorm environment.

The Administration has already spent about $800,000 of its existing deferred maintenance and special repair budget and is now requesting for the additional funding to continue renovating the facility.

And it's our understanding that with the money that's been put in, it is largely in a habitable condition and that the additional funds would primarily be used to make it into a honor dorm, which means adding thing—more enhanced features like microwaves, sinks, and as well as making some renovations to the exterior space.

And while we found that while these enhancements are not inherently problematic, the lack of a clear plan for the prison makes it difficult to evaluate whether they're best suited for that facility, or perhaps for another prison, or perhaps other facility issues are more high priority.

Moreover, given the state's budget condition, the, the resources would of course come at the expense of other previously identified priorities, so we do recommend rejecting this proposal.

And then, the third issue related to San Quentin is that the budget provides custody staffing to operate a facility known as Carson Unit at San Quentin, as a place where people are housed. However, because of ongoing construction at the prison, which has displaced some rehabilitation programs, that unit is now being used for rehab programs to operate in, instead of as a housing facility.

So, that means that it's—the budget includes resources to operate at 24/7 as a housing facility, which is probably more security than a facility that's only being operated for rehab programs' needs.

So, we think that the program—the budget—could reflect in excess of up to $1.6 million in custody staffing, and we recommend the Legislature direct the Administration to reduce funds associated with any such excess funding.

And then, in terms of the two proposals that are now—the Administration is now requesting to withdraw, which are $23 million in one-time funds to make ADA improvements at various prisons, as well as about $20 million in ongoing to fund a radio replacement cycle.

We do have some issues for your legis—consideration—not hard recommendations, but we just did want to point out that because these are both, these are—this is spending that the state is going to have to do. The ADA improvements are necessary to comply with an ongoing class action lawsuit.

The radio—in January, the Department reported that its—much of its—radio equipment has exceeded its useful life cycle. It's no longer supported by the manufacturer and replacement parts are no longer available and at the time, stated that it believes that the reduction in the number of usable radios has become a serious safety risk.

So, withdrawing these proposals is simply really more of a delay. The state's gonna have to confront that cost in the future. So, moreover, they—the withdrawals could allow increased legal risk to persist or increase actual safety risk to persist or worsen, as it relates to the radios in particular.

So, to better understand this risk, we recommend the Legislature—we suggest, we know the Legislature may want to ask the Department to provide more implications on, on the—more information on the implications of these delays.

And to the extent the Legislature is concerned with that approach, it could, you know, look for other—we would be happy to assist the Legislature in looking for other solutions, in order to restore some or all of that funding if it would like to. And now, I will pass it to my colleague, Mr. Zavala.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Orlando Sanchez with the LAO. I'll be going through three more proposals and then, I'll keep my comments to the unallocated solutions towards the end of that. As part of the Governor's May Revision, it proposes changes to contract medical services.

So, when a prison can provide services, they'll send someone out to local hospital or for emergency, various other cases. And the May Revision includes $36.6 million in '24-'25 and $33.6 million in the budget year.

This would increase the total funding for contract medical services to about $396 million in the current year and $390 million on an ongoing basis. However, CDCR projects to spend above that, at $440 million in the current year, on these services, but even what they're budgeted, that leaves about $45 million unaddressed.

But we recommend approving this on a one-time basis. We also recommend directing the Department to report how it's going to address this unmet need and provide the Legislature, by next year, January 10th, a budgeting methodology that better captures how they're funded for these services.

The next proposal I'll be covering is on is this $2.8 million in '25-'26 and an ongoing basis to increase healthcare staffing at the women's prisons. The Administration did not provide sufficient justification or showed a need for these positions. Accordingly, we recommend the Legislature reject this proposal.

There's two data points that seem relevant in this and the first is that both of the women's prisons are overseen by a federal court case in a receiver, and both prisons have been delegated back to the state, meaning the state provides those services.

And then, the second point that's important is that the Inspector General provides cycles of the prisons and does medical inspections and the most recent cycles show that adequate care being provided at these two prisons, suggesting that current staffing packages don't show a need for these positions.

And then, the third proposal is $2.6 million annually, for three years, to increase costs for family liaison services contracted and gender-responsive trauma-informed contract services. This would bring total funding for the family liaisons to about $2.4 million and for the gender-informed response—and gender-responsive trauma-informed contracts to $403,000. The latter is currently not funded.

Given the budget condition, we recommend rejecting these increases. They do not—these increases do not appear to meet our Office's high bar for proposed new spending, in light of the existing budget condition. For example, there's insufficient information to assess whether these services are cost-effective in reaching their intended goals.

And then, finally, as mentioned, the Administration has a proposal to appropriate $20 million General Fund to authorize the Department of Finance to contract to create savings. So, one of those identified departments includes CDCR, as we heard.

And looking for efficiencies in government is good practice and something that government should be regularly doing, as the recent experience with this efficiency exercise from the last budget cycle showed that it can be difficult without making such reductions without affecting service levels.

But while the Administration has provided a high-level of what ideas they're considering, or the contractor is considering, the proposal still has little detail as to how this will be implemented or what will be resulting from the contract.

Also, it doesn't envision reporting back to the Legislature on the work of the contractor and we find that this lacks transparency.

Given this lack of detail surrounding the proposal, we recommend the Legislature ask questions to CDCR, that's affected by this larger statewide proposal, and some of those questions that we've shared with legislative staff, but I'll share a few others here. So, if the assumed savings are not achieved, would the state and CDCR need to identify additional savings?

How would the Legislature be notified of any programmatic changes at the prisons? And then, why is the contractor better suited to handle this work and identify the savings than existing state entities or the State Auditor, for example? Our office has recommended reporting requirements as the Legislature considers this proposal.

Then, finally, our Office is happy to provide it—work with your staff in the coming days and weeks to identify further solutions, as it tries to address these problems. Thank you and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. We're going to Finance. Any comments after that?

Thank you. Lenny Shimoto, Department of Finance. The Administration continues to support the budget proposed through the May Revision, which is a combination of savings and new proposals. However, in particular, my colleague and I would like to speak to a couple of the recommendations. So, the Administration maintains its support of the San Quentin Rehabilitation Center Proposal.

Construction is still on track to be completed by January of 2026, and these resources will provide the staffing necessary to begin using the new learning center and the rehabilitative programming, which can be offered in this space. The Proposal includes resources necessary to help make this project a success and improve the rehabilitative opportunities at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center.

Thank you.

Alyssa Cervantes, Department of Finance. I'm going to be making comments on contract medical and adjustment to the female prison staffing. So, on contract medical, while the proposed methodology does appear to underfund the Department in current year, population adjustments only show what the estimated impact for current year would be. It doesn't actually augment the Department's budget.

And so, the Administration's focus with this premise was to establish a sustainable, long-term methodology that would capture both increases and decreases to the cost of this care.

In terms of staffing at the female prisons, in the Delegation Memo, the receiver did direct the Department to undertake a reassessment of the nursing and primary care provider staff at female institutions and even stated that it appeared CCWF, in particular, may need additional clinical staff, given the size and nature of its population. So, in completing this assessment, that's what this proposal is.

