Transcript Highlights:

• How to fund and prioritize the facility needs of the judicial branch will be the focus of our hearing
• And it's projected that the General Fund will need to be providing a backfill to this fund between now
• and the Immediate and Critical Needs Account until those funds became insolvent.
• Should we be funding from the General Fund into those funds based on what the needs are?
• that goes into funding every space that is needed within that judicial branch?

Transcript Highlights:

• First, the need for state funding is not clear.
• But why not fully fund what we already have and ensure that they have robust funding to meet the needs
• level, which in the Governor's Budget was able to fund 17.5 percent of unmet need for the May Revision
• The $20 million UC emergency funding for basic needs and disability services request, and additional
• We need this vital funding to help alleviate some of the pressures overall. Thank you.

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision proposals for higher education, beginning with the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education. Finance proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan used to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to allow budget flexibility for a remaining legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting the litigation costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about waiving interest on the loan, noting that special fund loans have historically been repaid with interest. Members asked about the litigation amount and the estimated interest savings, which Finance said would be about $245,000. The committee then discussed University of California funding, including the Governor’s proposed compact funding and a $1.5 million one-time increase for the First Star foster youth program at UC campuses. UC said the program has strong outcomes at UCLA, including a 100% college-going rate and high college completion rates, and that the new funding would expand the program to additional campuses and eventually be self-supporting through fundraising. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing that UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and that the new initiative would duplicate existing services. Several senators questioned whether the state should expand a new program instead of strengthening existing ones, while UC and Finance emphasized the program’s focus on foster youth and its high success rates. For the California Community Colleges, Finance outlined the May Revision’s increase to the Student-Centered Funding Formula COLA from 2.41% to 4.31%, along with enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time investments. The Chancellor’s Office supported the flexible “super COLA” approach and asked for more enrollment growth funding, arguing that many districts are already above current targets and that unfunded growth restricts access. The LAO recommended funding at least the statutory COLA, redirecting some ongoing funds to enrollment growth or one-time priorities, and rejecting the $9.7 million Adult Learner Demonstration Project because districts already have incentives to do similar work. Senators pressed Finance and the Chancellor’s Office on the use of COLA funds to cover the new paid pregnancy disability leave requirement, the impact on hold-harmless and basic-aid districts, and whether the state should fund actual enrollment growth rather than a flat COLA. The committee also reviewed California Student Aid Commission proposals, including adjustments to Cal Grant and Middle Class Scholarship funding, continued Golden State Teacher Grant funding, and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance said the Middle Class Scholarship changes reflected updated caseload estimates and that the higher 35% unmet-need level had been one-time funding, while CSAC urged continued support and noted the importance of financial aid for student success. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding as not well-targeted and urged caution on Workforce Pell trailer bill language, citing uncertainty about federal rules, ongoing administrative workload, and the need for clearer implementation planning. Members also raised concerns about declining CADAA applications and the need to better promote state aid for undocumented and mixed-status students. No votes were taken during the transcripted portion, and the committee moved through the agenda items with questions and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• They need $3.9 million in the General Fund.”
• Thank you for the VOCA funding. We definitely need more.
• Thank you for the VOCA funding. We definitely need more.
• Thank you for the VOCA funding. We definitely need more.
• Funds: why is additional General Fund needed for this effort this year when previously it has been funded

Transcript Highlights:

• First, the need for state funding is not clear.
• But two, to the extent that that funding isn't needed for that purpose, the community colleges have that
• level, which in the Governor's Budget was able to fund 17.5% of the unmet need for the May Revision.
• He also supports the $20 million UC emergency funding request for basic needs and disability services
• We need this vital funding to help alleviate some of the pressures overall. Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• So these are things that are needed, and I believe this is an important part; they need more funding.
• are needed, and these are things I believe this is an important part; they need more funding.
• We've created the fund; we need the money.
• to have a need from the general fund for any of these.
• And if we can do anything to shore up that fund, I think we need it for the people who need the most

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• care development funds, Proposition 64, and the need for mid-year transfers and funding for CCTR spaces
• care development funds, Proposition 64, and the need for mid-year transfers and funding for CCTR spaces
• funding levels are meeting actual need might not be accurate.
• , but the funding for the immediate needs TPA is not yet built into the state budget, which may need
• , which are funds that we rely on heavily to respond to community 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:

• And so the purpose of this fund was really tailored to rural water providers who need the ability to
• They needed to find the funding to be able to do them.
• And so the purpose of this fund was really tailored to rural water providers who need the ability to
• They needed to find the funding to be able to do them.
• If federal funding were to dry up tomorrow, we would still have not only the money to need our existing

