Transcript Highlights:

• school community.
• Community schools seem to be doing a great job in engaging community.
• strong community... ...exemplary community schools framework, which was developed with strong community
• community-based partners.
• And the community was very happy.

Summary: The joint informational and oversight hearing focused on community schools in California, with members emphasizing that the purpose was to examine effectiveness, implementation, and sustainability rather than the Governor’s budget proposal. The California Department of Education described the California Community Schools Partnership Program, created in 2021 and funded with more than $4 billion, including planning, implementation, extension, and county coordination grants. Officials said nearly 2,500 schools are participating and highlighted the statewide technical assistance structure, including the State Transformational Assistance Center, eight regional centers, county offices, and CDE support. Researchers from the Learning Policy Institute and UCLA presented early findings and implementation data. LPI reported reductions in chronic absenteeism and suspensions, along with gains in math and English language arts, with especially large benefits for Black students and other historically underserved groups. UCLA described the Annual Progress Report as a statewide improvement tool showing growth in capacity-building, shared decision-making, whole-child supports, and continuous improvement. Members asked about how the reports measure outcomes, how to interpret outliers, and how to distinguish community schools effects from other concurrent initiatives; presenters said matched comparison methods and deeper case-study work are being used, with additional statewide findings expected in June. Panelists from Oakland Unified, LAUSD/UTLA, San Diego Unified, and advocacy organizations described key elements of success: integrated student supports, strong family and student engagement, collaborative leadership, community partnerships, and school-site decision-making. They gave examples such as wellness centers, dual enrollment, student senates, parent leadership, and community campaigns that built trust and increased participation. Members also raised concerns about sustainability, implementation fidelity, and whether community schools improve participation in LCAP processes. Presenters said major barriers include unclear early guidance, the need for a mindset shift away from top-down models, and uncertainty about long-term funding for coordinators and other staff. The panel’s recommendations centered on stable ongoing funding, stronger technical assistance, shared governance, and embedding community schools practices into district and county systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• school community.
• Community schools seem to be doing a great job in engaging community.
• First, I think LCAP, Community schools seems to be doing a great job in engaging community.
• strong community input.
• And the community was very happy.

Transcript Highlights:

• The community schools are really important to meeting the community.
• our community schools.
• That community continues to grow with new community schools each year.
• community is critical to a successful community schools approach.
• in community schools.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing on the Governor’s proposal to convert the California Community Schools Partnership Program from a one-time grant model into an ongoing $1 billion Proposition 98 program. Finance and CDE described the expansion as a way to sustain existing community schools and add thousands more, with county offices, regional/state technical assistance centers, annual self-certification, and a future accreditation process intended to support fidelity to the state framework. The LAO opposed shifting to an ongoing categorical program and recommended continuing one-time grants, while suggesting longer-term funding for technical assistance and, if ongoing funding is adopted, stronger planning, reporting, phased expansion, and clearer accreditation timelines. Committee members pressed the administration on how the new proposal could fund far more schools with less money than the original $4.1 billion program, how much of the funding would go to existing cohorts versus new schools, and whether the proposal sufficiently requires planning and implementation before funds are received. Testimony from practitioners and advocates largely supported ongoing funding but emphasized that money alone is not enough. Speakers from LPI, CTA, San Diego Unified, Fresno County, the Partnership for the Future of Learning, and Sacramento County urged stronger requirements for shared governance, explicit commitment to the community schools framework, annual reporting beginning in year one, and continued or expanded support for coordinators and technical assistance. Several witnesses said the proposal should better protect county office coordination roles, maintain preferences for partnerships in the technical assistance structure, and ensure the system can support more than 6,000 schools. Others highlighted the need for specialized supports for middle and high schools, better integration with other state programs such as ELOP, universal meals, TK, and the LCFF equity multiplier, and more detailed accountability and accreditation processes. No formal vote was taken during the portion of the hearing reflected in the transcript. The chair indicated that the committee wanted additional information on the funding breakdown, the use of reverted funds, and the proposed support structure before taking action, and administration witnesses said a more detailed proposal would be brought forward in the May Revise.