Primary care providers at CCWF see approximately double the statewide average patients per workday and nursing staff sees about triple the average patients per workday. So, this Proposal is right sizing those two areas to correct for that deficiency. Happy to answer any questions from the Committee.

Thank you. CDCR, any comments?

With regard to San Quentin Rehabilitation Center, we request to maintain the resources for this. The Proposal will provide specific, targeted programming in a more normalized environment and serve to inform future programming decisions. The California model is really about the culture change and with that type of change, we can't stop and start these efforts.

We, we need that momentum to keep going and this will serve as a beacon for how we implement the rest of the California model. And ultimately, the goal is to improve public safety by increasing education and rehabilitative program.

And we're working to lower those recidivism rates and improve the lives of those in our communities and those who return to our communities. And then, with regard to the radios, we also see that as a priority, but due to the state of the Budget, this proposal was taken back.

We are looking at our inventory and should there be some equipment failure, we will, point in time, provide those purchases and our information systems will work with the institutions, to ensure that there are still functioning systems over the next year.

Thank you so much. Bringing it back to the dais. Any questions? Comments? Vice Chair Lackey?

Yeah, let me just make a disclaimer, first of all, that I get no satisfaction in being the critical voice. But we've heard a lot of detail already, so I'm not going to really dive into the details, but difficult budget times require trust. And I feel like the Administration has not done a good job in building trust.

Let me give you a couple examples just real quickly. This Administration has told us that the inmate population is going to continue to decline by 1.6% by June 2029. However, last year's prediction of what the population would be is off by 2,000 inmates already. It's 2,000 inmates higher right now from last May.

It's hard to trust that. The Governor is also proposing to close another prison by 2026. This will be prison number four since he's taken office. He told us that there would be cost savings in that. Can you guess? There's been none. In fact, the budget has increased a billion dollars. So, it's hard to trust.

And I just needed to say, please give us good information, man. We deserve that and everybody deserves that. And I don't think you're trying to mislead us, but we need some reliability. We need reliability so that we can trust and we can work more effectively together and it feels like that's not happening.

And I don't know who to blame or what finger to point, but to tell you that we got to do better. And that's all I got.

Thank you for your comments. Assemblymember Macedo.

Yeah, I just have a couple of questions. Is there any idea which prison we're looking at closing?

No decision has been made yet.

How—do you know how that decision would be made? Like what's going to be the factors that are taken in of that's the one that we're looking at as a top priority or a top contender to close?

It's Penal Code 2067 and it's—there's statutorily listed out criteria by which the—that's considered—as well as balancing the population, looking at security factors, looking at the current makeup of the incarcerated population, what the trends are looking like, and what they're going to be, how to effectively get medical care.

So, a lot of factors are taken into account, as well as the state of the facilities, but a lot of that is statutorily-determined criteria.

Okay, when will that decision be made? Is there a final deadline?

The prison is scheduled to be closed by October 2026. And so, it puts a very tight timeline for the Department to work with the chosen prison. While one's not chosen yet, it is—it will have to be pretty soon.

Do you know roughly, based on past closures, what the cost of a closure looks like?

This—just for clarification, the savings from the closure or?

No, I mean the cost of actually moving things out of the prison, moving prisoners around, restaffing things, anything like that, unemployment, potentially. If that's a thing.

That's a really great question. I'd probably have to get that and get back to you on that one.

Okay. Additionally, I heard that you guys brought in an outside consultant, and I know that that happens a lot, but I have major concerns that it seems like when we're trying to maximize our resources, that—there's lots of smart people, I'm sure, that work in your Department—that hiring outside people to make these decisions doesn't—I understand we're still saving money because we spent this amount of money to save this amount of money.

But when it sounds like we're really watching pennies, is that something that you hold as still necessary, given the staffing that you have?

Kimberly Harbison from the Department of Finance. We do think it's a worthwhile investment, we—it's a $20 million commitment to save over a billion dollars in the out years. When you look at—it's not just CDCR, but we're looking at a couple of other large General Fund departments as well.

These departments are very good at doing their jobs, but we would like help from a consultant who's good at these kind of—like looking at operational procedures and things that are, they've found success in other states. And so, we would like to bring that expertise here and provide assistance and support to the Department to achieve these goals.

So, based on your assessment, there is not somebody qualified within the Department of Finance to make these kinds of savings?

It's different than what our role normally is, yes.

And this particular consulting firm, where are they based out of?

I would have to look, but it's a large—we contracted with Boston Consulting Group, which is a nationwide group, for the initial contract, and then, there would be a separate contract to follow afterward.

Okay. Additionally, I was reading in here that we did cut the COVID-19 mitigation costs, but I'm confused why that funding would not just be rolled in with like general healthcare costs and those kinds of budgets. Why are we specifically singling out COVID-19 mitigation?

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Duane Reeder, California Correctional Health Care Services, Deputy Director of the Fiscal Office. So, the COVID funding is in its own program. It's not part of our General Fund. And so, it's its own isolated budget, essentially.

Is that statutorily required of you or that's self-inflicted?

That we're reducing costs?

No, no, no, no. That that program is separate from your general health care budget.

That's how the Administration budgeted it all through COVID. So, there was one COVID Fund that the departments pulled off of, and then when we got FEMA reimbursement, we put it back into that General Fund. So, there was a fund set up for all departments to draw off of.

And do we know how many COVID-19 cases we've been addressing in prison populations?

It's been rather minimal for the last six months or so, and that's why we're coming back and drawing down those testing. We also had a testing contract for the employees that was being underutilized. So, now, we're going to provide swab kits to the employees as well. And that contract is about $3 million.

So, we'll be able to reduce that cost basically and administer swab kits within the facilities.

Interesting. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator Macedo. Senator Schultz.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Building off of Assemblymember Macedo's comments, of the $20 million that's being used to contract out, how much of that is attributable to CDCR specifically, as opposed to a couple other departments that are also looking at those consulting services?

I don't have that information, but I can follow up with you. But I know that it's a one-time, one-year contract.

Okay. And then, I know you mentioned—I didn't catch the name—who did the initial consultation?

The initial consultation was Boston Consulting Group.

Boston Consulting Group?

It's their name there. I don't believe they're headquartered in Boston.

Okay, all right, all good. And then presumably, you're going through a process to identify a consultant for the next round of the review?

Correct.

Okay. And what does that timeline look like? When are you going to have someone on board?

I—it would follow the budget timeline, so it would start, I believe, the process in July, but I can confirm. I'm not involved in the contracting part of this.

Got it. Okay, thank you. And I think they actually might be headquartered in Boston, just off of a quick review here, but either way, it doesn't matter.

I know they have offices in San Francisco, Sacramento. I think it's a national with satellites.

I'm sure they're everywhere but New York. I get it. So, just two quick comments, Mr. Chair. Not really a question, but I would say, on the anticipated prison closure, really appreciated line of questioning from my colleague here. Look, I think the Legislature got it right last year when they sent 2178 to the Governor.

It's unfortunate that we're all back here under these really dire economic circumstances, but I think that this is a change that we have to make. So, look forward to seeing that process play out and the public decision making around which institution will be scheduled for closure.

The only thing I really have, and I mean, I will give you a chance to respond. I don't expect you to have an answer. It's more of just an observation. I appreciate that CDCR has this placeholder amount of $125 million.

