Transcript Highlights:

• We need a date. We can move the date if we need to.
• You need to give nutrition, you need to give exercise, and you need to give rest.
• You need to give nutrition, you need to give exercise, and you need to give rest.
• He knows he needs to eat, he knows he needs to brush his teeth, and he knows he needs to wear the same
• need as well.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held an informational hearing on several Department of Developmental Services proposals, with no votes taken. The first item focused on equitable access to intake and services for regional center clients, including standardizing eligibility assessments and modernizing the strengths-and-needs evaluation used to inform individual program plans. DDS said the changes would create a more consistent, equitable, and evidence-based process statewide, while the LAO explained the proposals as a response to disparities and inconsistent regional center practices. Advocates and regional center representatives were divided: Disability Rights California, the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, and some providers supported modernization but urged clearer safeguards, more community co-design, and stronger legislative review; others, including some regional center leaders and family advocates, warned against replacing the CEDER too quickly and stressed the need to preserve the person-centered IPP process. Committee members emphasized fair process, fidelity, and the need for a validated tool, while also noting that the proposals would not change eligibility definitions or replace IPPs. The second major item addressed state-operated transitional and rehabilitative services, including proposed time limits for stays at Porterville Developmental Center and Canyon Springs, plus the merger of the Community Placement Program and Community Resource Development Program. DDS argued that people should not remain in locked facilities for years and that the proposal would create urgency, clearer transition planning, a right of return, and a more efficient single program for community resource development. Supporters, including Disability Rights California, the State Council, the Public Defenders Association, and some service providers, said the proposals align with Olmstead and the Lanterman Act, reduce overreliance on institutions, and should be paired with stronger mental health supports, oversight, and notice to counsel. Opponents, including a district attorney representative, argued that a blanket 24-month limit could endanger public safety and that some individuals require longer, case-by-case commitments. Committee members said they wanted a more comprehensive plan showing that community placements and supports will be ready before people are moved, and they questioned whether an arbitrary timeline could work for such a complex population. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly stressed that any implementation must be fair, transparent, and backed by valid tools, adequate community capacity, and public input. DDS said both sets of proposals would require legislative approval and that the department is still open to changes in trailer bill language and further stakeholder consultation. The hearing ended with the committee indicating it would continue reviewing the proposals and hear public comment, but no formal action was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so I need you to give me a nod. I need you to give me a side eye.
• We need a date. We can move the date if we need to.
• needs.
• And they're kind of clinical needs and therapeutic needs.
• need as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• and critical need.
• everyone needs judgeships.
• It doesn't meet the need.
• But we really need the real number. We need to know what we need to do. Okay.
• of why more many is needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• and critical need.
• everyone needs judgeships.
• It doesn't meet the need.
• But we really need the real number. We, you know, so we know what we need to do. Okay.
• of why more money is needed.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation held a hearing focused on courthouse facility funding and the Governor’s budget proposals for the judicial branch. The Legislative Analyst’s Office outlined the state’s courthouse funding structure, including the Trial Court Facilities Act, the main facility funds, the fixed county facility payment, and the heavy reliance on General Fund backfill. LAO also explained that the state’s construction funds were depleted after large transfers and declining fine-and-fee revenue, leaving a backlog of roughly 80 construction projects and more than 22,000 deferred maintenance projects statewide. Members and witnesses discussed the long timelines for capital projects, the need for reassessments, and the impact of inflation, CEQA, and site acquisition delays. Judicial branch representatives, including Justice Hill, Judge Moorman, and Judge Tapia, testified that courthouses across the state face serious seismic, ADA, security, and maintenance problems. They described cost-cutting efforts in design and construction, but emphasized that many facilities are aging and unsafe, with examples from Los Angeles, Compton, Ukiah, and other courts involving flooding, elevator failures, asbestos issues, and closures that disrupted thousands of cases. Judge Moorman highlighted the Ukiah courthouse replacement as an example of a project that is on time and on budget and would improve access, safety, and community services. Judge Tapia stressed that deferred maintenance in Los Angeles County alone exceeds $1.4 billion and argued that preventive maintenance is fiscally prudent because emergency repairs and closures are more costly. Committee members pressed the panel on how priorities are set, whether caseload and population growth are adequately reflected, how quickly projects can be accelerated, and what level of funding would actually meet statewide needs. The Department of Finance and Judicial Council staff explained that the county contribution is fixed and not inflation-adjusted, that acquisitions require willing sellers and can be delayed by CEQA and market conditions, and that the Judicial Council’s prioritization process was based on 2019 criteria that may need updating. LAO cautioned that any new General Fund commitment would require tradeoffs with other state priorities and suggested the Legislature decide what level of funding it is willing to support. The committee also reviewed the Governor’s budget proposals for courthouse facilities, which include backfill for the construction fund, selected new construction and judgeship-related projects, and major facility modifications such as the Orange County Central Justice Center and relocation of Los Angeles courtrooms from the Spring Federal Building.

