Transcript Highlights:

• And among other things, agencies are required to evaluate the potential grantee's past performance, duties
• And among other things, agencies are required to evaluate the potential grantee's past performance, duties
• </c> State law requires agencies to perform State law requires agencies to perform pre-awward<00:03:39.519
• the potential grant's past evaluate the potential grant's past performance performance performance um
• We have past performance identify risk. We have past performance with<01:28:47.360><c> grantees.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• , but require student performance to make up half of the evaluation establishes a three-year teachers
• When we talk about the performance evaluation, I just want to ask the rationale behind this.
• We based our teacher evaluation on the data and indicators based on the student performance.
• a student's performance.
• It also contributes to student performance.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:13:09.240><c> because</c> Management Grant performance because Management Grant performance because
• </c> management and performance management and performance activities<00:13:17.199><c> so</c><00:13:17.440
• And then finally, they did not perform any closeout evaluations.
• site visits and 50,000 by performing site visits and Performing<00:19:54.240><c> financial</c><00:19
• ><c> so</c><00:21:05.280><c> our</c> perform any closeout evaluations so our perform any closeout evaluations

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As you know, S-Farhana is going live in July, and the current performance evaluation system will not
• This will help us evaluate all our employees on an electronic basis.
• This will help us evaluate all our employees on an electronic basis.
• Right now, employees just generally meet once at the end of the year to discuss their performance.
• evaluation results.

Summary: The subcommittee reviewed multiple methods of finance and construction items, including projects for Arkansas State University, Black River Technical College, UAMS, the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, and UCA. The UAPB Allied Health and Sciences Building appeared both as a method of finance and as an alternative delivery construction project, with East Harding Construction selected and AMR Architects as designer. Members approved the methods of finance, the alternative delivery project, and several discretionary grants, including Department of Health grants for a heart attack center designation and community health worker training, and DHS grants related to homeless services, behavioral health transition support, and an enabling technology pilot. The committee then reviewed service contracts, including RFQs, construction-related contracts, intergovernmental agreements, and a large number of out-of-state and in-state contracts. Testimony focused heavily on DHS staffing and state hospital contracts, the Arkansas State Police seatbelt survey, AEDC’s lithium supply chain analysis, and Shared Administrative Services’ new SuccessFactors performance-management contract. Members asked detailed questions about contract nursing costs, turnover, hiring timelines, and whether some contracts were being renewed or amended beyond their original projected costs. DHS and Veterans Affairs officials explained staffing shortages, retention incentives, and the use of contract labor as a supplement to state employees. Several contracts drew scrutiny and were held for further review. Representative Wardlaw raised concerns about projected costs and repeated amendments on the Department of Education security contract and on DHS staffing contracts, arguing that some had exceeded their original projected totals. The committee voted to hold contracts 5, 7, and 8 until Friday, while adopting the remaining contracts. The meeting ended after informational reports on service contract amendments without material change, executed contracts, and emergency procurements were presented, with no further business before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Just implement performance standards with our projects to try to attain that use rate.
• As you know, S-Farhanna is going live in July, and the current performance evaluation system will not
• This will help us to evaluate all..." "This is kind of the final act of the pay plan.
• This will help us to evaluate all our employees on an electronic basis.
• "We need to have this in place in January of '27 so that we can use it for the 2027 performance evaluation

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Florida law requires a medical examiner to perform autopsies in cases of suspicious or violent deaths
• So even in Baker Act cases, evaluation reports are not automatic.
• So even in Baker Act cases, evaluation reports are not automatically available to law enforcement.
• Chair, we need analysts in our crime laboratory to perform those results.
• Analysts in our crime laboratory to perform those results.