And I have, as the Vice Chair was mentioning, I do not question the intent of the Department to meet that goal. I know I'm new here, but just a few weeks ago, we were talking about the fact that prior targets had not been met.

And I would argue that a substantial portion of the budget savings from the public safety component of the budget relies on these operational improvements growing over time from an initial $125 million savings in cost, to over half a billion dollars.

And I guess what I'm struggling with is, if we couldn't meet the prior targets, how is the Department actually going to realize $635 million in operational savings by the '28-'29 year?

I don't mean that as a criticism of the Department, but it's a real concern that I have because if you come back by that time and you've only realized half of those cost savings and we might need to look tougher at this year where we're going to save cost.

Because right now I don't have a high degree of confidence that this is a realistic goal.

But with all that said, if you or Department of Finance have any reaction, comment to that—it's a dialogue, I hope between now and when we do approve some sort of budget to go to the Governor, I hope I feel more confident.

So, if you can give me a little something today and just come back with more detail, that would be very much appreciated.

So, I think what we're looking at and we're asking for a consultant to help because they're good at this kind of thing. And so, to look at, you know, is there a process that they don't need to do anymore? Is there a process that has 20 steps that maybe only needs 10?

And so, we need somebody to come in and help them look at that. The things that they would look at are, are there duplication of efforts between CCHCS and CDCR? Are there things that we can streamline?

Are there overtime hours that we can reduce based on how often we send folks out into the community for medical guarding and transportation? Are there contracts that can be consolidated? Should we manage inventory better? Things like operationally that we need somebody to help them take a deep dive and look at and then support them through the changes.

I really do appreciate that response. And look, I hope to be here still in '28-'29, so I'm going to hold you to it. And I hope that as you go through this process, you really do find these cost savings. And for what it's worth, I'll be tough on every Department. I'm not singling you guys out.

We all have to tighten our belt here. And so, we are going to have to look at those duplicative services and where we can save costs. And unfortunately, you know, CDCR is a nice sizable chunk of the budget. So, there's going to be some growing pains. But I'll be along for the ride with you.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you so much. Any follow up questions from the dais? I just have a few on the ADA component of it. Does that outweigh the liability that actually we're putting the CDCR in, by reducing that or eliminating it?

Not in the next year. I mean, CDCR is continuing to, to perform facility improvements as we go. We are also trying to step back and look at our facilities holistically to make sure that we're sort of approaching this from a full perspective, in terms of the overall needs. But the ADA improvements will continue.

It's just this one piece of it that we're just going to put a little bit of a delay on.

So, with the ADA that you're going to put a delay on, wouldn't jeopardize CDCR for their lawsuits or even complying with some of the different lawsuits that are out there?

We'll turn it over to Dave Lewis, who can speak to that component a little bit more.

So, the accessibility requirements are part of the Armstrong litigation. And largely, these are based on site walks and reviews that were done in 2012. And so, it's taken us quite a while to get to this. And so, obviously the courts will be somewhat—it'll be somewhat problematic in our relationship with the plaintiffs and the courts, regarding our responsiveness to this litigation.

But this is just a small component, and we still have ongoing accessibility projects that we're still working on over the course of the next year. They'll just decrease the amount.

And then, as stated, we are doing a full review of all of our facilities for all of the ongoing needs and this will be something that we'll consider as part of that, as part of the operational pieces that we look forward to as well, to make sure that it makes the most sense.

The existing plan that, again, was created in 2012, and so, that's, you know, 13 years ago. We need to, to kind of update and make sure that we've captured everything because the department's operations have also changed in that period.

Thank you for that. The concern is that if we're reducing or eliminating some components of that, that we're exposing CDCR to more liability that could then turn around and be a cost factor. But you're saying that the part that's being revised—are redone—is not the whole component of what the lawsuit was entailed?

That is correct. This was to complete Armstrong remediation, the accessibility remediation at six institutions. There still remains further needs beyond this, that we'll have to examine as well. And because this was the tail end of those, they're probably, probably a little bit lower priority than some other projects that we'll have to reconsider as we go forward.

So, any future requests will be probably prioritized differently to—so that we can ensure that we're meeting the court and the plaintiff's expectations, as far as the priorities for accessibility.

LAO, any comments?

No additional comments. Just sort of as you heard, there may be some increased legal risk. We're not privy to those types of conversations with the plaintiffs. So, that's kind of for you to consider.

And that is a concern. We'll continue to monitor that. I do have on your solutions page—I know that we're talking about some solutions, cost savings and different things, but does that also take into account the commitment we had in 2024 and the budget around that area?

So, yes, in terms of what we provided at Governor's Budget, we presented a certain, certain amount of savings that we were able to attain, and then, there are two separate areas of where else we're trying to reach savings.

So, it's, it's not the, I don't know, it's not the full 392 that was promised to also try to get to in the '24-'25 budget. We've provided where we met—like how far we got at Governor's Budget.

But we're also proposing, as we go forward, to—that there'll be savings with, through the work with the consultant, as well as through a prison closure.

So, are these solutions that are being presented now on top of what was committed in 2024 or are they all kind of like intertwined?

So, we at Governor's Budget did not meet the full 392. And that's, that's where we came forward and said here's what we did meet. This is sort of the new commitment, the 125 with the consultant and then moving up to 600 million in savings ongoing.

We are working with the consultant in terms of scoping out and the development as to really work towards attaining those true efficiencies. We want to see it too. We're committed to making those reductions.

Okay.

If I might add.

Any follow up, Department of Finance?

Kimberly Harbison, Department of Finance. We're looking at three different buckets. So, the, the '24 Budget Act commitment, they met as much as they could and that's sort of a point in time.

I believe all the Legislature received the Joint Legislative Budget Committee notification with the amount for each Department. So, that's, that's done—that part of it. We're asking for them for a new endeavor with the consultant. And then, separately, there's also the prison closure savings. So, we're looking at it as three separate things.

I don't have the notes in front of me, but can you get us the information or let us know how, how much did you meet within the '24 component? Go ahead.

Yeah. I'm sorry, I know it's in the agenda, but it was for '24-'25, 267.

And the total we were trying to reach was 392?

392, yeah.

And what did we reach?

Oh, in '25-'26, 178.2 million.

Growing to 186 million in the others.

Yeah. Point is, we're trying to get to a number, and we have here in 2025 Solutions, 303, roughly 303 million. And we go all the way to 2028-'29, 971. And so, knowing that in 2024 we had 392, but we got to 178, I think goes to some of the questions that were on the dais.

How real are these numbers? It certainly is, we're making headway, but we're putting a lot of dollars out there. And in the prior action, we did set an amount, but we didn't reach it. Now we're resetting, in Department of Finance's words, to get to this number that's in front of us.

So, that comes with some of the frustration of the Members of the Committee, trying to understand how true these numbers truly are. We do know that we're trying to move, and we are moving forward in some type of savings, but are we going to reach the threshold that's been presented to the Members and to the public?

I guess that's the question.

Understood. Understood. The 125 was set within the scope of the consultant who has more knowledge in terms of—and lived experience—for best practices in terms of modernizing systems.