Transcript Highlights:

• and critical need.
• everyone needs judgeships.
• It doesn't meet the need.
• But we really need the real number. We, you know, so we know what we need to do. Okay.
• of why more many is needed.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation held a hearing focused first on courthouse facility funding and then on the Governor’s proposed court facilities budget. Legislative Analyst’s Office staff outlined the state’s court-facilities funding structure, including the 2002 shift of trial court facility responsibility from counties to the state, the main funding accounts, the insolvency of the construction fund, the move to General Fund support, the backlog of deferred maintenance, and the large estimated cost of needed new construction and repairs. Judicial Council representatives and judges from Los Angeles and Mendocino described severe seismic, safety, ADA, security, and maintenance problems, with examples of floods, elevator failures, asbestos-related closures, and long-delayed or underfunded projects. They argued that chronic underinvestment is making facilities less safe and more expensive to maintain, and that courthouse conditions directly affect access to justice and public confidence. Committee members pressed witnesses on how projects are prioritized, whether population and filing volume are adequately reflected, why reassessments have not been updated since 2019, how long acquisitions and construction take, and what level of funding would actually close the gap. Members also questioned the fixed county contribution, the use of General Fund backfills, and whether the state should set a clearer long-term funding target for the judicial branch. LAO staff emphasized that any new General Fund commitment would require tradeoffs with other budget priorities and said the Legislature must decide its appetite for funding. Judicial Council staff said the current prioritization was based on the 2019 reassessment and trailer bill language, that a new reassessment would cost about $14 million, and that acquisition delays are often driven by willing-seller issues and CEQA requirements. The chair asked for written testimony and indicated the committee would consider a future field hearing. In the second panel, Judicial Council and Department of Finance representatives reviewed the Governor’s budget proposals for court facilities. They said the proposal includes continued backfill for the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, several new construction and reappropriation items, relocation of Los Angeles courtrooms from the Spring Federal Building, and completion of a fire/life-safety project in Orange County. A court executive from Ventura testified that courthouse conditions affect public trust, employee morale, and the quality of service, citing roof leaks, elevator breakdowns, and HVAC failures as examples of why sustained facilities funding is needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• needs.
• We need rates that account for higher costs based on certificate needs.
• There has to be a place for children to go who need mental health needs.
• that it needs.
• needs.

