Summary: The committee heard a series of budget and oversight presentations from CalHHS-related departments and agencies. CalHHS opened with a broad overview of its 2026-27 budget and priorities, including behavioral health, housing and human services integration, children and youth services, and aging/disability supports. OICR then presented its budget and its SB 823 realignment report on youth formerly committed to DJJ, saying county implementation varies widely but that the state has not seen evidence of net widening in the available data. OICR recommended climate surveys, youth advisory councils, stronger behavioral health and education programming in secure youth treatment facilities, better transitional planning, and improved longitudinal data systems. The agency also described a Title II federal grant transition problem, saying it cannot yet pay some subrecipients for prior work and is awaiting federal action on retroactive spending authority and an administrative funding adjustment. The Ombudsperson division requested two additional positions to address a growing complaint workload and access issues with counties over youth meetings, records, and grievance files; LAO raised no policy objection but noted the ongoing General Fund cost. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities requested $730,000 General Fund ongoing to cover the gap between federal limits on administrative overhead and the actual cost of an interagency agreement with the Department of Social Services. EMSA presented its department overview and several proposals, including a delayed AB 716 ambulance rate report, a $2.6 million request to replace aging disaster-response vehicles, a $250,000 security architecture assessment, and four positions plus ongoing General Fund for HR, enforcement, and legal workload. Members questioned the delay in the AB 716 report, the optics and timing of the vehicle replacement request, and whether EMSA was doing enough to prevent future staffing and enforcement problems. LAO repeatedly noted the ongoing General Fund implications of EMSA’s requests. The Department of Community Services and Development sought reappropriation of unspent Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund money for the Low-Income Weatherization Program and described a Proposition 4-funded continuation of the farmworker housing component, which would require a new statewide administrator and program design process. The Department of Rehabilitation requested authority to draw an additional $60 million in federal funds annually and add 54 positions to meet sharply increased Vocational Rehabilitation caseloads; LAO had no concerns. Child Support Services proposed restoring a prior reduction to local child support agency funding and reported higher federal performance incentives, while also presenting a supplemental report on full pass-through of child support collections to CalWORKs families, estimating about $150 million annually for full pass-through or about $80 million for a state/county-only approach, plus automation costs. Members questioned why funding should rise when caseloads are declining, and whether the policy could be made cost-neutral. CDPH closed the hearing with an overview of its $5.1 billion budget and its state of public health report, highlighting record-low mortality and higher life expectancy, but also rising overdose deaths among ages 25-44, persistent maternal and infant mortality disparities, and the need for stable public health and emergency-response capacity; no votes were taken during the hearing.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on coherence in California’s education planning and reporting systems, especially the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and related grant plans. Committee chairs and members described widespread frustration with duplicative, lengthy, and sometimes conflicting reporting requirements, while emphasizing that the goal was not to reduce accountability but to make planning more useful, stable, and student-centered. State Superintendent Tony Thurmond also previewed the Governor’s education budget priorities, including expanded learning, community schools, universal transitional kindergarten, literacy supports, and concerns about the proposed Prop. 98 deferral. Panelists from the State Board of Education, Fresno County Superintendent of Schools, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office said the LCAP was intended to balance local flexibility with statewide transparency, but has become overloaded by repeated revisions and additional requirements. They argued for fewer core reporting elements, more stability over time, better alignment of planning cycles, and integrated systems that reduce duplication. Fresno County staff described a multi-year calendar and support tools that help districts manage timelines, but said these tools only ease the burden rather than solve the underlying problem. The LAO noted that some newer plans, such as expanded learning and transportation plans, are narrative-heavy and often less informative than separate reporting requirements. Local district leaders and county officials described the practical effects of the current system: staff time diverted from instruction, multiple portals and forms, audit risk aversion, and planning documents that can exceed 100 pages. Several superintendents said coherent systems work best when districts have clear priorities, stable governance, and aligned budgets, and when state requirements are predictable and tied to outcomes like literacy, attendance, and student achievement. The California Federation of Teachers added that coherence also depends on meaningful collaboration with educators, classified staff, parents, and communities. Committee members repeatedly asked whether the state should streamline reporting, create a uniform portal, or develop a more unified grant-reporting structure, and Thurmond said the department was piloting a simplified common form and was willing to work with the Legislature and districts on broader solutions.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services opened its first hearing of the year with a discussion centered on CalFresh, the Department of Social Services, and related anti-poverty and immigrant services programs. Chair Jackson framed the hearing as a response to the “historic and enormous challenges” created by H.R. 1, emphasizing that the committee’s goal was to minimize harm to vulnerable Californians. No votes were taken in the hearing. The first major topic was the impact of H.R. 1 on CalFresh eligibility and administration. CDSS estimated major federal funding reductions, with hundreds of thousands of Californians potentially losing benefits under new time limits and work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, and additional losses among certain non-citizen groups. County welfare directors, eligibility workers, SEIU, and other advocates argued that counties are underfunded and understaffed to implement the new rules, and urged release of the previously authorized $20 million General Fund, a county match waiver, and an additional ongoing workforce investment. LAO and the Department of Finance said they were reviewing the administration’s proposals and emphasized