While CDCR was able to reach a certain amount, within our own efforts, the goal is really to rely on these experts who can help us determine operational efficiencies based on experience that they've had and with previous experiences, as well as their knowledge of those best practices. So, we really are—I mean, it is in the budget, the reduction of 125 million. So, it's something that we are committed to meet.

And it's what we think is achievable.

Department of Finance.

Department of Finance. The new—the contract is what, or the contract will support the Department through this effort.

We've put in what we think is achievable and the contract would have benchmarks and steps along the way, so it's not just a shot in the dark. It's an educated look. They've been working with CDCR closely for three months, asking all kinds of questions, digging into their operations, so it was a thoughtful proposal.

LAO, any further comments? Well thank you and I know we identified some areas here and LAO did talk about some areas too. Is there workability to look at some of these issues LAO is bringing up?

Which, sorry, which in particular?

To the presentation that they had, they had some different areas on some of the solutions, the closings, and some of the different things. Is it still open to discuss some of those things?

For the contract or in general?

Contracts in general, topics that are here in the May Revise that was brought up, from LAO.

I mean, we're always open to conversation with the Legislature on the LAO's input.

Thank you, thank you for that. As now, we'll move on to the Department of Justice.

We'll start with the Department of Justice.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ashley Harp, Assistant Director of Fiscal Operations with the Department of Justice. Mark Jimenez with Department of Finance will be providing the May Revise overview for the Department of Justice.

That's me. Mark Jimenez, Department of Finance. I'll be providing the overview. So the budget includes 14.4 million, 13 of which is General Fund ongoing in 44 positions to defend California against adverse federal actions, including workload associated with defending environmental protections, negative impacts of tariffs, reproductive choice, and determination of federal grants.

This builds on the 5 million one-time we provided the Department of Justice in the current year, 3.2 million General Fund in 25-26, and 1.6 million in 26-27 for IT enhancements at DOJ to establish a new connection between DOJ's California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System and the Department of Motor Vehicles, 2.7 million General Fund in the budget year and 3.2 million in 26-27 to continue the department's transition from its legacy accounting system to FI$Cal, 2.4 million General Fund in the budget year, and 812,000 ongoing to implement chaptered legislation AB 1877.

This is consistent with the fiscal 1.2 million in Special Fund to address workload--program workload with the Registry of Charities and Fundraisers within DOJ's Public Rights Division, and to address projected budget shortfall, the May Revision includes a couple of General Fund solutions, including 150 million budgetary loan from the Unfair Competition Law Fund in the budget year, and we're also withdrawing proposals from the Governor's Budget associated with various chapters of legislation that the department intends to initially implement with existing resources. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. LAO.

Anita Lee with the LAO. We have comments on three of the May Revision proposals. So first is the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, better known as CLETS, and the connection to DMV. We do recommend approving the requested amount because CLETS is really important to continue functioning because it's a really important tool for law enforcement and criminal justice agencies.

However, we do recommend that you require DOJ, in consultation to DMV, report in January of 2026 if it looks like this new connection will not be developed, tested, ready for use by July of 2026, which is when the existing connection is expected to terminate.

And so that plan, which should include some sort of mitigation strategy or workaround, will really help ensure that there is minimal impact on law enforcement activities. This is also going to be particularly important if the Legislature, to meet that deadline, is going to be asked to approve additional funds or change statute in some way.

The second proposal where we have comments for you is related to the sealing of records, and this is to implement AB 1877. We don't have concerns with the requested amount, but one of the things that we did want to flag for you is that it's not going to fully implement the bill.

Chapter 811 also included certain reporting requirements only if funding was provided for in the budget. Those reporting requirements included things like identifying juvenile arrests eligible to be sealed under existing--under certain conditions and doing that evaluation on a monthly basis, providing that information to the relevant law enforcement agencies, and then posting and providing certain information by county on its website by July of 2028.

And so in our conversations with DOJ, they indicated that additional funding would be needed to implement that component. So we wanted to make sure to flag that so that the Legislature had clear expectations for what it was getting. Our final set of comments is related to the proposal on the federal accountability workload.

The--one of the things that we wanted to note for this committee is that the May Revision also provides 3 million from various special funds for kind of legal activity, but on the environmental side, so that's going to be heard in a separate committee but we wanted to make sure that you were aware of that. In terms of the DOJ proposal itself, the special session bill provided $25 million for state activities for legal or administrative actions to mitigate the impact of any federal actions that were taken.

Those funds are available for encumbrance through June 30 of 2026, and there were reporting requirements built in on a monthly and annual basis, including the posting of certain information online on a public-facing website. And so the--currently, of those 25 million that was set aside, there's still 19.5 million left.

So you can certainly tap into that to support this workload, but we would note that it's only enough to, you know, fully cover about a year so you'd probably get a request moving forward. If you decide to provide money through this BCP, you know, additional money, because of the state's fiscal condition, we do recommend that you kind of weigh the specific amount that you provide, but then the second piece of that recommendation is that you only provide limited-term funding, not exceeding four years, because workload is likely to change in the future and it would benefit the Legislature to have that opportunity to review that workload and decide what is appropriate.

And then finally, we would also recommend that the Legislature require reporting on any funding that's provided, at minimum using at least the same reporting requirements that were included in the special session bill, and so that would ensure that there's conformity and that you're getting knowledge in terms of how all of the money is being used. With that, happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Department of Finance. Any comments?

So with regards to the reporting language, we're happy to--we're happy to consider any reporting language and we can work with DOJ certainly to, you know, to make it feasible. With regards to the AB 1877, just wanted to highlight that the, that the parts of the bill that we're not funding are upon appropriation.

So in general, with the Governor's Budget, we're not funding any sections of enacted legislation that requires upon appropriation or that has language as it's upon appropriation, but we'll defer to the Legislature if they wish to to provide funding for implementation of those sections with that type of language.

And with regards to the federal accountability workload, we, with the--this proposal is not pulling from the $25 million pot. It's providing ongoing resources, which the current pot which is now down to 19.5 million would not be able to sustain on an ongoing basis. We think it's critical to provide DOJ with these resources on an ongoing basis.

It's unclear how long and to what extent, you know--DOJ will be continuing to defend against these lawsuits. It could certainly surpass the current administration. I think we've seen that with the first Trump Administration. Even to this day, there are some cases from then that have closed and resurfaced, so I think that's something to consider, and certainly--with that uncertainty, we support providing ongoing resources.

Thank you. Department of Justice. Any further comments?

Yes, we do have a subject matter expert, Danielle O'Bannon from our Public Rights Division here to--available to answer any further questions by the committee regarding the federal accountability proposal.

Thank you so much. Any questions from the dais? Vice Chair Lackey.

Yeah, I'm entertained by the phrase, 'federal accountability,' but nonetheless, let me move on. I do have a question. When--the Special Session, we approved 25 million, and now we're going back to the shallow well for another 14.4, and I just heard now--at least I think I heard from DOJ--that that's an ongoing?

That's correct.

Does that mean it's infinite?

It's ongoing, I mean, it could certainly--

To me that means the same thing.

Yeah, it certainly is ongoing, but you know, as we build future budgets, you know, anything goes. As we did with the previous DCALF funding, we actually reduced that funding from--I think it was, I think it was like six million down to 2.5 currently.