Transcript Highlights:

• community schools.
• That community continues to grow with new community schools each year.
• their school communities.
• in community schools.
• in community schools.

Transcript Highlights:

• for our Latina communities.
• So pivotal in serving so many communities beyond the API community, especially for Latino, Black communities
• communities, our Black and brown communities, all communities, and the LGBTQ+ community.
• We're in every community.
• , but the African-American community, Latinx community, LGBTQ community.

Committee: House Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• for Latina communities.
• So pivotal in serving so many communities beyond the API community, especially for Latino, Black communities
• communities, our Black and Brown communities, all communities, LGBTQ+ community.
• When immigrants are being terrorized in our communities, that's our community too.
• , but the African American community, Latinx community, and LGBTQ community.

Summary: The Assembly Human Services Committee held an informational hearing with members of the API Legislative Caucus on California’s Stop the Hate Program and broader efforts to address hate incidents. Opening remarks emphasized the rise in hate during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of culturally and linguistically competent services, and the program’s role in serving not only AAPI communities but also Latino, Black, Jewish, Muslim, LGBTQ+, immigrant, and other impacted communities. Legislators and presenters repeatedly highlighted the value of trusted community-based organizations (CBOs) in reaching people who may not report to law enforcement or seek traditional services. The first panel included the California Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs, the Department of Social Services (CDSS), and the Commission on the State of Hate. They described the program’s origins in the state’s equity budget, its funding structure, and its service model: direct victim services, prevention, and intervention. CDSS said 180 organizations statewide have participated, with grantees selected based on experience, capacity, and service to priority populations. The Commission on the State of Hate reported that hate remains widespread and underreported, citing survey data showing about 3.1 million Californians experienced at least one hate act in a year and that many victims need mental health, legal, and other supports beyond police response. Members asked about best practices, youth impacts, administrative costs, and the role of regional leads; CDSS said it would provide more detail on funding distribution and that the final evaluation is still in progress. The second panel featured grantees from Jewish Family Service San Diego, Inland Chinese American Association, Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants, and Equality California. They gave examples of how Stop the Hate funding supported culturally specific response teams, counseling, language-access services, self-defense and safety workshops, youth and elder programming, legal navigation, and reporting tools. Several speakers said the program helped build trust, reduce isolation, and connect people to services they otherwise would not use. Legislators pressed the panel on lessons learned, whether the model should be reauthorized, and what would be lost if funding ends. Panelists emphasized that the program’s flexibility, regional convenings, and support for small, trusted organizations were key strengths, while also noting the need for more direct funding to frontline providers and more data on what interventions work best.

Transcript Highlights:

• Strengthen communities.
• populations in our community.
• It assures that community has local control of what the needs are in their own community.
• When our public safety net fails, our community turns to our community-based providers.
• to the communities we serve.

Summary: The Senate and Assembly Human Services Committees held a special oversight hearing on California’s 2026-27 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) state plan, a federal anti-poverty funding stream. Committee members opened by citing statewide poverty and homelessness data and said the hearing was meant to review how CSBG dollars are used, how local agencies respond to community needs, and how the state is preparing for possible federal funding cuts. Jason Wimbley of the Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) explained that California’s CSBG network works through 60 organizations in 58 counties, serving about 1.5 million low-income Californians in 2023, and that the state received $68.4 million in federal CSBG funds in fiscal year 2025. He described the program as flexible funding used for housing, employment, education, food, health, transportation, and emergency response, and noted that the federal administration had proposed eliminating CSBG, though the Senate Appropriations Committee had voted to fully fund it for the coming year. Representatives from the California Community Action Partnership Association and several CSBG-funded agencies described how the program supports local anti-poverty work and leverages other funding. CalCAPA emphasized local flexibility, workforce development, partnerships, and data systems such as ROMA, while also warning that agencies are preparing for possible reductions by tightening budgets, planning staffing contingencies, and seeking private foundation support. Agency witnesses from Contra Costa County, Northern California Indian Development Council, Proteus, and Sacred Heart Community Service described services including housing assistance, food distribution, utility help, employment training, youth programs, and culturally specific services for Native communities and migrant farmworkers. They repeatedly said CSBG is essential because it funds staffing and infrastructure that allow them to braid other grants and serve people who do not qualify for standard safety-net programs. Members also asked about the impact of federal staffing changes and the Los Angeles fires. Wimbley said federal layoffs had affected some CSD programs but not CSBG administration, and that the department coordinated disaster response with state agencies and used CSBG-funded supply distribution, food, water, clothing, and documentation support during the fires. Witnesses said they were preparing for possible future cuts by diversifying funding, reducing expenses, and considering service changes, while county officials warned that state and federal reductions could not be backfilled locally. During public comment, one speaker urged stronger oversight of community action agencies and raised concerns about transparency and compliance with state law. The chair then thanked the witnesses, emphasized the importance of CSBG for low-income seniors, youth, and people with disabilities, and adjourned the hearing without any votes or formal action taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• populations in our community.
• It assures that the community has local control of what the needs are in their own community.
• It really is a lifeline for many of the community action agencies in our community. Thank you.
• When our public safety net fails, our community turns to our community-based providers.
• to the communities we serve.