Summary: The committee heard an extensive Department of Social Services presentation on child care budget issues, including the Governor’s proposed 2026-27 budget, federal CCDF changes, Prop. 64 revenue adjustments, and a one-time $11.5 million disaster-related infrastructure grant for licensed child care facilities affected by 2025 declared disasters. DSS said federal formula updates and lower Prop. 64 revenues would reduce funding and could result in about 4,176 CCTR slots being reduced, but the department said it was working to avoid impacts to currently enrolled children. The LAO supported aligning general child care funding with lower revenues and asked for more detail on the disaster grant. Members pressed DSS and Finance on why reductions were not being backfilled and why so many awarded slots remain uncontracted or unused; DSS said delays are largely due to providers building new infrastructure, licensing, staffing, and enrollment challenges, and that some unspent funds revert to the General Fund. The committee also discussed whether some contract dollars should be shifted to vouchers and whether more flexibility should be allowed for infrastructure and expansion costs. A second panel focused on the state’s commitment to expand child care and on rate reform. DSS reported that nearly 125,000 new slots have been awarded since 2021-22, but speakers from Stanislaus County Office of Education, Parent Voices California, and the California Budget and Policy Center argued that unmet need remains large and that the system still leaves many families without access. Stanislaus County described a large local shortage of infant and toddler care and said reimbursement disparities between child care programs and state preschool create disincentives for providers. Parent Voices gave testimony about the burdens and instability families face when trying to access care, especially for survivors and low-income parents, and called for a universal, publicly funded system. The Budget Center said only about 16% of eligible children were enrolled in 2024, urged expansion across the mixed delivery system rather than concentrating investment in TK, and called for faster rate reform and new revenue. LAO estimated that bringing certain CCTR adjustment factors up to CSPP levels would cost $88 million to $131 million ongoing. Members and witnesses discussed the single rate structure, automation needs, and the need for deadlines and a ramp-up plan; DSS said the goal is to eliminate disparities, but that policy decisions are still needed before automation can proceed. The committee then reviewed several trailer bill proposals. DSS outlined a 2026-27 COLA proposal that would apply a 2.41% increase through cost-of-care-plus payments, though the department said it had inadvertently excluded CalWORKs Child Care and the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program and would revise the proposal; LAO recommended making the COLA methodology uniform across programs. DSS also proposed replacing the market rate survey with the federally approved alternative methodology on a triennial schedule, limiting temporary absences in family child care homes to 20% of monthly hours, defining excessive unexplained absences as more than 30 days in a year, and aligning family fee deductions with new federal requirements so providers receive the full voucher value. Members generally supported the temporary absence change and asked about implementation timing for the family fee deduction, with DSS saying it was in contact with Riverside County. The committee also heard a brief update on the Early Childhood Policy Council reappropriation, which would extend unused funds through June 30, 2028 because prior costs came in higher than expected.

Transcript Highlights:

• needs.
• needs.
• it needs.
• needs.
• I needed that STRTP, and I needed foster care, too.

Transcript Highlights:

• needs.
• that it needs.
• needs.
• I needed that STRTP, and I needed foster care, too.
• I needed that STRTP. And I needed foster care too.

Summary: The committee heard a lengthy budget hearing focused on child care, child welfare, and immigration-related services, with most of the discussion centered on child care funding, slot utilization, and rate reform. Department of Social Services officials said the Governor’s budget would provide $6.8 billion for child care programs in 2026-27, including $11.5 million in Prop. 64 funds for mini-grants to licensed facilities affected by 2025 disasters. They also described federal CCDF and Prop. 64 revenue reductions that would reduce general child care funding by about 4,176 slots, while emphasizing that the cuts should not affect currently enrolled children. The LAO supported aligning spending with lower revenues and asked for more detail on the disaster grant program. Members questioned why so many awarded slots remain uncontracted or unfilled, and DSS said delays are largely due to providers building new infrastructure, licensing, staffing, and enrollment work. One senator criticized the repeated explanation, argued unspent funds revert to the General Fund instead of being redirected to child care, and urged shifting more funding from contract slots to vouchers and increasing flexibility for infrastructure and expansion costs. DSS said it is exploring more flexibility, better readiness screening, and quicker redistribution of relinquished slots. The committee also discussed the Emergency Child Care Bridge program, with DSS saying it can redistribute funds among counties to avoid disenrolling children. A second panel addressed the state’s broader commitment to expand child care and move toward a single rate structure. DSS reported that since 2021-22 nearly 125,000 new slots have been awarded across CCTR, CAPP, CMAP, and the Emergency Child Care Bridge program, bringing monthly service levels to more than 366,700 children. The department and CDE described progress on rate reform, including completion of the alternative methodology and joint recommendations from the labor-management committee on a single-rate framework. County and provider testimony emphasized persistent unmet need, especially for infant and toddler care, and argued that current reimbursement disparities between CDSS-funded programs and state preschool create inequities and discourage expansion. Stanislaus County Office of Education said rate differences can materially affect local program revenue and staffing, while Parent Voices California described the child care system as difficult to navigate and inequitable, especially for Black families and survivors of domestic violence. The California Budget and Policy Center argued that only a small share of eligible children are served, that Universal TK has concentrated investment in school-based settings, and that providers are still paid far below the cost of care. Members pressed the administration for deadlines on automation and implementation of the single-rate structure, and DSS said some work can proceed before collective bargaining concludes, though policy decisions are still needed. The committee also reviewed several trailer bill proposals. For the COLA, DSS proposed applying the 2026-27 increase through cost-of-care-plus payments, but acknowledged it had inadvertently excluded CalWORKs Child Care and the Emergency Child Care Bridge from the initial calculation; the LAO recommended making the COLA increase uniform across child care and state preschool programs. On the alternative methodology survey, DSS proposed replacing the market rate survey with the federally approved alternative methodology and aligning the timing with the federal CCDF state plan cycle. On licensed family child care homes, DSS proposed limiting temporary absences to 20% of monthly care hours and allowing more flexibility for medical appointments, jury duty, training, and union activities. On excessive unexplained absences, DSS proposed a statutory definition to align state policy with federal rules allowing disenrollment after 30 days of unexplained absences. The committee also discussed a proposal to require contractors to collect family fees directly so the full voucher value reaches providers, with DSS saying it is working with Riverside County on implementation and CDE asking that the same policy apply to state preschool. Finally, the committee reviewed an Early Childhood Policy Council reappropriation and reporting proposal, with DSS explaining that prior funds were underused because participation costs are hard to estimate and that additional staffing and contractor support would be needed for the expanded annual report requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• of youth and families because not all needs, I mean, most needs need to be met by those folks as well
• We're centering the needs.
• is not always the need.
• The need is not always the service that meets that need.
• complex needs?