So while we are proposing $14.4 million ongoing, we do have--as we did with the previous funding--an opportunity to reduce it down in the future, should that need arise. But what we're saying here is, given the uncertainty, we think that the 14.4 million ongoing is necessary to defend California against federal action, adverse federal actions.

You can probably predict where my position is on that, but nonetheless, the 44 new positions you're also talking about, are those going to be temporary positions or are those going to be permanent positions because it seems like now, if you want ongoing funding, that's a permanent spot.

They would be permanent funding--there would be permanent positions consistent with the ongoing nature of the, of the requested funding.

That's all I got.

Thank you so much. Assembly Member Macado. Macedo.

You're gonna get it, I promise. Okay, so the 25 million, you said there's 19.5 million left. Where can we see the--when does that report come out of how that money is spent?

Well--

So, Anita Lee with the LAO. Sorry. Anita Lee with the LAO. So there's a piece that is--this is a little awkward. Sorry.

You're fine.

There's a piece that's posted online that was included in the Special Session.

Where online is that?

On DOJ's website, and they can follow up with you in terms of specifically where it is. It was to include certain key information, including--so, for example, posting of the filings. That's one component. The other is that in the language, there was a requirement that there is annual reporting on or before August 1 of every year until August 1 of 2028. So they'll be reporting--that's the date for the annual reporting.

Okay. So I know my colleague was questioning--I see 44 new positions. What do those positions entail exactly?

Broadly, it's a continuation of the 28 positions that DOJ has--are hiring with the 5 million that we've already provided DOJ. So part of that is continuing the staff that they've hired on and then we've added additional, but I'll defer to the Department of Justice to speak to the, the positions.

Before--really quick. So you said there was 22 positions and now 44 positions. That is a total of 66 new positions.

No, it's a total of 44 positions, but 28 of those of those 44 are currently hired or on track to being hired in the current year, and so it would be--it's 44 positions.

But what happens if this 14.4 million is not given to you guys with all those positions that you're on track to hire?

Well, DOJ was provided 5 million one-time in the current year with an available funding through 2026. So they would probably just continue to use the existing resources that they were provided in the current year, and that'll probably get them through part of the next fiscal year.

Twenty-two positions were going to cost $5 million?

Well--

Twenty-eight positions. It's approximately almost $5 million, including some funding for external consultants.

Okay, so I'm confused then. How do you go--28 is more than half of 44, but you're asking for almost three times the money now.

The 5 million was prorate--it's the--it's prorated. So the 5 million covered 28 positions for six months--five, six months. So it's not--it doesn't account for the full year.

Oh my goodness. That's not even a full year's worth of--wow. Okay. So of those 44 positions--and I'll defer to you--what kind of job titles are we looking at for those 44 positions?

So it varies, but it's primarily attorneys who will be conducting litigation work.

Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Macedo. Assembly Member Schultz.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So, just to make sure I'm understanding correctly, so we have 14.4 million in recurring--that's the request, right, to facilitate the hiring and the continuation of these 44 attorney positions.

If there's a change in administration or if the administration picks up a pocket constitution and there isn't such a need to continue taking them to court--which is ever the optimist and I have a whole stack of them in my office, Vice Chair, if you want one--they're great--but should that happen, would there be any potential for cost savings in other vacancies that the department might have? I mean, if down the road, the Legislature were to tighten the belt and say, you know, 14.4 million is a lot, is that something that could be on the table down the line?

Similar to the funding that we received for the first Trump Administration, which Mark mentioned was initially $6 million, is now down to two and a half. Any positions that were on board at that point in time, the department has absorbed into existing vacancies, so I think to answer your question, the department would follow similar suit to the extent this workload decreases in the future years.

Thank you. And then the last question I had was, if I heard the statistic correctly, and I think it was in response to Assembly Member Macedo's question, it sounds like about 6.5 million has been expended from the allocation from the Special Session. Is that right? Or 5.5, I should say.

I think--5.5. Correct.

So just on a very broad level, like whole numbers here, how many actions have been initiated to date against the federal government?

We've had--Danielle O'Bannon, PRD Chief--we filed over 25--we'll have 25 cases, complaints that have been filed against the federal government. We also have about 25 amicus briefs. So that was in the first five months. So we've been really running pretty consistently to respond to executive orders and policies that may go beyond the constitutional mandates and may be unlawful. So in the first five months, 25 cases, that's quite a bit. If we keep up this pace, it's going to be close to what we spent under the first Trump Administration, which is about 123 cases that was filed.

Wow. Does it appear like we're on a faster clip at this juncture?

We're definitely on a faster clip. Things have been moving in a different pace this go around. I think lessons were learned and we have a lot of funding type issues that have been filed and pushed forward, so we are moving in different directions and so it's definitely pretty quick and fast. Everyone's working really hard.

We are thankful that we got some positions to kind of get some folks in the door, but we filed numerous lawsuits day two when they came out and we've gotten a significant number of preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders that have been approved by the, by the court systems. We also had one case that went to the Supreme Court. So we're really working really hard and it's only been five months.

Well, appreciate the work of everyone at DOJ. I'm going to mail a pocket constitution to the president on my dime. Maybe that saves us some money. Keep up the good work.

Thank you.

Thank you. I do have a question on the early action that was done, the 25 million and now the new request. How do they differ from each other and how do you go after those funds?

So the 14.4 million ongoing is specifically for DOJ. The first pot of--the pot of funding that was approved in the Special Session was certainly for DOJ, but also for other state agencies and anything--that's something that I wanted to emphasize. That pot of funding still remains available to state agencies.

Sure, you know, state agencies are often in a position to provide litigation support to DOJ. So if a program were to, you know, if the Department of Justice is suing to ensure funding continues for a certain state program, that department must also provide the staff resources to support DOJ in getting the documentation, the evidence to support that lawsuit, and I think that pot of funding is critical to providing that budget, that budget flexibility, not just for DOJ, but for other state agencies that may not get resources to, you know, related to the federal accountability workload.

So the early action that we took with the 25 million, there's some of those dollars that are available to the Department of Justice?

All of it is available to DOJ and to all state agencies. So, for example, we provided GO-Biz $500,000 one-time to support a lawsuit with the federal government, and I'm sure there may be more departments similar to GO-Biz that may have that same budget need, and so that pot of funding is critical to provide them that budget flexibility.

So the 25 million early action is available to different departments within the state agencies?

The 14 million that's being requested ongoing is exclusively for the Department of Justice?

Correct.

Correct.

And that helps in securing attorneys litigation, that type of--can you speak a little bit to that component?

That's correct, and I'll hand it over to Danielle O'Bannon to speak specifically to how the department plans to utilize the resources.

A majority of the resources will be used to assist us in a lot of the litigation that's taking place with the federal government. We also have asked for funding for experts to assist us in the litigation that's taking place as well.

The majority of the request is for attorney positions, but we also have some supporting positions as well. We have a federal accountability lead that will help manage and sort the litigation for us. There's staffing that goes with that.