Committee: Senate Senate Natural Resources Committee of Reference

Summary: The Natural Resources Committee convened for introductions of members, staff, interns, and pages, with members briefly noting their districts and roles. The committee’s only agenda item was a presentation from the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA) by Director Chelsea McGuire, who outlined WIFA’s mission and recent work financing water infrastructure across Arizona. McGuire described three major funding programs: the rural water supply development revolving fund, the water conservation grant fund, and the long-term water augmentation fund. She said WIFA has financed nearly $3 billion in water infrastructure over 30 years, awarded about $87.3 million through the rural fund, and allocated $211 million in conservation grants expected to save 6.6 million acre-feet of water. She also said WIFA is out of conservation money and requested continued state support, while noting the revolving funds remain stable even if federal funding declines. A large portion of the discussion focused on the long-term augmentation fund and its competitive solicitation process. McGuire said WIFA identified a projected 100,000 to 500,000 acre-foot supply gap in 10 to 15 years and selected seven projects for further due diligence after receiving 17 responses, including desalination, reuse, groundwater storage, and exchange-based projects involving private partners. Senators asked about public transparency, project timelines, costs, and the need for state funding; McGuire said public engagement will continue, the projects are intended to match the identified time frame, and state funding is needed both to pay for due diligence and to reduce project risk and cost. No votes or formal actions were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• So school needs ongoing funding.
• So school needs are ongoing funding.
• the marginal cost formula to determine how much funding would be needed to fund those additional slots
• then use the marginal cost formula to determine how much funding would be needed to fund those additional
• enrollment funding should be distributed based on kind of the regional needs of the area.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on three education budget items: the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), differentiated assistance/statewide system of support, and universal school meals plus kitchen infrastructure grants. For ELOP, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to provide $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding and $62.4 million to set a minimum Tier 2 rate of $1,800 per pupil. The LAO recommended instead fixing the Tier 2 rate at $1,579, and committee members questioned how the rate was determined, how much funding is actually spent, and whether overlapping funding from ELOP, ACEs, and 21st Century programs is being tracked. CDE said ELOP is showing positive attendance and math outcomes, but some requested data will not be available until mid-2027; members also raised concerns about double-funding, transparency, and whether middle and high school students are being equitably served. On differentiated assistance, CCEE outlined the statewide system of support and the various tiers of universal, targeted, supplemental, and intensive assistance. Finance explained the Governor’s proposal to replace the current DA structure with a more stable universal and targeted assistance model, funded at $131.9 million ongoing, with a three-year support cycle aligned to LCAP and ESSA timelines and broader State Board authority to revise eligibility criteria. The LAO objected to considering the proposal before the State Board finalizes the new performance criteria, and committee members expressed concern that moving to a three-year cycle could delay support for LEAs that newly fall into need mid-cycle. There was also discussion about whether the proposal would weaken subgroup-based equity guardrails or give the State Board too much discretion over who qualifies for support. For school meals and kitchen infrastructure, Finance proposed $1.8 billion ongoing for universal meals and an additional $100 million ongoing plus $100 million one-time for a fourth round of kitchen infrastructure and training grants. The LAO recommended rejecting the new kitchen grant round because prior rounds are still being spent and the unmet need is not yet clear. CDE said prior investments have improved meal participation, efficiency, and menu variety, but many schools still lack the facilities for scratch cooking and face construction, electrical, and procurement barriers. Members asked for more data on how prior grants were used, which schools are benefiting, and whether funds could also support lower-cost food access strategies such as pantries, while noting federal restrictions on some meal-service innovations.

Transcript Highlights:

• As a result, it did not need the full funding amount for this program.
• These funds are an example of what needs to be protected.
• Fund and will no longer be needed for the project.
• county workforce needs and more funding for the food banks.
• in need, and we urge the funding of the diaper bank network.

Transcript Highlights:

• This rider is no longer needed as ongoing funding will comprise of distributions from the Tough.
• Our next two requests highlight program expansion funds to meet the needs of our region and the state
• Additional HEAF dollars would free up much-needed funds for all of the non-PUF universities in the state
• However, if Dallas and Houston are to take the next step... ...we need investment that formula funding
• the source of funding for that needs to be changed for the method of finance moving forward.

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Article III

Transcript Highlights:

• They need $3.9 million in the General Fund.
• To fund the programs at the current level, we will need $218 million.
• In 2023, the amount of funding we needed was $262 million.
• and the resources they need, and this funding is critical to allow us to do that.
• Why is additional General Fund needed for this effort this year when previously it has been funded through