Transcript Highlights:

• And they need to tell us what they need so that we can deliver for them.
• of slots we need.
• "Home-based slots"—do we need? How many community-based slots do we need?
• The need is vast.
• The need is vast.

Transcript Highlights:

• And they need to tell us what they need so that we can deliver for them.
• And they need to tell us what they need so that we can deliver for them. and they need to tell us what
• Again, what percentage of our slots need to be? It doesn't need to be 100%.
• slots we need.
• The need is vast.

Summary: The hearing was a joint budget discussion focused first on California preschool and child care, then on universal transitional kindergarten (TK), with later movement toward a reading-difficulties screener item. Members emphasized the need for a coordinated early childhood system that better serves families’ real schedules and needs, rather than forcing families to fit existing program structures. The preschool panel reviewed access, quality, workforce, facilities, and information systems, with repeated concern about whether current funding and program design are sufficient for infants, toddlers, three-year-olds, and full-day/full-year care. Witnesses from the Learning Policy Institute, CDSS, CDE, and community providers described major growth in preschool and child care enrollment, especially for two- and three-year-olds, but also noted persistent gaps, waitlists, workforce shortages, low reimbursement rates, and the need for more stable funding. Several witnesses urged expansion or permanence of two-year-old eligibility in CSPP, more support for mixed-delivery systems, facility conversion and renovation grants, better statewide enrollment and referral systems, and continued funding for one-time grants such as UPK coordinators and planning/implementation supports. Provider and parent testimony stressed that rate reform, enrollment-based reimbursement, and continued hold-harmless protections are needed to keep programs open and accessible. The TK panel reviewed the Governor’s budget proposal for full implementation of universal TK, including Proposition 98 funding for expansion and lower adult-to-child ratios, plus a multilingual learner screening implementation budget change proposal. LPI and CDE reported that TK enrollment has grown rapidly but uptake is now a little over half of eligible four-year-olds, with families citing lack of awareness, preference for other care, and logistical barriers such as location and hours. CDE and providers said the UPK planning and implementation grant, mixed-delivery planning grants, and UPK coordinators have been critical, but these one-time funds are set to sunset. Members pressed for more information on eligible population projections, full-day/full-year demand, teacher credential data, and how administrative credential programs are preparing leaders for early childhood settings. The committee held the issues open and requested follow-up data from the departments.

