Transcript Highlights:

• Specifically, to right-size that, the CDE would need $36 million in non-Prop 98 funds, and then on the
• If less funding is requested than what we have estimated the unmet need is, then the funding is reallocated
• Fund, that— ...are encumbered federally, and we actually need them in the General Fund, that the movement
• Compared to the May revision, we need significantly more funding to meet the county needs, as Andrew
• We need more funding for the Cal Food Program to meet the needs of our food banks.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are the real stories of our children and our families without funding needed for early learning
• I truly believe that we need to look at data and start funding programs in public schools that are good
• However, partial funding will not be enough to meet the growing needs of our Medicaid-reliant residents
• Until we can bill for our services, we will need continued funding from the state to keep our doors open
• We'll need to look at the timing of how these funds are drawn in conjunction with state bonds to determine

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on the Senate operating budget proposal, beginning with a staff briefing from James Kettle. He described the budget as built on relatively flat revenue after multiple forecast updates, with substantial mandatory cost growth, especially in Health Care Authority, DSHS, and DCYF. He highlighted major policy-level additions and savings, including large tort liability costs, continued support for long-term services, reductions tied to child care and K-12 items, several assumed revenue bills, and major transfers from reserves and other accounts. Kettle also noted the four-year outlook remained positive overall, with about $1 billion ending fund balance in the final year and roughly $3 billion in total reserves. A committee member asked about a diagram showing the loss of federal funds, and staff said they would follow up. Public testimony then focused first on K-12 education, where school leaders, teachers, OSPI, PTA, and rural district representatives largely opposed the proposed cuts to local effort assistance, transition to kindergarten, bus depreciation, and related school funding items. Many argued the reductions would disproportionately harm rural and property-poor districts and weaken early learning access, while several students and educators spoke in favor of career and technical education and IT Academy funding. The committee also heard support for wildfire prevention funding from the Commissioner of Public Lands, who thanked the Senate for restoring those dollars but raised concerns about recreation program reductions. Higher education testimony was mixed but generally supportive of the Senate proposal compared with the governor’s budget. Community and technical college leaders warned that the budget still shifts compensation costs to tuition and reduces Running Start funding, while university representatives from Western, Eastern, Central, WSU, and UW thanked the committee for avoiding deeper cuts. Private vocational college students and administrators urged extension of Washington College Grant eligibility for students already enrolled, and others asked to preserve IT Academy and related certification funding. In early learning, child care and advocacy groups praised the decision not to cap Working Connections Child Care but warned that child care and transition to kindergarten still bear a disproportionate share of cuts; they also requested continued support for Dolly Parton Imagination Library and Pierce County early childhood programs, including Family Connects. The hearing continued with testimony on employee compensation, mental health, and human services. State employee and retiree groups supported the budget’s COLA and wildfire funding but objected to cuts in retiree health benefits. Behavioral health and public safety advocates supported mentoring, Trueblood-related funding, crisis stabilization, and the Recovery Navigator Program, while others opposed reductions to those programs and to community-based recovery services. In human services, witnesses thanked the committee for funding victim services, child welfare supports, health homes, adult day care, community health centers, energy assistance, and disability services, while urging the committee to avoid further reductions to skilled nursing, case management, and recovery navigation. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're looking at a lot of shovel-ready projects that just need some gap funding.
• So that is good to see that they're using this as a tool for them to get the funding they need.
• I would just again like to reiterate our understanding for the need to fund the insurance.
• So we need to really look at math Funding for after-school programs and out-of-school learning is also
• By far, so we have Higher need than we have funding.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• So these funds could be rolled back or augmented through this annual process as needed.
• This comes at a time in which we have bridge funding needed to ensure that the continuity of care in
• We will continue working with our county partners in the out years to recalibrate funding needs given
• care needs, which might explain the need to make sure that they have the funding that they need.
• I think you understand the need to increase funding to ensure we can staff at levels to provide timely

Transcript Highlights:

• grant program needs to be a well-known and reliable source of funding.
• What do we need to hire?
• So the flow of the funding kind of... ...general fund, so right, the flow of the funding kind of restricts
• So what is the goal of the funding of this funding? How many teachers total?
• And as a provider, I'm here to voice the need that our contracts need to be funded and that today the