We are working with multi-states, and we just really need the additional staffing to be able to put us in all the different spaces at once. A lot of the lawsuits are taking place not just inside of California, but many our neighboring states, including D.C.--that's not neighboring--and we need the funding to travel to get to those locations as well, and so that's what the majority of the funding is for.

Just for example, we have a lot of litigation that were taking place, and a lot of the things that we're addressing really relates to ensuring that we keep grant funding and funding here for the State of California. I think we have about a third--34% of our budget is from federal funding for the State of California and it's important that we fight those interests.

We have, for example, five categories of cases. I have the OMB funding litigation, which is the Office of Management and Budget. We have a case against them. It's called State of New York versus Trump, and in that particular case alone, the federal government wanted to freeze $3 trillion in funding and 168 billion of that would affect the State of California.

So those are the types of cases we're bringing. We have the tariff litigation as well. That's the State of California versus Trump. Our market participants--we purchase goods and services at a tune of $5 billion, and those monies are at stake and so we are bringing action to ensure that California can be addressed and that we have public health grants, a ton of public health grants.

On March 24, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services abruptly--without any advance whatsoever notice--issued termination notices to state agencies and local public health agencies across the country. This amounted to about $11 billion in critical public health funding, and that includes approximately $972 million to the State of California. We have a lot of education stabilizing funding as well.

There's a case called State of New York vs. U.S. Department of Education. In that case, we're trying to preserve the state's access to hundreds of millions of dollars in funding currently being used by school districts to support the academic recovery of students following the Covid-19.

For California, that would affect approximately $200 million in previously awarded obligated funds which would be at stake, and this is for programming such as after-school summer learning initiatives, the purchase of educational technology, and the provision of mental health services and support.

We also have like the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure funding in the Washington versus U.S. Department of Transportation matter, and that affects approximately $300 million for the State of California and it's a $5 billion program nationwide. That's just a few of the, of the things that we're working on to protect California's assets, and so we're hoping that the $14 million ongoing until the need no longer arises would be appropriate in this instance.

Well, thank you. Thank you for that. Any final comments, LAO?

I think the only thing that we might add is when you're considering how long to provide funding, providing limited-term funding is kind of a important toolkit, you know, in your, in your toolkit in terms of when you're providing funding as well as accountability.

Just because you provide the funding on a limited-term basis doesn't mean that you're not going to provide funding moving forward. It just provides you with a clear opportunity to have that discussion about what the workload looks like, how much funding is or isn't justified, where your priorities are at that time.

So I think that's just the only thing that I would add to that conversation because the Legislature routinely does provide funding on a limited-term basis. It's not necessarily unusual. So I think that's the only thing that we would add.

Which we had in the early action component.

Yeah, the early action was one-time. You know, it's--

But we have reporting mechanisms in that?

There were reporting mechanisms that were built into that. You don't necessarily have to stick with that exact same one, so if you provide funding, you know, on a more than one-year basis, you can do additional requirements if you think that's necessary.

I think from our comments, we would just say like, at minimum, you should have the same ones so that when you are getting these reports in terms of how the money is used, you're not kind of splitting the basket between like 5 million, you know, from the, from the Special Session and then if you're providing it separately, you know, what's happening with these dollars. It would make sense to basically hold all of the money, whatever money you provide, to the same reporting standards. Hopefully that makes sense.

It does, and hopefully we could have further dialogue on that component of it.

Ashley Harp, Department of Justice. Just wanted to add that especially with the attorney classification already, given the current salaries that the state pays for state attorneys, it is already extremely challenging to recruit and retain attorney positions, and to the extent funding is limited-term in nature, it really does limit our ability to effectively recruit positions.

Highly experienced attorneys may be hesitant to apply for and take a limited-term position with the State of California, especially when they're taking, in most cases, a pay cut in order to come work for us, so we just wanted to highlight that making limited-term funding does impact our ability to recruit and retain these positions.

Thank you so much for that clarity there. Thank you so much. Now we're going to move to our--we already had questions. Did you have another one?

What is the average salary for one of the attorneys?

I would have to double check and circle back to you on that. It does vary. We have various levels of attorney classifications ranging from the entry level attorneys up to our Deputy Attorney General V, and there's quite a range in between those, but we do know that it's significantly lower than attorneys get paid in the private sector.

Okay. Just rough math when I did it, 14.5--14.4 million divided by 44 positions, that's $327,272 per position. That--I understand that there's going to be other costs. I'm just curious what our salary would look like for these positions, so I look forward to talking with you.

I can certainly circle back to you with that, but also want to highlight that that amount that you just quoted would include standard complement that goes with position, so operating expenses would be included, like computer chairs, laptops, and things like that are included in the figure that you mentioned.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And also, positions are posted for the public to see. Yeah. Thank you. As now, we will move on to our last section--or second to last--on local public safety.

Thank you so much. And we'll start with BSCC.

Good evening Chair Ramos and Members of the Subcommitee, Anthony Franzoia with the Department of Finance. I'll give a quick overview and then I'll turn it over to my colleague from BSCC.

In case anyone is referencing BSCC's finance letter, I just want to say that there's also in addition to the Trailer Bill language issue in the agenda, there's also a technical reappropriation for some admin resources for the Adult Reentry Grant, just extending BSCC's availability to spend those funds.

There's also a cross listed TBL issue for some Prop 64 grants. That issue was heard I believe in Senate sub four this morning. It's led by the Department of Cannabis Control. But since BSCC administers the grant, it's in their finance letter.

And the last issue on the agenda is the suitability of juvenile confinement TBL and as I mentioned, Aaron Maguire, the Executive Director of the BSCC is the real subject matter expert there. So I'll turn it over to him for an overview of that issue.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm happy to present on this item regarding the suitability of juvenile facilities Trailer Bill. As you're aware, the Board of State and Community Corrections sets the minimum standards for local adult and juvenile detention facilities.

And as part of that process and over the last several years the board has been engaged in ongoing inspections and reinspections, in particularly of facilities that are in Los Angeles County. This has resulted in a finding of unsuitability of 2 of Los Angeles juvenile halls. This was the Central Juvenile Hall and the Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall.

At several points within our inspection cycles and those facilities are found unsuitable in May of 2023. As such, those facilities were closed and the predisposition juvenile hall youth were moved to a new facility which was known as Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall where issues of non compliance have continued since the facility opened.

And that's about from two years ago. In October of 2024 that facility was deemed unsuitable which triggered a 60 day notice for the county to vacate Los Padrinos. However, the county made it clear that it would continue to operate Los Padrinos as a juvenile hall in violation of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

And most recently at an April board meeting, the board resolved an administrative appeal regarding Los Angeles County and reaffirmed that that facility remains unsuitable. The County of Los Angeles then recently filed a lawsuit against the board involving this case.

What we're asking through this Trailer Bill is that this measure would authorize the Board of State and Community Corrections to file a suit against a county when a facility is deemed unsuitable.

This language would specifically address a 2000 Attorney General opinion that held that the predecessor agency, the Board of Corrections, lacked the legal authority to enforce its orders.

And so what we are specifically seeking for through this trailer by language is to authorize the Board to be able to enter legal action in order to uphold its findings when a facility is found to be unsuitable.

This language would also make a couple technical changes specifying that the Board can conduct an inspection more than once every other year and explicitly authorize the Board to delegate the approval of our corrective action plan process to board staff.