Summary: The Senate and Assembly Human Services Committees held a special oversight hearing on California’s 2026-27 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) state plan, focusing on how the federal anti-poverty funds are administered and used by local community action agencies. Department of Community Services and Development Director Jason Wimbley explained that CSBG is a flexible funding stream used to address housing, employment, education, food insecurity, health, transportation, and disaster response needs, with 60 organizations serving all 58 counties. He noted California received $68.4 million in federal fiscal year 2025 CSBG funds and that the program served about 1.5 million low-income Californians in 2023. He also described how CSBG helped with wildfire response and emphasized the risk posed by proposed federal elimination of the program, though he said federal staffing and program operations were currently stable. Representatives from CalCAPA and several funded agencies described CSBG as essential “braid” funding that supports staffing, leverages other grants, and fills gaps for people who do not qualify for other safety net programs. CalCAPA leaders stressed local flexibility, workforce development, partnerships, and the ROMA performance system, while agency witnesses from Contra Costa County, Northern California Indian Development Council, Proteus, and Sacred Heart Community Service gave examples of housing assistance, food distribution, employment training, utility aid, rural service delivery, tribal services, and disaster or emergency support. Several witnesses warned that federal cuts or elimination of CSBG would force service reductions, layoffs, and loss of leverage for other funding sources. The hearing also included discussion of CalAIM coordination, contingency planning for possible funding losses, and the limits of county ability to backfill federal reductions. During public comment, one speaker raised concerns about compliance and transparency issues involving community action agencies and asked the committees to ensure agencies follow California law. The chair thanked the witnesses and public commenters, reiterated the importance of CSBG in addressing poverty and homelessness, and adjourned the hearing after noting the need to sustain the investment and adapt services to changing statewide needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Community voice matters.
• Community voice matters.
• to the community today.
• and in their communities.
• community needs.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Businesses

Summary: The Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business held its final hearing of the session on H. 5187 and S. 3022, the Enough Act, with Chair Andy Vargas and Senator Adam Gomez opening by thanking committee members and stakeholders for their work during the session. The bills were described as a grant-based, place-based anti-poverty initiative intended to support cradle-to-career services by funding local nonprofits, schools, community organizations, and backbone entities that can coordinate housing, education, health, workforce, and family supports in high-poverty neighborhoods. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support of the bills. Speakers including Strategies for Children, Chelsea Public Schools, Bunker Hill Community College, Senator Sal DiDomenico, Rep. Kate Lipper-Garabedian, Rep. Antonio Cabral, the Harlem Children’s Zone’s Kwame Owusu Kesse and Jeffrey Canada, former Education Secretary Paul Reville, AFT Massachusetts, United Way, the Boston Foundation, Give Black Alliance, Eastern Bank Foundation, and others argued that poverty is a systems issue that schools alone cannot solve. They emphasized the need for local control, community voice, coordinated services, and long-term public-private investment, often citing examples from Chelsea, New Bedford, Springfield, Lowell, Boston, and other communities, as well as the Harlem Children’s Zone and Maryland’s similar model. Committee members asked several questions about how the bill would function in practice, including what organizations would do on day one, how it would interact with existing efforts like community schools, McKinney-Vento, and the Student Opportunity Act, and how it would be sustained over time. Witnesses said the act would help create or strengthen backbone organizations, reduce duplication, align existing resources, and leverage philanthropy and future revenue sources for long-term sustainability. No vote was taken during the hearing, but multiple speakers urged the committee to report the bill favorably and quickly.