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance heard an extended discussion on state efforts to recruit, prepare, and retain teachers, with a focus on whether current programs are sustainable and well targeted. Testimony from the Learning Policy Institute, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the Department of Education, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office described persistent shortages, especially in special education, math, science, bilingual education, and high-need schools. Speakers emphasized that residency programs, Golden State Teacher Grants, National Board incentives, classified employee pathways, and undergraduate teacher pipelines have helped increase preparation and retention, but many of these efforts rely on one-time funding and lack long-term certainty. Committee members repeatedly raised concerns about the “leaky pipeline,” working conditions, the burden of student debt, and whether the state should simplify and institutionalize support for aspiring teachers rather than rely on a patchwork of grants. The agencies presented data showing continuing shortages and uneven distribution of fully credentialed teachers. CTC reported projected hiring needs of roughly 20,000 to 25,000 teachers annually, with the highest needs in self-contained classrooms, special education, and certain regions of the state. It also noted that emergency permits, waivers, and intern credentials remain high, and that teachers entering through those routes have higher turnover. LPI cited research showing residency-prepared teachers are more effective and more likely to stay, and argued that Golden State Teacher Grants attract candidates who might not otherwise enter teaching and help them complete preparation. CDE stressed that most new demand comes from attrition and urged support for multiple entry points, tuition assistance, and campus-based coursework. Several members also discussed the role of community college pathways, dual credentialing, and support for school leaders as part of retention. The LAO recommended rejecting the educator pipeline proposals under discussion, citing limited evidence of effectiveness and suggesting that any new spending should be more narrowly targeted to the highest-need schools and long-standing shortage subjects. The LAO also said that if the Legislature funds new programs this year, Proposition 98 would be preferable given the state’s fiscal condition. Committee members pushed back on the idea that declining enrollment or layoffs would solve shortages, noting that shortages and layoffs can coexist in different subject areas and regions. The discussion ended with agreement that staff would continue working with agencies on how to make teacher pipeline investments more consistent, coherent, and easier for candidates to navigate. The committee then turned to the Golden State Teacher Grant Program. Finance proposed $50 million in one-time General Fund support to extend the program for one additional year, while the LAO recommended rejecting the proposal because the first CSAC evaluation is not due until later in the year and because the funding would be non-Proposition 98. CSAC supported the extension, saying demand has been strong, over 20,000 aspiring educators have been served since 2021, and the agency had to pause applications after receiving more than 9,200 this year; it also said more than 2,500 candidates had already expressed interest for next year. Members asked how many students the new funding would serve, and CSAC estimated just under 5,000 awards at $10,000 each. The discussion also covered whether the grant could be moved into Proposition 98 and how the one-time nature of the funding affects confidence among prospective teachers.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so remind me of what the program funds now in terms of high-need schools and high-need teacher shortage
• I would encourage the Legislature to find opportunities to fund student transportation, basic needs,
• So we don't see why there's additional one-time funding needed.
• with one-time funds from COVID to support student recovery and student needs.
• with one-time funds from COVID to support student recovery of student for student needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our schools more than ever need sustainable funding sources.
• , which does not meet the full needs to equitably fund our schools in Chelsea.
• We cannot meet our students' needs if we fall behind on funding.
• to fully fund the needs of our schools.
• We need a funding system that we can depend on, one that reflects the real needs of our communities.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education opened a hybrid public hearing on a large slate of bills related to school buildings, school finance, technology, data privacy, safety, and related education issues. Chairs Jason Lewis and Ken Gordon outlined procedures for the hearing, including two-minute testimony limits and the plan to group similar bills together. Several bills drew no testimony and were closed without further discussion, while others drew extensive testimony from legislators, school officials, parents, advocates, and educators. A major theme was school safety and student well-being. Lori Al-Hadeth testified in support of bills on alert systems in public schools, describing the loss of her daughter in the Parkland shooting and urging adoption of Alyssa’s Law-style panic alert technology. Representative Gallagher and disability advocates also supported a bill authorizing, but not requiring, airway clearance devices in schools, arguing they could save lives in choking emergencies and provide an option for people who cannot use the Heimlich maneuver. Another bill on reducing cafeteria waste drew support from a legislator and a Lexington sustainability official, who said installing dishwashers during construction would reduce waste and long-term costs. Much of the hearing focused on Chapter 70 school funding and the inflation cap. Senator Pavel Payano, Senator Sal DiDomenico, Representative Senna, and multiple local officials and school committee members from Bridgewater, Chelsea, Groton-Dunstable, and other districts argued that the 4.5% cap on inflation adjustments has left schools underfunded during years of high inflation, forcing layoffs, larger class sizes, and cuts to programs and student supports. They urged bills to eliminate the cap, restore lost funding, increase the Commonwealth’s share of the foundation budget, or create commissions to study reforms. Testimony also highlighted the impact on special education, English learners, and low-income students, with Chelsea witnesses saying the cap has cost their district about $7 million annually. School construction and MSBA reform were the other major topic. AIA Massachusetts, Boston Public Schools, Lynn officials, and AFT Massachusetts described aging facilities, overcrowding, deferred maintenance, and the difficulty of financing new schools under current reimbursement rules. Boston officials said the district has many pre-World War II buildings and has only built a handful of new schools in decades, while Lynn leaders said reimbursement rates have fallen well below the statutory 80% because of caps and ineligible costs. Witnesses urged modernization of the MSBA program, higher reimbursement rates, and more resources for school construction. The committee also heard support for a bill to study the adequacy and equity of the school building program, and chairs indicated some bills would be closed after no one signed up to testify.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there data that says we need more funding?
• According to DESE rules governing special needs funding, categorical funds for ALE are used to provide
• This would include transfers to other categorical funds and spending on those needs.
• They are meant to be targeted to the needs of students. ESA funding is spent.
• So you’ll see that almost $11 million was funded in total to these four funds, with special needs isolated