Summary: The committee convened with a quorum present and heard a presentation from FDLE Deputy Commissioner Vaden Pollard on homicide investigations, blood evidence, toxicology, medical records, and mental health records. Pollard explained that autopsy toxicology and medical examiner records are often critical in death investigations, but access to hospital blood tests, medical records, Baker Act records, and substance abuse treatment records is restricted by Florida law, HIPAA, and 42 CFR Part 2, usually requiring subpoenas, court orders, or consent. He also noted that autopsy reports are generally public, while photographs are confidential, and that medical examiners can access relevant prior medical history of decedents. Members questioned Pollard about what toxicology panels include, whether medications can be tested for, and whether medical examiner reviews can help determine if a deceased person had stopped taking prescribed psychiatric medication. Pollard said toxicology can include alcohol, drugs, and specific medications when relevant, but routine access to living suspects’ medical information is limited. He also discussed FDLE’s behavioral threat assessment work and said investigators may follow leads involving mental health treatment or facility releases when relevant to a case, though he could not speak to regulatory follow-up. The committee also discussed risk protection orders, with Pollard saying FDLE has used them effectively and that they can help prevent violence and connect individuals to services. The discussion then shifted to FDLE laboratory turnaround times and public safety impacts. Pollard said the average DNA turnaround time was 208 days for some cases, while sex assault kits are prioritized and generally remain under 90 days, with rush cases sometimes completed within 24 hours. He said backlog is tied to staffing and analyst capacity, and that faster processing is especially important in unsolved violent and sexual assault cases because delays can leave offenders on the street. The committee also noted that increased toxicology demands would affect toxicology staffing and workload, though not DNA processing. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• First, before reviewing the initial proposals, the evaluation organization members had...
• Weighted sub-factors in the evaluation criteria.
• For the initial and final evaluations, the selection committee was to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses
• We are also fundamentally strengthening how proposals will be evaluated.
• All of those things, past performance, or replacing a service plaza, all of those things, past performance

Summary: The committee met to review MassDOT’s failed service plaza procurement and the Inspector General’s findings. Chair Montigny opened with a broad critique of procurement culture, conflict-of-interest risks, and the need for stronger oversight, saying the committee’s role is bipartisan and investigative and that subpoenas would be used if necessary. Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro then summarized his investigatory letter, saying MassDOT had created procedures that could have supported a fair process but did not follow them. He identified eight major problems, including inadequate conflict-of-interest disclosures, undisclosed relationships and communications with Applegreen and Suffolk Construction, violations of contact rules, inconsistent weighting of evaluation subfactors, weak documentation of scoring, unclear information-sharing with subject matter experts, live roll-call scoring that increased perceived bias, and insufficient board/committee review before approval. He recommended clearer disclosure forms, stronger training, better documentation, sealed scoring, clearer rules for internal communications, and more public board involvement. Committee members pressed the Inspector General on whether the conduct violated law, how to define and police “appearance” of conflicts, whether employees should be held accountable, and whether prior evaluators should be excluded from the new process. Shapiro said his report did not conclude that laws were violated, but that the process was seriously flawed and that accountability should be handled within agencies. He also said he would provide additional written recommendations on broader procurement standards and noted that some oversight functions may need clearer definitions and better recordkeeping across agencies and quasi-public entities. The chair and members emphasized that the problems appeared systemic rather than limited to one administration or one contract. MassDOT Interim Secretary Phil Ting and Undersecretary Jonathan Gulliver then described the new procurement approach. They said the prior process had been a failure, but that the new effort is a complete reset with no one from the prior evaluation participating. MassDOT plans to split the plazas into three geographic packages, use a design-build/public-private partnership framework, and create a P3 Commission with appointments from the governor, legislative leaders, and treasurer, plus review by the Inspector General and Attorney General. They said the new scoring will be more objective, with financial scoring set at 60% and based on a guaranteed maximum price and other mathematical measures rather than projected revenues, and that technical and financial evaluations will be separated in a double-blind process. Members signaled cautious support for the changes but continued to question whether the new structure and oversight will be enough to prevent a repeat of the earlier procurement failures.