Transcript Highlights:

• Community members, tribes, and the agriculture community have equitable access to these opportunities
• Equitable Community Engagement.
• Equitable Community Engagement.
• Equitable Community Engagement.
• Several community members have already expressed interest in how we are engaging communities and plan

Summary: The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held a work session on HEAL Act implementation, beginning with an orientation from Environmental Justice Council member David Mendoza. He described the law’s purpose as integrating environmental justice into agency decision-making, community engagement, tribal consultation, strategic planning, and environmental justice assessments, with the goal of reducing environmental health disparities and improving accountability to communities and tribes. He also discussed the council’s role, the interagency work group, challenges with limited volunteer and agency capacity, and concerns about inconsistent assessment formats and future funding pressures. Committee members asked about council composition, including the balance of tribal, community, business, and other representation, whether the HEAL Act increases permitting time or costs, how “overburdened” and “vulnerable” populations are defined, and whether the council should be refreshed or audited. Mendoza said the statute is not limited to racial categories and can include rural and low-income communities, that the council has not quantified permitting delays, and that there is no formal audit requirement, though the council is discussing how to improve its work. Members also raised questions about the relationship between the Environmental Justice Council and the Office of Equity, with Mendoza saying the bodies are complementary but should coordinate more closely. The Department of Agriculture then reported on its HEAL Act work. Director of Equity and Environmental Justice Nicole Johnson said WSDA conducts environmental justice assessments for significant actions, applies an equity lens to licensing, funding, rulemaking, and strategic planning, and has completed 11 EJ assessments to date. She highlighted pesticide regulation, animal health, and weights-and-measures work as examples of environmental and economic justice, and said the department recently hired a full-time tribal consultant and has only 1.5 FTE supporting HEAL implementation. Members asked whether WSDA’s assessments apply to its role on boards such as the Forest Practices Board; Johnson said the department’s current understanding is that assessments are conducted on agency work. The Department of Natural Resources then presented on its HEAL Act implementation, focusing on strategic planning, community engagement, tribal consultation, environmental justice assessments, and equitable funding. DNR officials said environmental justice is being embedded in the agency’s 2025-2029 strategic plan, in its Community Access and Impact Plan, and in its advisory committee and board representation efforts. They reported conducting EJ assessments for sustainable harvest calculations, agency request legislation, and a prescribed burn manager certificate program, and said DNR has invested about $130 million in overburdened communities and vulnerable populations in fiscal year 2025 through wildfire resilience, youth education, and urban forestry programs. Committee members pressed DNR on how it identifies impacted communities, why landowners were not more visible in the process, how agency-request legislation is being assessed, and whether assessments are required for actions taken through other boards and commissions. DNR said its current interpretation is that assessments apply to internal agency actions, that some notices may appear on OFM’s notices page rather than the completed-assessments dashboard, and that it would follow up on specific questions about its posted assessments and process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Ed</c><00:03:16.920><c> kind</c> communities is that's Community Ed kind communities is that's Community
• Community Education Aid, in addition to that communication, Community Education Revenue, and the opportunity
• </c> in addition to um that communication in addition to um that communication Community<00:08:49.279
• The needs of our districts and our community communities.
• The community space acts as that, and a lot of communities are running the community centers.