Summary: The committee first approved the March 9 and 10 minutes, then heard a presentation from the Arkansas Excellence in Teaching Fellowship Program featuring three third-grade teachers from Poyen, Drew Central, and Cabot, along with Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva. The teachers described the fellowship as a year-long collaboration among 23 merit-pay recipients from across the state, focused on sharing classroom strategies, data use, and professional support. Members asked about teacher experience, how the fellowship information is shared locally, the role of merit pay, and how teachers are addressing third-grade reading and retention concerns under the ATLAS assessment system. The teachers emphasized early intervention, relationships with students, small-group instruction, progress monitoring, and communication with families; they also described community supports such as churches, food backpacks, and local donations. Several members raised broader questions about poverty, trauma, social services, DHS involvement, and whether similar professional learning should be expanded to more teachers. Secretary Oliva said the fellowship is a small subset of a larger merit-pay program, that participation was voluntary, and that the state is working to improve literacy supports, clarity, and alignment across grades. He also said ATLAS results are now available to schools and families much faster than in the past, often within 24 to 72 hours, and that the state is using the data to identify at-risk students earlier and support intervention before retention decisions are made. The committee then moved to the adequacy/resource allocation presentation from the Bureau of Legislative Research. Staff explained that the report is part of the statutory adequacy review and focuses on state funding sources beyond foundation aid, including categorical and supplemental funds. They noted that districts and charters spent more than $7 billion in the 2025 school year, with roughly 49% from foundation funding and 51% from other sources over the last three years. The presentation outlined the four categorical funds—Alternative Learning Environment, English Learners, Enhanced Student Achievement, and Professional Development—describing their restricted uses, student-based funding formulas, and the ability of districts to transfer some money among categoricals while keeping it within allowable purposes. Staff said categorical funds account for about 4% of total spending, or less than $300 million, and reviewed superintendent feedback on whether those funds met district needs, with responses varying by category and district.