Transcript Highlights:

• This evaluation resulted in three key findings.
• Lastly, LOFT performed a utilization review of space... ...utilization rate of 32%.
• Lastly, LOFT performed a utilization review of space being leased from the private sector.
• This limitation impedes accurate evaluation of daily attendance.
• That prohibits evaluators' ability to measure the application of those rules. Mr.

Summary: The LOFT Oversight Committee met with a quorum, approved the prior minutes, and then received LOFT’s report on state office space utilization in Oklahoma City and Tulsa. LOFT presented three main findings: OMES is not fully exercising its statutory authority over state property and relies on flawed self-reported data; state office space is being used inefficiently and often below policy benchmarks; and better use of state-owned space could save tens of millions in private lease costs. LOFT also described errors in the state’s real property inventory, low utilization rates across OMES-owned, agency-owned, and privately leased space, and recommended stronger data verification, clearer space standards, and more active oversight of underused property. OMES responded that it believes it is meeting its statutory obligations and said it tries to balance oversight with being a partner to agencies, placing them in space that best fits their mission and service needs. OMES officials said they rely on agency-reported data, do not have enough staff to independently verify all inventory information, and do not “police” daily occupancy. Members questioned the distinction between meeting statutory duties and exercising full authority, the use of “shall” versus “recommend,” the lack of enforcement for agencies that decline space recommendations, and whether OMES should more aggressively consolidate or divest underused buildings. LOFT and OMES also discussed the methodology behind utilization calculations, including badge-swipe data, space standards, and common-area adjustments. In the final finding, LOFT estimated that relocating agencies from private leases into existing state-owned space could save roughly $16 million to $28.8 million annually, depending on the scenario used. LOFT cited other states and federal reforms as models and recommended that OMES more actively assess underutilized properties, verify data, and use actual utilization analysis to reduce private leasing. OMES said it would review the comments and work to improve. The committee then unanimously approved a rapid-response evaluation request for LOFT to examine DHS child care subsidy verification and reimbursement processes, citing concerns about possible improprieties and the need to confirm whether fraud or waste is occurring.

Transcript Highlights:

• To that end, we've executed a contract with a vendor to perform enhanced provider network validation
• How will you be evaluating or comparing plan performance? Thank you for that question.
• How will the agency account for plan differences when you do evaluations?
• So as we evaluate, I think it's more important to evaluate the plans individually based on the commitments
• questions that I have, I would like an independent party to come in and help us in evaluating that.

Summary: The committee met to consider a large slate of appointments, with the main discussion centered on the confirmation of Chavon Harris as Secretary of the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). Harris testified about her background in state service and outlined agency priorities including Medicaid financial accountability, transparency, managed care oversight, behavioral health redesign, rural health access, workforce recruitment, and use of technology and AI. Senators questioned her extensively about the Hope Florida/Medicaid settlement controversy, opioid settlement-funded advertising campaigns tied to marijuana prevention and the 2024 Amendment 3 election, public records compliance, abortion reporting and enforcement under the Heartbeat Protection Act, managed care denials, value-based purchasing, and Medicaid funding pressures. After debate, the committee voted to recommend her confirmation, with Senator Polsky voting no. The committee then considered Anna Ortega and Robert Payne for the Florida Public Service Commission. Ortega, a current PSC commissioner and former staff advisor, discussed utility regulation, data center load issues, ratepayer protections, transparency in PSC decisions, and lessons from other states. Payne, a former legislator and longtime utility co-op employee, emphasized his technical background and the need to balance utility returns with consumer affordability. Both nominees were confirmed by unanimous or near-unanimous votes and recommended favorably to the full Senate. Next, the committee heard from Jeffrey Aaron for reappointment to the Public Employees Relations Commission. Aaron described PERC’s role in public-sector labor disputes and said his work had been upheld in appellate courts without reversal. Senators questioned him about his law firm’s state contracts, his role as chairman of Attorney General James Uthmeier’s PAC, and his connection to the Hope Florida Foundation matter; he declined to discuss the pending investigation. Public testimony included opposition from Florida Voice for the Unborn. The committee nevertheless recommended his confirmation, with several no votes. Finally, the committee approved the remaining appointees on tabs 5 through 46 in a single vote, postponing Dr. John Littell and DCF Secretary Hatch, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our members are a significant part of the workforce that performs energy efficiency work.
• Our members are a significant part of the workforce who performed.
• Our members are a significant part of the workforce to perform energy efficiency work.
• Including the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.
• or non-performance of the seller.