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> economic activity for that community. economic activity for that community.
• And we also communicate.
• </c><00:54:54.480><c> and</c><00:54:54.800><c> community</c> support communities and community support
• communities?" communities?"
• now</c> communities and the communities now communities and the communities now working<01:23:28.159>

Bills: HB2437 , HB1815 , HB1614 , HB1613 , HB1612 , HB2411 , HB2597 , HB2583 , HB2474 , HB1863 , HB2590 , HB1813 , HB1838 , HB2138 , HB1967 , HB1576 , HB2139 , HB1605 , HB2113 , HB812 , HB1831 , HB1707 , HB2561 , HB1805 , HB2469 , HB2472 , HB2387 , HB1658 , HB1661 , HB1664 , HB1859 , HB2276 , HB2335 , HB1656 , HB2116 , HB2272 , HB2273 , HB2340 , HB2158 , HB2339 , HB2489 , HB2159 , HB2171 , HB2338 , HB2005 , HB1952 , HB1872 , HB1676 , HB2384 , HB2614 , HB20 , HB1776 , HB1565 , HB2310 , HB1975 , HB1801 , HB1668 , HB2114 , HB1972 , HB1546 , HB1518 , HB1131 , HB2208 , HB2156 , HB2268 , HB2622 , HB2581 , HB2498 , HB2443 , HB1577 , HB2033 , HB2031 , HB2023 , HB1969 , HB1973 , HB1974 , HB2315 , HB2343 , HB2501 , HB2505 , HB816 , HB1562 , HB1591 , HB1853 , HB1854 , HB1871 , HB1965 , HB1966 , HB1537 , HB1541 , HB276 , HB2606 , HB2270 , HB1920 , HB1756 , HB1727 , HB1718 , HB1715 , HB1713 , HB1711

Transcript Highlights:

• To ensure that community schools are implemented with fidelity and aligned with the California Community
• And neither is the parents, neither is the community, and that's why it's so vital to have our community
• They are the ones who are in the communities helping our community schools outreach and get connected
• our students, families, and community.
• I primarily serve our rural communities, and my position is partially funded with the community schools

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals on universal school meals, the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), and community schools, with the Kitchen Infrastructure and Training Grants Program also discussed. For universal meals, the Department of Education supported continued investment, citing high student meal need, reported gains in meal participation and service efficiency from prior kitchen grants, and concerns that federal changes and underreporting could affect funding. The Department of Finance outlined $1.8 billion Proposition 98 General Fund for universal meals and an additional $100 million for a fourth round of kitchen grants, while the LAO recommended rejecting the new kitchen grant round because prior rounds are still being spent and the allowable uses are broad. Members raised questions about federal matching requirements, Summer EBT, and whether immigration-related federal policy changes could reduce meal counts and state/federal reimbursements. For ELOP, the Department of Finance described $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund plus $62.4 million to set a minimum Tier 2 rate of $1,800 per pupil. The LAO recommended modifying the proposal to fully fix Tier 2 at the current $1,579 rate and tie future changes to program requirements, while CDE supported the Governor’s approach and said the added stability would help districts plan. Committee discussion focused on whether ELOP should remain a standalone before- and after-school program or be folded into LCFF, with some members and witnesses arguing for more local flexibility and clearer outcome measures, while others emphasized the value of guaranteed expanded learning access, especially for elementary students and working families. CDE noted new CalPADS reporting will provide more data beginning with the 2025-26 school year. For community schools, the Governor proposed $1 billion ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund to expand the model to thousands more schools and sustain existing ones, along with stronger technical assistance and future accreditation/self-certification. The LAO recommended continuing the current one-time grant approach instead of creating a new ongoing categorical program, citing concerns about scalability, administrative burden, and the need for earlier planning and clearer accreditation timelines if ongoing funding is adopted. CDE strongly supported the ongoing investment, saying community schools have improved attendance, suspensions, and achievement, and that technical assistance and county office support are essential for expansion. Members and public commenters largely supported community schools, with some urging stronger accountability, more support for county offices and MTSS, and debate over whether non-classroom-based charter schools should be excluded from eligibility. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided; the committee heard testimony and moved through the agenda items and public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and communities of color.
• We have time to prepare, and if we do this together, community by community, neighbor by neighbor, we
• , indigenous community.
• Yeah, you really, you know, the black community, indigenous community, people of color.
• communities.