the need to use existing data, automation, and statutory direction to reduce administrative burden and improve implementation. A second panel addressed county administrative backfill and the broader fiscal effects of H.R. 1. CDSS explained that the law shifts more administrative costs to the state and counties beginning in federal fiscal year 2027 and could also create future state benefit costs tied to payment error rates. County and food bank representatives warned that many counties will struggle to absorb the higher match and that penalties tied to payment error rates could worsen budget pressure. Members pressed Finance and CDSS for clearer timelines, written responses, and more detailed workload assumptions, while Finance said it was still analyzing the federal guidance and county resource needs. The final major topic was the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) and possible state responses for people losing federal CalFresh eligibility. CDSS said CFAP remains limited by statute and by the federal structure it currently uses, but that the planned expansion to Californians age 55 and older regardless of immigration status remains on track for October 1, 2027, subject to funding. Immigrant advocates urged the state to fold newly excluded humanitarian immigrants into CFAP and to invest in outreach and administration, while Western Center on Law and Poverty proposed a broader state-funded anti-hunger response for people cut off by H.R. 1. LAO noted that the CFAP expansion is difficult to estimate and that further policy and technical work would be needed to assess costs and implementation options.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held an oversight hearing with leaders from the CPUC, Public Advocates Office, CAISO, the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety, and the Energy Commission. Chair Petrie-Norris framed the hearing around high utility bills, wildfire risk, grid reliability, clean energy buildout, and the state’s long-term decarbonization goals, and also noted it was CPUC President Alice Reynolds’ final week at the commission. Each agency gave an update on its role: the CPUC described efforts to reduce rate increases while maintaining reliability and clean energy procurement; the Public Advocates Office focused on affordability and the need to control underlying utility costs; CAISO discussed transmission planning, market operations, and the upcoming extended day-ahead market; Energy Safety reviewed wildfire mitigation oversight and inspections; and the Energy Commission highlighted clean energy growth, EV adoption, storage, efficiency, and gasoline price monitoring. A major theme was affordability versus the costs of the clean energy transition. Reynolds said the CPUC has lowered utility revenue requests, reduced utility returns, adopted a base services charge, and reworked net metering, while also continuing to manage wildfire-related costs and support resource adequacy and demand flexibility. Sarazawa argued that recent rate decreases may not be durable because billions of dollars in wildfire and other utility costs are still pending or unbilled, and she urged tighter use of general rate cases, lower-cost financing, program reform, and more equitable rate design. Members pressed the agencies on whether state policy is sufficiently accounting for labor, local economic development, and the cost impacts of transmission and procurement decisions, especially where out-of-state resources are being considered. CAISO and the Energy Commission emphasized that the state’s planning and market reforms are helping lower costs and improve reliability. CAISO said the Western Energy Imbalance Market has produced billions in benefits, the extended day-ahead market is on track to launch, and transmission planning is being aligned with long-term resource needs while reducing queue delays. The Energy Commission said California is now getting roughly two-thirds of its power from clean sources, has added massive amounts of storage and renewables, and is seeing strong EV and charger growth that can help spread fixed grid costs. Energy Safety reported thousands of inspections, hundreds of notices of non-performance, and a decline in reportable ignitions, while noting that major fires show more work is needed. Members also raised concerns about the SB 100 report delay, memo and balancing accounts, the future of battery storage, and whether decarbonization zone pilots will affect residential and commercial customers.

Summary: The hearing was an outcome review of AB 2011, the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, focused on whether the law is being used as intended to speed housing production on commercially zoned land while maintaining labor and affordability standards. Chair Haney and Assembly Member Wicks emphasized that the point of the review was not to relitigate the bill, but to assess implementation and results. The first panel of researchers and policy experts said AB 2011 has had real but still limited uptake so far, with roughly 5,800 homes proposed, entitled, or permitted under the law through 2024, concentrated mainly in San Francisco and Los Angeles counties. They also noted that the broader housing market remains constrained by high construction costs, interest rates, and flat rents, making it hard to isolate the bill’s effects from overall market conditions. Witnesses generally agreed that AB 2011 has been most effective for 100% affordable projects and for projects already using public subsidies or prevailing wage, where the ministerial process and CEQA streamlining help move developments forward. Several speakers described the law as a useful bargaining tool that can push jurisdictions to rezone or approve projects more quickly even when AB 2011 is not formally invoked. At the same time, developers and advocates said the mixed-income pathway is much less usable in most of the state because prevailing wage and the 15% affordability requirement add significant cost, especially in lower-rent markets. They also pointed to implementation issues such as narrow site eligibility rules, the “substantially surrounded by urban uses” test, industrial-use exclusions, and confusion about whether the law applies to homeownership projects. The second panel, made up of practitioners using the law, described specific projects that moved forward under AB 2011, including affordable housing developments in the San Joaquin Valley and large mixed-use projects in San Francisco. They said the law’s biggest benefit is certainty: projects that once took years to entitle can now move in months. However, they repeated calls for changes such as clarifying homeownership eligibility, loosening density and site restrictions, narrowing the industrial-use exclusion, and making the law easier to understand for developers and local staff. Members also raised concerns about uneven use across regions, especially the relative lack of AB 2011 activity in Los Angeles and Santa Clara County, and about the accuracy and lag in annual progress report data. The final panel, including the original sponsors, said they remain supportive of the law but are open to adjustments to reduce costs and improve usability while preserving labor protections and affordability goals.