Transcript Highlights:

• You need a team. You need that team. You need that support.
• You need to be able to get the respite and the other things that you need.
• Like, we need more, like, one, the needs need to be linked to the child and not the ...from people.
• Like, we need more, like, one, the needs need to be linked to the child and not the placement.
• And two, we need services. We need a team. These families need more than just dollars.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is an important direction that we need to go, but it needs to be done planfully.
• You need a team. You need that team. You need that support.
• You need to be able to get the respite and the other things that you need.
• We heard that so loudly from people: like, we need more; like, one, the needs need to be linked to the
• And two, we need services. We need a team. These families need more than just dollars.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services heard an informational hearing on child welfare, foster care, community care licensing, child support, and related budget issues. CDSS described the Governor’s proposed child and family services budget, emphasized a family-centered and kin-first approach, and reported that foster care entries and congregate care placements have declined over the past decade. Witnesses also highlighted the importance of extended foster care to age 21, while noting persistent racial disparities for Native American and Black children and the need for stronger prevention, family finding, and community-based supports. A major focus was the proposed tiered rate structure (TRS), which CDSS said would shift funding from placement-based rates to child-centered supports, including care and supervision, strength-building dollars, and immediate needs funding paired with high-fidelity wraparound services. CDSS and county representatives said implementation is on track, with foundational policy guidance expected by the end of the year, CANS/CFT timeliness targeted by year-end, and the CWS CARES system nearing go-live in October 2026. Counties and providers raised concerns about whether the rate model and wraparound capacity will be sufficient, especially for higher-acuity youth, and asked for more data, clearer guidance, and continued collaboration. County Welfare Directors Association representatives also requested continued emergency response funding and an extension of flexible family supports, arguing both are needed to stabilize front-end child welfare work and bridge to TRS. Providers from FFAs and STRTPs warned that insurance costs, provider closures, and the transition to TRS could threaten service capacity unless the state addresses long-term insurance and reimbursement issues. LAO noted the Governor’s budget contains no new child welfare augmentations and said the main General Fund change reflects the expiration of one-time funding. No votes were taken; members instead asked for follow-up data, technical assistance, and possible future legislative or trailer bill solutions, including on insurance and implementation timelines.

Transcript Highlights:

• and is struggling to access what we need, what they need.
• needs of the system.
• needs of the system.
• I need some help.
• Butler receive the care they need when they need it.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the impact of H.R. 1 on older Californians and related county administration issues. Chair Jackson and Chair Addis opened by emphasizing California’s rapidly aging population and the need to protect seniors’ access to food, health care, housing, and in-home support services. Testimony from the Department of Social Services, Department of Health Care Services, and Department of Aging described how H.R. 1 would expand work and reporting requirements in CalFresh and Medi-Cal, increase redeterminations, and create new eligibility barriers. Witnesses and advocates warned that these changes could lead to large coverage losses, especially for adults ages 55 to 64, people experiencing homelessness, caregivers, and some immigrant groups, while also increasing administrative burden on counties. The LAO noted that many provisions do not directly apply to Californians 65 and older, but highlighted indirect effects and some direct impacts, including a new home equity limit for certain long-term care recipients and narrower immigration eligibility rules. Committee members pressed the administration and counties on how exemptions would be identified and implemented, whether data systems could automatically protect eligible people, and how outreach would reach older adults, women, LGBTQ seniors, and people with limited digital access. DHCS and CDSS said they are working to use existing data, cross-program information sharing, and human-centered communications to maximize exemptions and reduce churn, including text outreach, print and radio campaigns, and navigator support. Members also raised concerns about the need for legal aid and county eligibility workers to help people navigate complex rules, and requested updated analyses on the number of people likely to lose both Medi-Cal and CalFresh and the broader human and system impacts. No votes were taken. The second major topic was the administration’s proposal to shift some future IHSS costs to counties by establishing a statewide baseline for average authorized hours per case. CDSS said the proposal is intended to improve consistency in assessments and not reduce services, while counties and labor groups strongly opposed it, arguing that rising hours reflect real increases in need, an aging and higher-acuity caseload, and state-mandated assessment tools rather than county error. County representatives said the proposal would strain already limited local revenues, worsen the effects of H.R. 1, and could force cuts to other safety-net services. Committee members questioned the proposal’s timing and impact, but the hearing ended without action, with the chairs asking for continued updates, additional analysis, and more information before May Revision.