Transcript Highlights:

• Other funds means any funds other than foundation funding.
• funding level... ...from all fund sources is considered, spending surpasses the foundation funding level
• Please indicate if your district needs additional funding during the 2024–25 school year.
• Over half of superintendents reported being extensively in need of additional funding for special education
• So it's just interesting that they wouldn't recognize it as needing funding when, in fact, they're getting

Transcript Highlights:

• What’s the total funding needed to complete the network, including already appropriated funds?
• So the LAO's evaluation is that these are essential needs that need to be funded.
• More sustained General Fund support is needed.
• Any program that needs a durable source of funding should not be funded through GGRF, which is a declining
• Any program that needs a durable source of funding should not be funded through GGRF, which is a declining

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• and ELOP, maybe we need to have a better look at what is the actual cost of funding public education
• and ELOP, maybe we need to have a better look at what is the actual cost of funding public education
• The actual cost of funding public education at the level that our students need that help.
• We need at least 105 to be funded under our program.
• After three years, they received 45% of the funds needed to rebuild from insurance.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do acknowledge that some level of ongoing funding is likely going to be needed.
• And so remind me of what the program funds now in terms of high-need schools and high-need teacher shortage
• challenges, that is a consideration that the administration needs to... ...General Fund challenges,
• , so we don't see why there's an additional one-time funding needed.
• with one-time funds from COVID to support student recovery and student needs.

Summary: The committee heard an overview of the May Revision’s Proposition 98 changes for K-12 and community colleges. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, full payment of the prior settle-up, and larger deposits into the school rainy-day fund. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF updates were reasonable, but urged caution about the settle-up approach and recommended using more of the available funding to protect ongoing programs and build budget resilience. Members focused heavily on the size of the proposed $3.9 billion settle-up, the $10.3 billion reserve deposit, declining K-12 enrollment, and how much of the new funding should be ongoing versus one-time. The committee then reviewed the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described the May Revision’s higher SCFF COLA, additional funding for enrollment growth, a student support block grant, apprenticeship adjustments, and continued funding for deferred maintenance, Calbright, Common Cloud, and credit for prior learning. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended prioritizing the statutory COLA increase, noted that more than half of districts are already above current-year growth targets, and said the new adult learner demonstration project should be rejected because districts already have tools to support similar services. Members also discussed a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall, which Finance said was discovered too late for the May Revision and would need to be addressed later. Finally, the committee took up the proposed implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the California Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career to build eligibility and data systems, along with trailer bill changes to set up state approval processes. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, that California lacks the needed infrastructure, and that the state will need emergency regulations, data linkages, and ongoing funding beyond the one-time proposal. The LAO agreed that some initial funding is needed but warned that the amounts and ongoing costs remain uncertain and that the Legislature should carefully draft the trailer bill language. Members asked about timing, other states’ actions, and how the state would ensure the program is ready for students and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We could use extension plan funding, but they will probably need dollars specifically to help community
• to be additional resources we could use extension plan funding but they will probably need a dollars
• This is ongoing work with funding needs.
• We need to know what the conversations are, what's happening, and then we need them to be properly funded
• In order to continue that collaboration, we need the $1 billion of ongoing annual funds. Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• funding despite clear evidence that additional LEA investment is needed.
• We need $21.38 million simply to level fund current services.
• The CCA funds should not be the source of long-term funding for the very real needs of low-income citizens
• We do need continued funding because of the ongoing impacts of the State v.
• We ask for funding for Eastern Washington for this critical need. Thank you. David Freeman.