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on the Census

Summary: The Senate Committee on the Census held an early planning hearing on how Massachusetts can maximize participation in the 2030 census, with Chair Will Brownsberger and Vice Chair Rebecca Rausch emphasizing the need to start well in advance. The first panel, made up of leaders from the Massachusetts Voter Table, MassVOTE, MIRA, and MESA, stressed that grassroots community organizations are trusted messengers and should be funded early to do multilingual outreach, training, and direct assistance in hard-to-count communities. They described lessons from 2020, including the shift to internet response, reduced federal census infrastructure, the importance of coordinated statewide networks, and the need to begin messaging several years before Census Day because building trust and staffing outreach takes time. Panelists repeatedly warned that immigrant communities are facing heightened fear because of federal immigration enforcement and the possibility of a citizenship question or other federal changes, making census participation more difficult. They said 2020 funding arrived too late to fully staff and train outreach teams before the pandemic, and argued that future resources should be deployed earlier and more flexibly. In response to committee questions, they estimated Massachusetts should invest roughly $8 million to $10 million or more in state census outreach, with one proposed model of about $3 million to $5 million at the start, additional funding in the middle years, and a larger final push closer to 2030. They also suggested that funding should support communications infrastructure, translation, social media and ethnic media outreach, and possibly a permanent complete count structure or trust fund to preserve institutional knowledge. A second panel from Common Cause Massachusetts and the ACLU of Massachusetts echoed the call for stronger, earlier investment and stronger privacy protections. They urged the legislature to expand existing census line items, consider a trust fund or other dedicated funding stream, and coordinate census outreach with other state programs that already work through trusted community messengers. The ACLU testimony focused on racial inequities in census counts and warned that federal efforts to exclude non-citizens or add a citizenship question would deepen distrust and undercount immigrant communities. Committee members asked about the 2020 overcount/undercount results, funding levels, timing of grant distribution, and whether census outreach should be routed through the Secretary of the Commonwealth or other state mechanisms; no votes were taken, and the hearing moved on to a later panel on immigrant-community outreach.

Transcript Highlights:

• Community members, tribes, and the agriculture community have equitable access to these opportunities
• Strengths that communities bring.
• Equitable Community Engagement: so the HEAL Act outlines community engagement as a key driver in the
• Several community members have already expressed interest in how we are engaging communities and plan
• This includes how we use mapping tools and community knowledge to identify and prioritize communities

Committee: House Agriculture & Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• To ensure that community schools are implemented with fidelity and aligned with the California Community
• And neither is the parents, neither is the community, and that's why it's so vital to have our community
• They are the ones who are in the communities helping our community schools outreach and get connected
• our students, families, and community.
• I primarily serve our rural communities, and my position is partially funded with the community schools

Transcript Highlights:

• Community school and be teaching at a community school for 14 years.
• And the community schools principle brings all the elements of the community And the community school's
• It's what the community feels that their specific community needs.
• It's what the community feels that their specific community needs.
• Each of Idaho's 65 community schools reflects priorities of its own community.

Committee: House Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Community voice matters.
• We help launch community efforts.
• to the community.
• and in their communities.
• community needs.

Bills: S3022 , H5187

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Businesses

Keywords: ENOUGH Act, ENOUGH fund, anti-poverty, poverty reduction, community development, place-based grants, distressed neighborhoods, economic mobility, housing and livable communities, community schools, cradle-to-career, child poverty, intergenerational poverty, social services, workforce development, education equity, public health, behavioral health, mental health, affordable housing

Transcript Highlights:

• Community voice matters.
• Communities need support and a deliberate, intentional process for organizing, planning, Communities
• We help launch community efforts.
• to the community.
• and in their communities.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Businesses