We believe that it's important to give the Board additional authority at this time to be able to enforce the Board's minimum standards. And thank you for the opportunity to present on this item and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Department of Finance.

Anthony Franzoia, Department of Finance. No additional question or comments at this time, but happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. LAO.

Caitlin O' Neil with the LAO. We don't have any comments on this proposal, but are also available for questions.

Thank you. Dais, Assembly Members, Vice Chair Lackey, not this one. Well, thank you. And just to put in perspective, when we found in 2023 violations and then it was moved to Los Padrinos. Can you clarify that?

Sure. So the in 2023, the county was operating two juvenile halls in the county. One was at a facility known as Barry J. Nidorf. Another one was at Central Juvenile Hall.

Based on their ongoing issues of non compliance and unable to remedy those issues, the board conducted what is called the determination of suitability and found that those facilities were not suitable to house those young people.

And so by virtue of that, the youth, those portions of the facilities were closed and the youth were moved to what was then an empty facility, which is Los Padrinos and that's where the juvenile hall population currently resides in Los Angeles County.

Were violations continued?

Yes, sir. So the. Since the facility reopened, we have been out there reinspecting the county has continuously fall into a state of non compliance with the board's minimum standards. And the facility remains unsuitable to house youth. Most recently, the juvenile court down in LA has ordered further depopulation of Los Padrinos.

But we're seeking this independent authority to enforce the board's unsuitability findings as well.

Thank you. The Trailer Bill would give you that jurisdictional to file a lawsuit?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Any further questions? For the panel. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

As now we'll move to the component of various other departments. If there's any Member questions on the dais for any of the departments. Hearing none, we'll move to public comment. Please state your name and be brief.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SEIU California commenting on the trial court budget. We reject the reduction to pretrial services, but we hope the Legislature accepts the $42 million restoration and $40 million ongoing for the trial courts. We also hope the Legislature maintains the $30 million for court reporter recruitment and retention.

And lastly, I'll align myself with AFSCME for comments on CDCR. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hi, good evening, Mr. Chair, Members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. We'd like to align our comments on trial courts along with SEIU. Also want to express our appreciation for the Administration and funding for any sort of facility improvements and maintenance to infrastructure facilities at CDCR which are sorely needed due to aging infrastructure.

We do have concerns over the proposed Trailer Bill to broaden the pre licensure employment waiver option. We've come before this Committee countless times to talk about the rampant abuse of contracting out of mental health services, medical services, and this actually would be a wonderful way to find efficiencies within the agency.

They should include considerations on how to reduce its reliance on contracting services. And we look forward to working with the Committee on finding appropriate language related to the pre licensure employment waiver option. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening. Josh Gagger on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California, providing brief comments on a few items relative to the $20 million reduction to pretrial services. We do not anticipate unspent funds going forward.

And quite the opposite, we've cited the need for additional pretrial funding and improvements to the process for allocating these funds. The governor's proposal will have real public safety and workforce impacts. This is the funding stream to provide pretrial services for individuals who cannot afford monetary bail.

And probation departments in some cases are relying on this funding stream for early Proposition 36 workload. On a related note, CPOC has identified a $47 million need to successfully implement Proposition 36.

This request was obviously built on the assumption that existing pretrial funding would not be cut as local governments look to implement Proposition 36 relative to the SB678 grant program. CPOC continues to be supportive of the Governor's proposal to modify the grant program going forward and maintain the proposal in the May revision.

Lastly, on the proposed Trailer Bill Language for suitability of juvenile facilities. While the intent to give BSCC tools for enforcement is a laudable goal, we request this new authority continues to promote collaborative state local relationship and we urge more dialogue to occur to avoid duplication or consolidation of duties. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Elizabeth Espinosa here this evening on behalf of the Urban Counties of California as well as the Rural County Representatives of California. Commenting briefly on four items that are before the Subcommitee. We do support the changes to modernize and stabilize into the future the SB678 funding methodology.

We share the views of my colleague who spoke just before me that oppose the pre trial funding reduction, particularly at a time, as the Subcommitee has noted, when county and court workload is increasing associated with the implementation of Prop 36.

We also share our support for additional funding to the probation chiefs for a targeted investment for court connected Prop 36 workload as a key element for successful implementation statewide. Just two more quick points.

We urge the Legislature to ensure that the language conferring new BSCC authority over enforcing suitability compliance is carefully crafted and appropriately balanced to avoid unintended consequences.

Finally, we strongly encourage the Administration and Legislature to approach the new prison closure deliberations with maximum communication and transparency for the affected communities and county governments and as early as possible in the process. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening. Kim Lewis representing the California Coalition for Youth and we are disappointed that the May revise failed to include resources for the Victim of Crime act funding as well as the California Youth Crisis Line and then for expanding emergency services for children and youth on their own on the streets.

The Victim of Crime act funded projects really need to be held harmless because they support a variety of projects supporting children and youth experiencing homelessness. Studies report that anywhere from 20% to 40% of our young people experiencing homelessness are victims of human trafficking, with the first 48 hours being the most riskiest time for them.

At last look, There was only 2/3 of California counties that had services of any kind for our young people and we really need to provide safe spaces to disrupt these pathways so that they can grow up and thrive.

OES has been one of those few state agencies that actually provides some ongoing dollars for this population even though it's only $2 million. But it directly benefits our young people experiencing homelessness and hope you consider funding these programs. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you Chair, Committee and Staff. Ryan Moore Mooney with the California State Association of Counties. As it relates to item number one and as was previously mentioned, we respectfully request supplemental funding for the VOCA grants to maintain essential programs and services for victims of crime.

Under item two, we're in, we're in respectful opposition to SB129, reductions that promote safe and timely pretrial releases through services and programs primarily delivered by probation. And then in regards to item number six, the announcement of prison closures, counties always appreciate early engagement to help local planning and to mitigate local economics impacts.

And then as it relates to item number nine, counties have the TBL language from BSCC with Civil Action Authority. Ultimately, we ask that there is county engagement given the shared goal of providing suitable settings for juvenile rehabilitation.

And then lastly, we would like to respectfully urge consideration of funding for implementation of Prop 36 in those county departments such as Behavioral Health, Probation also, as well as our public defender offices. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening. My name is Paloma Bustos and I'm a policy associate with the Sunita Jain Anti-Trafficking Initiative at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. And I'm here to talk in regards to the Crime Victim Services. Before my current role, I spent 15 years working with people who live through violence, exploitation and trauma.

I help survivors navigate the complex systems they are often forced into while trying to rebuild their lives. That experience taught me that safety doesn't start in the courtroom or jail cell. It starts with meeting people. It starts with meeting people's basic needs. True public safety includes health care, housing, education and prevention, not just policing.

Yet a significant share of the state budget continues to invest heavily in systems that arrest and keep people incarcerated, while the very programs that meet these essential needs and prevent further harm remain underfunded. When people, especially from historically marginalized communities, don't have access to basic needs, they're more likely to experience exploitation and violence. This includes human trafficking.

Survivors can become stuck in a cycle where they are not only harmed by traffickers, but also criminalized by the very systems that should protect them. Victim services are what help survivors break free from those cycles, offering trauma informed care, legal support, and housing that punitive systems will never will.