Summary: The Senate Ways and Means Committee heard an overview from OFM Director Katie Chapman See on Governor Ferguson’s 2026 supplemental budget proposal. She said the budget was built in response to higher caseloads and inflation, a roughly $390 million revenue forecast drop, new federal costs tied to H.R. 1, and a relatively small ending fund balance. The proposal would increase near general fund spending by about $1.1 billion and solve an estimated $2.3 billion two-year gap through about $800 million in reductions, revenue shifts and tax preference changes, use of other funds, and about $1 billion from the budget stabilization account. She also noted the budget is balanced over two years but not fully over four years under the state’s outlook rules. Chapman See highlighted reductions in Working Connections Child Care, including a soft cap on enrollment and holding subsidy rates at the 75th percentile, delays to long-term care and developmental disability-related changes, and across-the-board reductions to higher education and administrative spending. She also described investments in wildfire suppression and preparedness, affordability programs like utility rebates and home energy assistance, housing-related planning and permitting support, One Washington IT replacement, behavioral health workforce programs, and continued support for some K-12 initiatives such as ninth grade success and homeless student stability. In response to questions, she said some proposed cuts were based on the governor’s subjective judgment about what was critically necessary, that current child care enrollees would not be cut off immediately, and that the budget would maintain services for about 500 highest-acuity Medicaid clients who lost eligibility under federal changes. Public testimony was largely critical of the proposed cuts in K-12, early learning, and higher education. School officials, educators, nurses, and advocacy groups opposed reductions to Transition to Kindergarten, Local Effort Assistance, Running Start, MSOC, school leadership and support grants, and higher education funding, arguing the cuts would worsen existing funding gaps and harm student outcomes. Several witnesses supported restoring or maintaining funding for ninth grade success, Treehouse’s foster youth graduation program, homeless student stability, and Science on Wheels. In early learning, child care providers and advocates opposed the Working Connections cap and subsidy-rate reduction, warning it would reduce access and destabilize providers. In higher education, campus leaders and labor representatives opposed across-the-board cuts and fund shifts, while some institutions and advocates supported targeted investments such as behavioral health workforce programs and DigiPen aid restoration. In human services, Planned Parenthood advocates praised restored abortion access funding and Medicaid reimbursements. The committee took no votes or final action in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The budget also includes funds that are needed to support implementation of a change in policy that will
• And finally, we would just like to highlight the need for funding the California State Preschool Program
• Chair, wanted to raise up your comments about the need for funding to recover from natural disasters.
• Attachment and safety for children is the building block of a healthy society, and funding needs to be
• And so we would need more funding if we were going to provide funding for that workload.

Transcript Highlights:

• For our cap funds, which are our voucher funds, we do see sometimes that we need our APPs to be able
• I just wanted to make sure we had that on record since additional funding would be needed to serve those
• The funding would need to be provided in the year prior for prospective pay to be enacted in the first
• It has been extended for encumbrance dates, but the funding is running out, and we will need more funding
• It has been extended for encumbrance dates, but the funding is running out, and we will need more funding

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittees on early childhood education heard a broad review of the Governor’s child care and preschool budget proposals, with testimony from the Department of Finance, the Department of Social Services (CDSS), the California Department of Education (CDE), and the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). The main topics were cost-of-care-plus and COLA adjustments, the California State Preschool Program, child care slot reductions tied to federal and Proposition 64 funding changes, disaster recovery grants for child care facilities, trailer bill proposals on family fees and absences, prospective pay, and several budget change proposals for departmental staffing and licensing. Officials also discussed the state’s transition toward an alternative methodology for setting rates based on the true cost of care. On rate reform, CDSS and CDE said the current reimbursement system remains below the alternative methodology in many counties and that providers continue to struggle with recruitment and retention. The LAO recommended aligning cost-of-care-plus increases across provider types, while CDE urged that any COLA be added to base rates rather than cost-of-care-plus payments because providers view the latter as less ongoing. CDSS said the next alternative methodology update will be developed with a contractor during fiscal year 2026-27, with public engagement and legislative input, and estimated that fully transitioning to rates informed by the methodology would take about 24 months once policy and funding are in place. CDSS also said the direct-service cost of care under the methodology was estimated at about $18.7 billion in a July 2025 report. A major point of contention was the proposed reduction of 4,167 child care slots due to lower federal CCDF funding and reduced Proposition 64 revenue. CDSS said it expects to absorb the reduction through unspent funds and relinquishments so currently enrolled children are not disrupted, while the LAO supported the reduction as a way to avoid worsening the structural deficit. Members strongly objected to the slot cuts, arguing the administration has repeatedly proposed reductions after prior budget agreements and emphasizing the economic and family benefits of child care. The committee also discussed preschool enrollment trends, including growth in three-year-old enrollment and a sharp increase in two-year-olds served under a temporary provision, with CDE warning that the temporary two-year-old authority expires in 2027. The committee also reviewed an $11.5 million Proposition 64 proposal for child care infrastructure grants for facilities impacted by 2025 state disasters, especially the Los Angeles fires, and members asked for trailer bill language to make the funds flexible for repairs, equipment, insurance, and permitting. On trailer bill items, the panel discussed codifying family fee reimbursement rules, defining excessive unexplained absences to allow disenrollment after prolonged nonuse, and expanding temporary provider absences; CDSS said the absence policy is meant to mirror federal CCDF rules, while CDE said it is already pursuing its own rulemaking. The hearing also covered prospective pay, with CDSS and CDE saying they are waiting for final federal guidance before moving ahead; LAO said the state could save ongoing costs if the federal requirement is rescinded. Finally, the committee reviewed staffing and support budget requests for CDSS and other implementation items, and held several items open for further discussion before the May Revision. Public comment overwhelmingly urged full funding for child care slots, true cost-of-care payments, and ongoing support for early education programs and county offices of education.