Transcript Highlights:

• and is struggling to access what we need, what they need.
• need of the system.
• I need some help.
• They have additional needs that need to match a provider skill set.
• Butler receive the care they need when they need it.

Transcript Highlights:

• needs of all Californians.
• needs of all Californians.
• or ADL needs.
• Your needs.
• We need ongoing investment.

Summary: The joint Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused first on long-term services and supports for older adults, especially the “forgotten/overlooked middle” who earn too much for Medi-Cal but cannot afford private long-term care. Administration witnesses from DHCS, the Department of Aging, and Social Services described Medicare’s limited long-term care coverage, Medi-Cal’s role, the elimination of the Medi-Cal asset test, and ongoing state studies and listening sessions on financing options. Testimony from advocates and researchers emphasized rising homelessness among older adults, the need for better navigation and coordination across health, aging, housing, and social service systems, and short-term policy steps such as share-of-cost reform, housing stability supports, and protecting home- and community-based services. Members highlighted the need for a coordinated, no-wrong-door approach and asked for the most impactful budget investments to address affordability and homelessness risk. The second major topic was the Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS) program. CDA reported that CBAS helps participants remain in the community, that 304 centers operate statewide serving about 42,000 people, and that demand is stable but access gaps remain in some regions. DHCS explained that a 2024 rate increase authorized by SB 159 became inoperative after Proposition 35, and that a separate 10% rate change on the fee schedule was the result of a DHCS system error; the department said it would not require recoupment, though managed care plans may act under their contracts. CBAS providers and advocates warned that reimbursement rates have not kept pace with costs, that several centers have closed, and that clawbacks could trigger more closures. They requested $74.8 million ongoing General Fund to close part of the rate gap and preserve the program, while members expressed concern about closures and the cost savings of keeping people out of more expensive institutional care. The hearing then moved to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) and statewide collective bargaining. CDSS reviewed provider recruitment and retention efforts, including electronic timesheets, direct deposit, and the now-completed IHSS Career Pathways program, which trained more than 59,000 providers. CDSS also summarized its AB 102 workgroup report on statewide versus regional bargaining, saying the final report would be sent to the Legislature soon and that statewide bargaining appeared more viable than regional bargaining, though it would require clear statutory scope and major fiscal changes. The department estimated that each $1 per hour statewide wage increase would cost at least $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion annually. Labor advocates argued that IHSS wages, benefits, and training are too inconsistent across counties and called for statewide bargaining, consumer participation, and ongoing state funding. County representatives supported stronger wages but cautioned that counties need protection from new costs and administrative burdens, and consumer advocates warned that moving bargaining to the state could weaken local consumer control and the program’s consumer-driven structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> no longer cover um the basic uh needs no longer cover um the basic uh needs for<00:03:47.519><c>
• </c><00:04:21.759><c> uh</c> mental illness um that need uh mental illness um that need uh supervised
• We just need the support.
• You know, they need five person needs.
• Uh, we have a higher need.