I urge you to allocate $260 million to victim services to ensure survivors are not left without the support they need to heal and lead and live free from violence. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Please be brief.

Thank you Chair and Members. Dan Seaman on behalf of Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice and Californians for Safety and Justice here in opposition to the proposed elimination of the flexible Cash Assistance Program through OES for victims of crime. This was a landmark program established two years ago by the Legislature and we strongly oppose that cut. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you for the opportunity. Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. I'm here on behalf of Pathway to Kinship. My name is Jesse Estrada. I served 30 years of my life sentence while incarcerated. I had the opportunity to participate in the Pathway to Kinship program. That experience has had a profound and positive impact on my life.

I've been home and thriving for nearly two years. I am living proof that community based healing programs do work. I'm not only seeing their impact on others, I've also experienced a life changing power firsthand. Thank you for your continued support of the Wright Grant program. Your investment in this program is an investment in real lasting change.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Christopher Negri with the California Partnership End Domestic Violence. First of all want to thank you, Mr. Chair and the other Members of this Committee for your continuing prioritization of victim services. Our programs know that we have friends in this room and we are very grateful for that.

Although the state budget is obviously in a very difficult situation right now, what we want to emphasize is just that our programs, victim services programs, are really the core of public safety. They are essential.

They should not be on the chopping block that goes toward funding essential services, shelter programs, toward protective orders enabling folks to get those, toward forensic exams for victims of child abuse and sexual violence. And the state should just not be cutting those programs.

So thank you Mr. Chair and other Members of the Committee for your Continuing attention to these issues.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. Grace Glaser, on behalf of ValorUS, the state sexual assault Coalition, really want to thank this Committee for prioritizing VOCA. It is so essential. And as you all can well see, our modest request for $260 million one time, will really stretch far across our state.

We are serving an estimated 820,000 survivors per year and I know that number is slightly out of date because we haven't seen a new one in the past three years.

So knowing how far these dollars go, we really appreciate the Committee's commitment to this one time funding and also respectfully reject the May revised decision to scale back survivor flexible spending accounts. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello, my name is Olivia Gleason with Californians United for a Responsible Budget, CURB, a coalition of over 100 organization. At a time when vulnerable Californians are losing health care, going hungry, becoming houseless, facing VOCA cuts.

I'm astonished to discover the $20 million proposal in the May revised for a consulting group to advise CDCR on how to reduce their budget. The Administration has received specific concrete recommendations from the Legislature, the LAO and community based organizations for years.

Recommendations like reducing prison infrastructure spending, creating a long term prison closure and spending plan, deactivating prisons and permanently closing prisons in warm shutdown. Which are empty prisons that have cost $300 million in maintenance and are currently vulnerable to be reopened by ICE. Cuts don't have to come from COVID mitigation and ADA accessibility.

It is the responsibility of the Administration to provide an efficient budget year after year, not just when the Administration is under pressure or in crisis. Why would we spend money to save money at a time like this?

This is the very definition of irresponsible spending and it's time we finally hold CDCR accountable to full reductions they promised in 2024. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon, my name is Perla Flores and I represent Community Solutions. We are one of the 104 domestic violence service providers funded by Cal OES and one of the 64 sexual assault service providers funded by Cal OES. So really here to urge you to support this $260 million, one time funding.

I'm not sure if folks are aware but the VOCA funding represents over 80% of the funding for sexual assault services. These services are essential. So please we urge you for your support. Not funding these programs is going to lead to increased public safety and health issues. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening. Jennifer Peabody, the Executive Director of the California Appellate Project in Los Angeles and I'm once again here to support a budget increase for the court appointed council system. I realize we are lucky to be included in the May revise.

However, as I testified it, testified at the March hearing that number is insufficient to stave off the exodus of qualified panel attorneys, recruit new talent, train new talent and most importantly assure meaningful access to justice for most vulnerable Californians who are entitled to appoint a council by the Constitution and state statutes.

CAP-LA has seen a 70% increase in cases in which we need appointed counsel and we have appointed in 2,800 cases we still have. We've appointed the increase from 2,800 to 4,000 with 1,000 clients still waiting.

These are individuals who are families who should be reunited, a juvenile spacing, prolonged detention should, children who should be adopted an individual serving jail or prison sentences they should not be having. We've had a 30% decrease in the number of attorneys willing to do this work.

While we've had a 70% increase, people don't want to do this work because you heard our counterpart, the DOJ, complain about their salaries. Our attorneys get paid $110, $120 or $130 an hour. Without the increase of $25 million in our budget, the court appointed counsel system is in dire straits. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello, my name is Jay Kohorn, also from California Appellate Project. I've been the Assistant Director there since 1987. So this is my 38th year and I worked on all the budgets every year. Until the pandemic, our resources were relatively balanced with our job and there was no backlog.

What we face now is new and unique, unprecedented. As our Executive Director explained, caseload exploded from like 2,800 cases that we appointed every year to 4,000. And that 4,000 doesn't count.

100, excuse me, 1,000 more cases where children and criminal defendants and indigent, all indigent people did not get an attorney and are still waiting for an attorney because the panel is saturated. What we need is funding for recruitment and retention. Sufficient to make sure that justice, access to justice is reality.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. Cindi Mishkin, the Assistant Director of Appellate Defenders Incorporated. I'm here to speak about item number two, what my colleagues just spoke about. First of all, I would like to express gratitude that the May revise includes reimbursement. Excuse me, reimbursement for the court appointed council program. But this money is not enough.

The reality is the allocation is too small to support the program. We are losing attorneys in the program and we don't have the funds to compete to get new counsel or to even retain the experienced counsel we have because the salaries are not competitive. Our line out the door of our cases south of Los Angeles.

We now have 240 clients that don't have counsel, that haven't had council for months and that is only growing. We are the oldest project and we have weathered many storms. But this is not a passing storm that can be weathered. This is a crisis. This is a failure to support the quarter pound council system.

While I appreciate the efforts of the Committee to increase the money that's been provided to the projects, it is not enough to save this program from the downward trajectory that we are experiencing. I strongly urge the Committee to adjust the amount recommended for this program to be the entire amount requested at the initial process, the $25 million.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening, My name is Michelle Cates. I am the Executive Director of Project Sister Family Services. We are a local rape crisis center that serves eastern Los Angeles and western San Bernardino counties. We are here in support of the one time $260 million VOCA funding ask. This Victims of Crime act funding saves lives every day. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

I'm Jonathan Grossman from the Sixth District of Appellate Program. We are another Appellate Project. First of all, I am very impressed that all of you are still here and I appreciate this. And we very much appreciate the fact that we have not been cut in the May revise of the increase.

This is great news for us because it means we're going to survive about another year. But as my colleagues have been saying, the system isn't a situation collapse. We're in San Jose. We have one attorney who's able to afford to work for us who actually lives in the county. People commute from 50 miles to get there. Every.

The reason why we cannot recruit and retain attorneys. We've lost 70% of our staff attorneys in the last two years. When I started 25 years ago, I was the Junior Member for 13 years. It's a great place to work, but our wages are totally out of whack.