Bills: SB5821, SB6004, SB6010, SB5941

Keywords: nuclear energy, energy strategy, advanced technology, sustainability, state policy, renewable energy, public entities, electric generation, contracting, SB 6010, Washington energy siting, EFSEC, Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, tribal consultation, government-to-government consultation, federally recognized tribes, energy facility siting, RCW, clean energy, alternative energy

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the Policy and Performance Director for the Department of Health.
• And evaluation in the administration and management of that.
• Are you doing that kind of work too, the evaluation?
• You also, I don't know, do you evaluate the industry?
• So, the Wyoming Survey and Analysis Center (WISAC) is our independent evaluator.

Transcript Highlights:

• Article 14 on performance review, we think the language there is unnecessary.
• They do a performance evaluation, so you have to have a 3.0 or higher, which is statutory.
• Article 14, performance evaluations, and another item that's at impasse.
• Article 14, performance evaluations and other item that's at impasse.
• We have an agency that's using case presentations as basically a quota to conduct performance evaluations

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Summary: The Joint Select Committee on Collective Bargaining met to hear informational presentations on several state employee bargaining units at impasse. The Department of Management Services outlined the status of negotiations for FDLE special agents, correctional/security services, sworn law enforcement officers, Florida Highway Patrol troopers, and Florida State Fire Service employees. In each case, most contract articles had been resolved, but key disputes remained over wages and several non-economic provisions such as hours of work, grievance language, safety, grooming, seniority, equipment, travel, and on-call pay. DMS emphasized that the state had offered competitive pay increases, special pay, recruitment/retention funds in some units, and that insurance costs would remain unchanged for employees. Representatives for the Florida State Fire Service Association argued that the state was requiring firefighters to perform work far outside their job descriptions, including major construction and renovation, and that wildland firefighters were being undercompensated for long hours, on-call duty, and callback work. They also pressed for higher wages, an incentive-based pay plan, additional compensation for firefighter-EMTs, more protective clothing, and stronger decontamination and cancer-prevention measures. The Police Benevolent Association’s Florida Highway Patrol unit sought a larger career development plan, veteran stipends, broader grooming/tattoo allowances, improved vehicle safety, and more pay, while the law enforcement unit raised concerns about vehicle safety, performance evaluation quotas, and a $7,000 across-the-board raise. The security services unit representing correctional officers, probation officers, and ISS officers focused on a substantial wage increase, retention pay, special pay for death row and close management assignments, and overtime treatment for lieutenants and captains. Committee members asked only a few clarifying questions, including whether correctional officers receive overtime, which DMS confirmed they do. No votes were taken and no formal action was scheduled; the meeting was expressly for information only. The committee thanked the presenters, noted that the materials and testimony would be taken under advisement, and adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think that it's time for us to come to the table and re-evaluate and...
• Chair, Senator, we are very focused on improving our academic performance.
• One, just on the performance side of things: charter schools do close because of performance issues.
• Some of the ties to getting them in, but when the performances are low, then.
• evaluation with the mission of the school.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's another evaluation done by the department.
• may be mis-evaluated or something like that.
• So I was just trying to get clarity already. ...evaluate it or something like that.
• The evaluator says, look, this person keeps telling me, I'm going to go out and molest more children
• Chair, this deals with primarily interference with officers performing their duties.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We performed.
• It is a process that folks Go through to evaluate what's happening in their lives.
• They do require a lot of resources to perform fully. And the state auditor's office has.
• You can see from our qualitative evaluation results and our performance measure data summarized in the
• Stensmore and I have come to consensus on performance measures.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• but requires student performance to make up half of the evaluation, establishes a three-year teacher's
• We strike out, we change it from one-third to one-half when we're talking about the performance evaluation
• on the data and indicators based on the student's performance.
• a student's performance.
• I will hope my... ...performance is what we get from this.