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Health and Family Services heard a presentation on Kentucky personal care homes from representatives of the Kentucky Association of Healthcare Facilities, Management Systems of Kentucky, and Elder Care Partners. Witnesses described personal care homes as a lower-cost, 24/7 residential option for adults with serious mental illness who do not qualify for nursing home care but need structured support, medication assistance, meals, housekeeping, transportation, and supervision. They said the homes are regulated by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, are not Medicaid-funded, and rely on a state supplementation rate of about $50.70 per day, which they argued no longer covers operating costs because of rising food, labor, insurance, and maintenance expenses. The presenters said the sector has shrunk significantly over time, citing a drop from 64 homes in 2002 to 34 today among the homes serving this population, with 30 closures over 23 years and two more closures since August. They argued that the closures have contributed to homelessness, hospital overcrowding, and longer stays in psychiatric hospitals, and they gave examples of residents who had spent many months in hospitals before stabilizing in a personal care home. One provider also described spending more than $800,000 on capital improvements after acquiring Kentucky facilities and said reimbursement is too low to sustain safe operations. They asked for an incremental reimbursement increase over two years and said they have also proposed an assisted-living model for people with mental illness. Members asked about staffing, reimbursement, and the number of people still needing placement. The presenters said there is no requirement for licensed or certified staff in these facilities, though some homes use medication technicians and occasional LPNs. They estimated they are currently serving about 2,000 residents and said they receive roughly 30 referrals for every one person admitted, with many referrals involving people whose needs exceed the personal care home level. Senator Meredith and Representative Fleming said any funding request would need documentation of savings and corresponding budget offsets, while Representative Duval expressed support and asked about possible staffing and program improvements. The witnesses also compared Kentucky’s flat-rate reimbursement to a more individualized reimbursement model in Minnesota, saying a needs-based system would better match staffing and reduce hospitalizations.

Transcript Highlights:

• needs of all Californians.
• , need for growth, and... ...the needs of the populations that we serve, assess service capacity, need
• We need ongoing investment.
• need our seniors on the streets.
• We need more people, and we don't need our seniors on the streets. We don't do that in California.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittees held a joint hearing on older adults and long-term care supports and services, with members and witnesses focusing on the growing “forgotten/overlooked middle” of Californians who are too wealthy for Medi-Cal but unable to afford long-term services and supports (LTSS). Administration witnesses from DHCS and the Department of Aging described Medicare’s limited long-term care coverage, Medi-Cal’s role for low-income residents, and ongoing state work on LTSS financing, including a 2024 financing initiative and a final report due in 2026. Testimony emphasized rising costs, caregiver shortages, homelessness among older adults, and the need to preserve home- and community-based services to avoid more expensive institutional care. Several advocates urged immediate action, especially Medi-Cal share-of-cost reform, housing supports, and protection of HCBS funding. Members asked for the most urgent budget priorities and were told to focus on share-of-cost reform and assisted-living rate protections, along with broader system navigation and caregiver support. The committee also heard testimony on the Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS) program. CDA reported that CBAS serves about 42,000 participants through 304 centers, with demand generally stable but geographic gaps in some regions and staffing challenges after the pandemic. DHCS explained a rate-setting issue: a 10% CBAS rate increase had been mistakenly posted on the Medi-Cal fee schedule in 2024, and while Proposition 35 later made the targeted SB 159 rate increase inoperative, DHCS said any repayment by managed care plans would depend on contract terms and the department would not require clawbacks. CBAS providers and advocates warned that the program is in a financial crisis, with six center closures since June 2024, and requested $74.8 million ongoing General Fund to close about half the gap between current reimbursement and costs. Members expressed concern that clawbacks could accelerate closures and noted the program’s role in preventing institutionalization and supporting family caregivers. In the final panel, CDSS presented on In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) provider recruitment and retention and on the AB 102 statewide bargaining report. CDSS said the IHSS Career Pathways program has concluded successfully, with more than 59,000 providers completing training, and that the AB 102 report—based on workgroup meetings and consultant analysis—will be sent to the Legislature shortly. The department said the workgroup viewed statewide bargaining as more viable than regional bargaining, but identified major issues around consumer participation, county fiscal impacts, administrative responsibilities, and the need to define bargaining scope in statute. CDSS estimated that each $1 per hour statewide wage increase would cost at least $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion annually. Provider unions supported statewide bargaining, arguing it would improve wages, benefits, and workforce stability, while county representatives said any statewide model should preserve consumer focus, protect county finances and realignment funds, and keep core administrative functions with local public authorities. The hearing concluded without votes, with members requesting additional follow-up information and urging continued engagement ahead of the May revise.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our families and our kids need both.
• Lastly, there is a need for one family will not be the need for another.
• We need to work together to mainly what is it that parents need and how all these different, you know
• It's not just because, as you know, kids need health, parents need supports, mental health.
• We really need you guys to put your part. We need help.