Transcript Highlights:

• needs, The CSBG funds, combined with the maximum flexibility extended to local agencies to address anti-poverty
• We rely on CSBG-funded services when assisting community members who have great need but, for reasons
• We rely on CSBG funded services when assisting community members who have great need.
• This funding is crucial to our ability to serve basic needs of victims fleeing violence who have nowhere
• appreciate the CSBG funding because we use it to fund services for people who come to us with needs and

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

Transcript Highlights:

• “Exact numbers on that, but you’re correct in that, right, as that fund is set up in code, you need to
• On the interest that is wanting to be shifted on the high needs fund, which is $4 million, do you know
• And essentially what that means is that year to year, the state needs to maintain its level of funding
• It was House Bill 291 that asked for $3 million in an appropriation for the high-needs fund.
• So for the agency to access that funding, they need the cash, which is there, but they also need the

Summary: The committee heard a lengthy presentation on the K-12 public school support budget, including how support units, career ladder funding, health insurance, discretionary funding, transportation, facilities, and the Public Education Stabilization Fund (PSIF) work. Legislative Services explained that FY 2026 support units were revised downward, creating a $22.3 million ongoing general fund reduction, and walked through the FY 2027 agency request and governor’s recommendation. The governor recommended no increase for population forecast adjustments, but did recommend some statutory and policy changes, including shifting certain interest earnings to the general fund and reducing funding for some virtual school and IDLA-related items. The agency request also included one-time proposals for a high-needs special education fund and a regional service model for related services. Members asked extensive questions about how career ladder dollars are distributed, how health insurance and discretionary funds interact, why the health insurance increase in the budget differed from current plan estimates, and how facilities money under House Bill 292 is used. There were also questions about the size and use of the Idaho Career Ready Students fund, the maintenance-of-effort implications of special education funding, and whether some special education costs are being used for student housing or other noninstructional expenses. The superintendent and budget staff emphasized that many of the budget lines are formula-driven or statutorily required, that local districts determine actual staffing and spending within those formulas, and that special education costs continue to outpace available funding. Superintendent Debbie Critchfield then framed the budget request around enrollment trends, shifting demographics, and the need for more flexibility in how districts use existing dollars. She highlighted proposed categorical flexibility for some funds, changes to digital content and curriculum distribution, continued literacy gains, growth in career technical education programs funded through Idaho Career Ready Students, and the importance of endowment and Millennium Fund support. She also described the special education proposals as a temporary bridge while the state considers larger formula changes and noted a near $100 million gap between special education spending and funding. She further outlined planned federal waiver requests on assessments and flexibility, and said the department is seeking more state control over testing and reporting requirements. The committee did not take final action on the budget during this portion of the meeting. Members raised concerns about interest transfers from dedicated funds, the complexity of the funding formula, special education accountability, and whether the state should revisit the overall school funding model. Several follow-up data requests were made, including information on health insurance participation, regional special education service needs, and school contingency fund balances.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't see a need to provide that one-time funding.
• We understand that the funding for differentiated assistance is also supposed to go to the support needed
• I can appreciate the discretionary funding that you're suggesting, but I think that there's also a need
• I strongly support the $20 million one-time investment in emergency basic needs funding for UC campuses
• I strongly support the 20 million one-time investment in emergency basic needs, funded for UC campuses

Transcript Highlights:

• There are some proposals here we think you probably will need to spend even new General Fund on.
• We think you probably will need to spend even new general fund.
• So I can say candidly that future funding is needed in future years.
• This funding is really important and if we... Future funding is needed in future years.
• So there have been sort of some mixed messages about the funding and what will be needed to meet the