Summary: The Committee on Fiscal Policy considered several bills and reported all of them favorably. SB 70-24, on state planning and budgeting, was presented as a modernization of the long-range planning program to simplify reporting, remove outdated measures, and focus on key data points and outcomes; it passed without opposition. CS/SB 166, on administrative efficiency in public schools, made broad changes to school accountability and operations, including lowering the stakes of certain student assessments, giving districts more flexibility on evaluations, contracts, certification, calendars, facilities, and VPK oversight. Two amendments were adopted: one clarifying that Title I funds may be used for STEM services, and another refining how advanced degrees count on salary schedules. The bill passed favorably after testimony both supporting and opposing the changes, with supporters emphasizing flexibility and opponents raising concerns about teacher evaluation and instructional practice. CS/SB 164, on vessel accountability, was described as a measure to address derelict and at-risk vessels by improving owner identification, creating a free long-term anchoring permit program, increasing penalties, and authorizing grants for local governments in the FWC prevention program. It received support from marine industry groups and was reported favorably. CS/SB 472, on education and correctional facilities for licensed professions, would allow inmates to receive credit toward licensure for qualifying coursework; a strike-all amendment added coordination with DBPR and professional boards. The bill drew support from criminal justice, business, and policy groups and passed unanimously. The committee spent the most time on CS/SB 438, on food and hemp products. Senator Burton and co-sponsor Senator Davis argued the bill was needed to regulate intoxicating hemp products, restrict child-appealing packaging and signage, ban synthetic hemp products, cap THC content in edibles and beverages, and require hemp beverages to be sold through alcohol-style distribution channels. Supporters, including alcohol distributors and some public safety advocates, said the bill would improve testing, labeling, and consumer protection. Opponents, including hemp retailers, farmers, and libertarian advocates, argued it would harm small businesses, reduce consumer choice, and push sales to the black market. After extensive debate, the bill was reported favorably. At the end of the meeting, senators requested to be recorded as voting in the affirmative on tab five, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the performance reporting that we'll need from you.
• And so in the application that we submitted, we noted that the state would evaluate potential policy,
• So we have some required performance reporting.
• Performance reporting.
• Reporting around performance, expenditures, et cetera. Questions? Representative Heathland.

Summary: The Rural Health Transformation Committee met to receive an overview from Department of Health and Welfare Director Juliet Sharon on Idaho’s Rural Health Transformation Program application and the federal rules governing the five-year funding. Sharon explained the program was created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, that Idaho’s award is about $186 million annually in year one, and that the state must obligate the funds by October 30 or risk losing them. She reviewed the application timeline, the federal scoring process, reporting and audit requirements, and the state’s plan to hire a 12-person limited-term team to manage solicitations, monitoring, and compliance. Committee members asked about scope-of-practice issues for dental hygienists and physician assistants, the risk of losing or gaining funds, survey methodology, telehealth, and how the state will use the money for workforce, technology, behavioral health, infrastructure, and tribal set-asides. Sharon said the department would continue working with the legislature on scope-of-practice policy, provide more detail on survey data and funding caps, and set up a shared information space with LSO for committee access. Sharon also walked through the five main initiative areas in Idaho’s plan: technology and access, innovative models, workforce, chronic disease and behavioral health, and rural infrastructure/partnerships. She emphasized that allowable uses include telehealth and EHR modernization, cybersecurity, EMS support, workforce recruitment and retention incentives, evidence-based behavioral health and chronic disease programs, renovations and mobile units, and a 3.5% tribal set-aside. She said the department is still refining what is allowable with CMS and that the committee will receive monthly summaries, procurement information, and performance reports. Members raised concerns about the survey’s heavy use of “other” responses, the amount of money going to administration, and whether telehealth spending is the best use of funds. Chris Jones of Catalyst Policy Group then offered outside perspective on rural health strategy and the federal program. He praised Idaho’s application but urged the committee to think in terms of integrated, patient-centered systems rather than isolated projects. He highlighted examples from other states involving community health workers, telehealth hubs, remote monitoring, value-based care networks, rural training pipelines, and partnerships among hospitals, FQHCs, and tribal providers. He cautioned against focusing on social determinants of health funding, encouraged use of technology to reduce labor burden and improve sustainability, and emphasized that training providers in rural areas tends to keep them there. No votes were taken. The committee agreed to tentatively meet again on May 28 during CMS’s planned Idaho visit, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the performance reporting that we'll need from you.
• You know, this is a performance reporting that we'll need from you, the ability to go in and audit at
• So we have some required performance reporting.
• Performance reporting.
• Reporting around performance, expenditures, et cetera. Questions?