Summary: The Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business held its final hearing of the session on H. 5187 and S. 3022, the Enough Act, which would create a grant program to support place-based, cradle-to-career anti-poverty initiatives in high-need communities. Chairs Andy Vargas and Sen. Adam Gómez opened the hearing by thanking committee members and stakeholders, and several lawmakers, including Sen. Sal DiDomenico, Rep. Kate Lipper-Garabedian, and Rep. Antonio Cabral, described the bill as a bottom-up approach that would let local organizations, schools, and community partners direct resources where they are most needed. They emphasized that poverty, housing instability, food insecurity, and chronic absenteeism are interconnected and that the bill is intended to build local “backbone” infrastructure rather than fund isolated programs. A series of educators, school leaders, and nonprofit advocates testified in support, including leaders from Chelsea Public Schools, Bunker Hill Community College, Strategies for Children, AFT Massachusetts, United Way, the Boston Foundation, the New Commonwealth Fund, Give Black Alliance, Eastern Bank Foundation, and the Greater Boston Food Bank. They argued that schools alone cannot overcome the effects of concentrated poverty and pointed to research showing that children arrive at school already affected by poverty-related gaps. Several witnesses described existing local efforts in Chelsea, Boston, New Bedford, Springfield, Haverhill, and Lowell, and said the Enough Act would help coordinate services, align data and goals, and strengthen community voice. Some also noted that the bill could leverage philanthropic and private investment and cited Maryland and Harlem Children’s Zone as models. The hearing also featured testimony from Harlem Children’s Zone CEO Kwame Owusu-Kesse and founder Jeffrey Canada, who said the model has shown that sustained, coordinated supports can reduce the role of luck in children’s outcomes and should be scaled in Massachusetts. Committee members asked about sustainability, funding, and how the bill would interact with existing efforts such as community schools, the Student Opportunity Act, and McKinney-Vento homelessness supports. Witnesses responded that the bill would complement those programs by creating a broader, community-led framework and that long-term sustainability would require public, philanthropic, and private support. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• To ensure that community schools are implemented with fidelity and aligned with the California Community
• And neither is the parents, neither is the community, and that's why it's so vital to have our community
• And neither is the parents, neither is the community, and that's why it's so vital to have our community
• They are the ones who are in the communities helping our community schools outreach and get connected
• I primarily serve our rural communities, and my position is partially funded with the community schools

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard the Governor’s proposals for universal school meals, the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), and community schools. On universal meals, the Department of Education supported continued funding for the Universal School Meals Program and a fourth round of Kitchen Infrastructure and Training Grants, citing meal-count growth, improved meal service, and the need to offset federal uncertainty, inflation, and reduced direct certification tied to immigration-related policy changes. The LAO recommended rejecting another kitchen grant round, arguing prior rounds are still being spent and the state has not clearly defined unmet need. Members also raised concerns about the state’s ability to backfill federal meal funding and about how federal requirements affect programs like Summer EBT/SUN Bucks. Public commenters largely supported school meals and kitchen investments, with some urging support for plant-based milk options and continued infrastructure funding. For ELOP, the Department of Finance proposed $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding, including $62.4 million to set a minimum Tier 2 rate of $1,800 per pupil. The LAO recommended going further and fully fixing the Tier 2 rate, saying rate uncertainty complicates district planning. CDE supported the proposal and said the program has improved attendance and academic outcomes, while noting new CalPADS reporting will provide more data soon. Senators discussed whether ELOP should remain a standalone program or be folded into LCFF, and whether the state should require stronger outcome reporting. Public testimony generally backed stabilizing Tier 2 funding, but some speakers urged more support for older youth and more timely, user-friendly reporting. On community schools, the administration proposed $1 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding to expand the model to thousands more schools and to support existing grantees, along with stronger technical assistance, statewide alignment, and an accreditation/self-certification framework. The LAO recommended continuing the current one-time grant approach instead of creating a new ongoing categorical program, warning about reduced flexibility, administrative burden, and the state’s capacity to support a much larger cohort. CDE supported the ongoing investment but asked for additional county office and technical assistance funding. Senators and public commenters were broadly supportive of community schools, emphasizing improved attendance, graduation, and student engagement, while also debating accountability, accreditation, and whether non-classroom-based charter schools should be eligible. Public testimony strongly favored ongoing funding and highlighted community schools’ role in mental health, family engagement, and wraparound supports.