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 held an informational hearing on the Governor’s May Revision proposals for labor, public safety/judiciary, and transportation, and no votes were taken. In Part A on labor, the Employment Development Department described funding for EDD Next document management work, updated UI loan interest costs, disability insurance and paid family leave benefit increases, WIOA adjustments, UI and school employee benefit changes, an EMT training reappropriation, and a technical correction tied to an EDD Next reversion. PERB discussed reduced funding requests for AB 288 due to litigation and a proposal to implement AB 1 covering legislative employees. DIR presented proposals for legal unit reclassifications, two major IT modernization projects, a new Cal/OSHA emerging technologies unit, a COIA reappropriation, and trailer bill language requiring electronic payment of employer assessments and removing a salary cap for the DWC administrative director. CalHR proposed consolidating employee assistance services into a statewide contract with enhanced support for first responders, and CalPERS and CalSTRS presented budget adjustments tied to investment costs, state contributions, and benefit overpayments. Members focused heavily on the unemployment insurance debt and interest payments, asking why the administration had no concrete plan to pay down principal. Finance and LAO explained that the state’s UI tax structure has long been insufficient and that any long-term solution would need to address both the outstanding federal loan and the structural imbalance in employer taxes. Questions also centered on EDD Next costs and timelines, with the chair asking for clearer long-term project cost estimates and Finance noting that future maintenance and operations costs will continue after implementation. On DIR’s emerging technologies unit, members asked whether it would address AI-driven workplace harms; DIR said the unit would focus on physical workplace safety issues involving AI, robotics, autonomous equipment, and related guardrails, while LAO noted broader labor-practice questions would likely fall outside Cal/OSHA’s scope. In the CalPERS discussion, members raised concerns about transparency in private equity and external management fees, while CalPERS said higher fees reflect a strategy of greater private-market and active-management exposure and are offset by higher net returns. Members urged more information on specific investments and future reporting. For CalSTRS, Finance presented routine contribution and overpayment adjustments, but members also raised broader transparency concerns that CalSTRS staff said they would follow up on separately. Public comment in Part A was dominated by strong support for an immigrant worker emergency relief fund, along with support for apprenticeship and workforce proposals and PERB staffing. The chair and members said they would follow up on where the immigrant relief proposal should be considered, noting it may belong in another policy area. The hearing then moved into Part B with an overview of Judicial Branch-related May Revision items, including court interpreter funding, appellate court security, workload cap changes, lactation room implementation delays, and a reduction to the state court facility construction backfill.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we need that additional kitchen funding to help build out that infrastructure, and the fact that we're
• These students are not well served by the current funding mechanism statewide, and we need to dedicate
• funding to make sure that they are getting their needs met, they are identified, and they are served
• These students are not well served by the current funding mechanism statewide, and we need to dedicate
• funding to make sure that they are getting their needs met, they are identified, and they are served

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:

• I know there's a lot that needs to be done before we get to funding the...
• We believe no children need be disenrolled to justify this cut. Fund the 44,000 slots.
• care development funds, Proposition 64, and the need for mid-year transfers and funding for CCTR spaces
• funding levels are meeting actual need might not be accurate.
• Their funding needs to be responsive to those specific shifts in their journey.

Transcript Highlights:

• These funds are intended to provide additional flexibility for schools to meet student needs.
• So school needs are ongoing funding.
• the marginal cost formula to determine how much funding would be needed to fund those additional slots
• enrollment funding should be distributed based on kind of the regional needs of the area.
• And it was approximately double the funding, but over... ...need to launch these programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• The temporary funding period served as a pilot to prove that this was the right staffing needs for the
• We welcome the opportunity to outline our priorities and funding needs to support this mission.
• when language access needs exceed funding that has been provided in the state budget.
• know we need to fund.
• We still need that funding, but we understand the state's challenging financial times.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• Funds, so that was federal money that came in, needed a match, couldn't get one.
• So, this is something they need to look at and we need to fund, if possible.
• So, both recommendations actually already fully fund what they need.
• However, it does require operational funds to continue. It's a need.
• What we need is funding.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• And so the purpose of this fund was really tailored to rural water providers who need the ability to
• They needed to find the funding to be able to do them.
• If federal funding were to dry up tomorrow, we would still have not only the money to need our existing
• so much me I can say I don't think we have enough funding for that there's so much need out there You
• We still work very, very hard to find the demand and have those meet those needs, but the state funds

Committees: Senate Natural Resources , Senate Senate Natural Resources Committee of Reference

Transcript Highlights:

• on any of the funds if needed.
• items, and recommendations include adjustments to ensure that these funds cater to the specific needs
• We need to talk about it, and we need transparency in the fund.
• This reflects careful consideration of funding needs and the anticipated changes in student populations
• Texas 2036 appreciates the Senate's recognition of this need and commitment to funding the Coordinating

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• We believe no children need be disenrolled to justify this cut. Fund the 44,000 slots.
• care development funds, Proposition 64, and the need for mid-year transfers and funding for CCTR spaces
• care development funds, Proposition 64, and the need for mid-year transfers and funding for CCTR spaces
• funding levels are meeting actual need might not be accurate.
• third-party administrator, but the funding for the immediate needs TPA is not yet The funding for the

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:

• that is actually going to address student needs in our current funding formula.
• We need to fund these children at a higher rate so that they can be successful.
• at-risk funding, English learner funding, and gifted funding.
• I do think the ability to maintain the Foundation program with funding for student needs as an initial
• If you had a higher need student, you would receive additional funding.

Committee: House Education Policy