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The Rural Health Transformation Committee met to receive an overview from Department of Health and Welfare Director Juliet Sharon on Idaho’s Rural Health Transformation Program, created under the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Sharon explained the $50 billion federal program, Idaho’s application timeline, the state’s ranking and award amount, and the five broad initiative areas in the approved plan: technology and access, innovative care models, workforce development, chronic disease and behavioral health, and rural infrastructure/partnerships. She emphasized that the funding is tightly overseen by CMS, with required reporting, compliance checks, sustainability plans, and the risk of losing funds if Idaho does not obligate money or meet milestones on time. She also outlined the state’s plan to hire a 12-person temporary team and to use a mix of RFPs and competitive subgrants, with monthly reporting to the committee and a shared information space to track solicitations, rubrics, and awards. Committee members questioned several parts of the plan, especially scope-of-practice issues tied to the application, the use of telehealth funding, workforce retention, and the survey process used to shape the application. Representative Tanner asked whether the state could continue pursuing scope changes for dental hygienists and physician assistants and whether legislative action could affect funding outcomes; Sharon said the state would continue to evaluate those policies, but that compliance, timely spending, and performance would be the main factors affecting funding. Representative Healy raised concerns about the survey’s heavy use of “other” responses and about telehealth spending, arguing some telehealth uses may not be practical for specialty care. Representative Manwaring requested a shared drive for real-time data and asked for raw survey results and dollar-based funding caps. Sharon agreed to provide follow-up information, including survey data and additional details on funding limits. Chris Jones of Catalyst Policy Group then presented broader policy observations and examples from other states. He praised Idaho’s application, urged the committee to keep the focus on patient-centered rural access, and highlighted ideas such as community health workers, remote patient monitoring, rural training pipelines, value-based care networks, and telehealth models that reduce staffing needs and improve sustainability. He also cautioned against relying on social determinants of health funding, noted the importance of rural training and partnerships, and praised Idaho’s 3.5% tribal set-aside. The committee ended by agreeing to set up a shared information hub with LSO, to expect follow-up materials and possible solicitation drafts soon, and to tentatively plan its next meeting around CMS’s Idaho visit on May 28.

Transcript Highlights:

• In this evaluation, we really researched two main questions.
• In this evaluation, we really researched two main questions.
• before awarding subsequent performance before awarding subsequent Awards<00:23:22.720><c> to</c><00:
• so we made a number of performance so we made a number of recommendations<00:28:33.760><c> to</c><00
• </c><01:28:20.239><c> on</c> in 20203 about doing evaluations on in 20203 about doing evaluations on

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And when do you anticipate that evaluation being complete? It's in process.
• It's an evaluator who's working on it. We'll see this five years from now.
• But we have been talking about this extensively with evaluators.
• And I know this is one of the reasons why the evaluation isn't complete yet at all.
• But I would actually say that there is an opportunity to do preliminary evaluation.

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.