Summary: The committee held a hearing on active and mass shootings in California, focusing on prevention, response, training, communications, and gaps in preparedness across law enforcement, schools, campuses, fire, EMS, and state agencies. Opening remarks emphasized the frequency and impact of gun violence, the need for faster coordinated response, and the importance of learning from recent tragedies such as the Stockton-area mass shooting described by Sheriff Patrick Withrow. The first panel included representatives from police, sheriff, and campus public safety agencies, who discussed incident command, interoperable communications, next-generation 911, threat assessment, emergency notification systems, and the value of joint drills and cross-agency planning. Witnesses also highlighted differences in training and authority across jurisdictions, especially for private university public safety departments versus public campus police. Campus representatives said they rely heavily on municipal law enforcement for armed response, while also using run-hide-fight protocols, text alerts, surveillance, and threat assessment teams. Members raised concerns about standardized training, after-action reviews, mental health resources, school resource officers, and whether campus safety plans and drills are sufficiently consistent or workable. Sheriff Withrow argued that early intervention and accountability are being weakened by well-intentioned laws, while other witnesses stressed prevention through relationships, diversion, and coordinated support services. The second panel from Cal OES, the Department of Education, POST, and EMSA described statewide systems and standards. Cal OES outlined its Reduce the Risk initiative, gun violence restraining orders, mutual aid, unified command, after-action reporting, and nonprofit security grants. The Department of Education explained California’s statutory school safety framework, annual safety plans, regulated armed assailant drills, and local flexibility, while acknowledging compliance gaps and the need for more mental health support. POST described the new requirement for 16 hours of standardized active shooter training for recruits and ongoing local training options. EMSA explained its role in medical response and terrorism training standards. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Summary: The committee heard opening public comment and then took up several K-12 budget items in the Governor’s January proposal. On LCFF and necessary small schools, the Department of Finance described a 2.41% COLA, a roughly $2.2 billion increase for districts and charters, and a $30.7 million ongoing augmentation to raise necessary small schools funding by 20%. The LAO supported funding the COLA and said the small schools proposal had merit, but questioned the 20% figure and warned about a sharp funding cliff around the enrollment thresholds. Members and witnesses repeatedly raised declining enrollment, attendance, and the need to align funding with outcomes and local cost pressures. The chair and several members also asked whether consolidation, shared administration, or alternative formulas could better address small district costs, and the issue was left open for further discussion. The panel then discussed special education equalization. Finance proposed $509 million ongoing Proposition 98 funding to raise the statewide special education base rate to $999 per ADA, which would fully equalize SELPA base rates; the LAO said the same target could likely be reached with less money under current assumptions. CDE strongly supported equalization as an equity issue and said about 15% of students are identified with disabilities, with identification rising by roughly 20,000 to 25,000 students per year. Members raised concerns about staffing shortages, high caseloads, and the need to use any additional funds for inclusive practices, alternative diploma pathways, and the extraordinary cost pool. The committee also discussed whether the budget language should reflect the $509 million amount or the $999 rate, and the item was held open. For the Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant, Finance proposed restoring $757.3 million one-time to complete the program, while the LAO recommended approval because learning loss remains unresolved and districts have generally used the funds for tutoring, supplemental instruction, and other academic supports. CDE explained that LEAs must revisit their needs assessments and that many districts are using the funds alongside other support systems, but members pressed for clearer accountability and better data on how much money actually goes to tutoring or other direct services. The committee then reviewed the Student Support and Professional Development Discretionary Block Grant, with Finance proposing $2.8 billion one-time and the LAO saying discretionary funding can help districts address local priorities but should be paired with fiscal oversight and possibly more targeted priorities. Members split between supporting flexibility for local needs and worrying that the grant could be used to cover ongoing structural deficits without clear evidence of student-outcome gains; the issue was also held open. Finally, the committee heard a high-level overview of school facilities funding under Proposition 2, with Finance proposing to continue $1.5 billion in bond spending in 2026-27. OPSC said that at the current pace all Prop 2 K-12 funds would likely be exhausted around 2029-30, and that demand is shifting toward modernization as enrollment declines in many areas. Members asked about school closures, reuse of unused sites, and the new small school district facilities program, which OPSC said is moving toward proposed regulations and would begin accepting modernization applications in November 2026 and new construction applications in January 2027. The committee also briefly noted community college facilities funding and asked for more information later in the process.