Summary: The California Assembly Select Committee on Child Care Costs held its third hearing focused on transitional kindergarten (TK) and how it fits within the state’s mixed delivery early learning system, with an emphasis on the Central Valley. Opening remarks stressed that TK and community-based child care are both needed to serve families, especially working and low-income households that need full-day, year-round care, transportation, and flexible hours. Committee members said the goal was to understand what is working, where gaps remain, and how to better coordinate TK with other programs to support children, families, and the workforce. The first panel included the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Every Child California, and Early Edge California. Testimony reviewed TK’s expansion to all four-year-olds, growth in enrollment, and changes to program requirements, while also noting related shifts in state preschool eligibility, reimbursement rates, and the option for programs to serve two-year-olds. Witnesses argued that TK should be treated as part of a broader continuum that includes state preschool, Head Start, family child care, and voucher-based care, and they called for easier local partnerships, shared facilities, aligned funding and oversight, better compensation, and permanent support for serving younger children. Committee members and witnesses discussed the strain on home-based providers and centers, the need for more vouchers and higher reimbursement, and the fact that many TK programs are part-day and do not meet full-day family needs. Public comment and the second panel reinforced concerns about affordability, access, and equity. Parents described the benefits of high-quality child care and TK for children’s development and for their own ability to work, while a parent from Oakland said TK was transformative for her child and essential to her career, but that her younger child still faced a wait for a TK spot. Children Now and Stanford researchers presented data showing that awareness of TK is uneven, especially among lower-income families, and that enrollment and access are stronger in more affluent areas. They recommended broader outreach, full-day/full-year options, and a true mixed delivery model that includes community-based providers, family child care homes, and Head Start. The California Department of Education said TK and state preschool work best as a shared opportunity and noted ongoing mixed-delivery grants and local coordination efforts, while public commenters from county offices, providers, and nonprofit organizations emphasized the need for continued funding, stable rates, and protection for community-based programs affected by TK expansion.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is how we need the truth. We expect to need much more than that.
• facility needs as Judicial branch needs as it relates to facility needs and trial court operations.
• some of these needs.
• needs that she sees.
• needs that she sees.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation heard presentations on the Office of the State Public Defender, civil legal aid funding, and Judicial Branch operations. The State Public Defender requested permanent funding for positions that had been temporarily funded to implement the Racial Justice Act, explaining that the workload has grown substantially through retroactive capital-case briefing, habeas proceedings, data requests, and related statistical analysis. She also presented findings from a public defense workload and staffing report showing that California’s county-based public defense system is under-resourced, with too few attorneys, investigators, and support staff, especially in rural counties, and that statewide standards and funding are lacking. Committee members asked about the scope of racial bias claims, the impact of collaborative courts and Prop. 36, and the need for statewide cost estimates and phased funding options. The committee then heard from legal aid advocates and a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in support of increased civil legal aid funding. Witnesses described the Equal Access Fund, homelessness prevention services, health care access, and immigration detention defense as cost-effective ways to prevent evictions, stabilize families, and reduce downstream public costs. They requested a $50 million increase to the Equal Access Fund, $20 million to restart homelessness prevention services, and $10 million for health care access work, along with additional targeted investments from the California Access to Justice Commission. Testimony emphasized the severe shortage of legal aid attorneys, the high demand for immigration representation, and the role of legal aid in domestic violence, housing, and family law matters. Senators asked for more information on service locations, outreach, funding losses, and how the requested amounts were calculated. In the Judicial Branch overview, Judicial Council and trial court representatives supported the Governor’s proposed budget, including a $70 million increase for trial court operations, $21.7 million for employee health and retirement costs, and funding for appellate counsel and case processing. They said the money is needed to offset inflation, supply chain costs, and staffing pressures, and to preserve access to justice. Senators pressed the branch and Department of Finance on interpreter shortages, midyear funding flexibility, courthouse facilities needs, and judgeship needs in inland counties. Finance officials said they were aware of the broader facilities backlog, and the committee requested follow-up information on the full capital and maintenance needs, interpreter funding, and updated judgeship and workload data. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.