Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, it provides resources needed for matching funds and educational... outreach that is often
• are desperately needed, and we support the coordinating board's key funding and allocation methodology
• Additionally, both CRU and HEAF funding... empower us to address acute campus and student needs.
• we need in order to fund Task Force 3 in the Rio Grande Valley. is they're always left out so we want
• , we've never been able to fully fund or give them the funding that's needed in order to.

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Article III

Transcript Highlights:

• I think if we went around the table here, everybody would say, yeah, those centers do need funding.
• for these funds to schools and whether they support services for individuals with special needs.
• Performance fund in the future, we just utilize what we need in the current budget year. ...fund in the
• On the isolated special needs, isolated funding, we spent 45, budgeted 175, authorized 175.
• left over that moves down to special needs isolated funding.

Committee: All JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE

Summary: The committee heard a series of Arkansas Department of Human Services budget presentations and questions, beginning with the Secretary’s Office and then the Division of Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health Services. Staff described the divisions’ appropriations, funding sources, and major programs, including senior centers, Meals on Wheels, mental health grants, substance abuse treatment, community alcohol safety, the Medicaid tobacco settlement program, and crisis stabilization units. Members raised concerns about flat or limited funding for senior services, the use and tracing of federal block grants, the lack of a funding source for the veterans’ mental health grant, and the mechanics of the community alcohol safety and treatment programs. The committee also discussed patient benefits funds at state facilities, transportation for senior center clients, and whether some special-language appropriations or fund balances should be revisited. Executive recommendations were adopted for the divisions considered. The committee then reviewed the Division of Children and Family Services and the Division of County Operations. Questions focused on foster care growth, adoption subsidies, professional fees tied to staff training and onboarding, vacancies, the Children’s Trust Fund, and TANF subgrants. Members asked about the reduction or elimination of TANF funding to child advocacy centers and other subgrantees, and DHS explained that prior reserves had been spent down and that the department was now trying to live within the annual TANF block grant and rebuild reserves. County operations questions also covered summer EBT, SNAP employment and training, the farmers’ market program, and the expected impact of a federal SNAP administrative match change, which DHS estimated would increase state costs by about $24 million annually, with roughly $18 million affecting the current year because the change begins October 1. Executive recommendations were again adopted. Finally, the committee heard from the Division of Developmental Disability Services and the Division of Medical Services. DDS testimony covered vacancies, staffing shortages, human development center construction and repairs, the reopening of the Boonville work training program, and funding for infant infirmary and child/family life programs. Medical Services testimony covered the Medicaid program, the current FMAP rate, the Our Kids B CHIP program, Medicaid payments to schools, nursing home distress funding, and large appropriation lines used to provide flexibility for claims and potential facility closures. Members asked for more detail on school Medicaid payments, reserve balances, and why some appropriations were much larger than actual spending. In each division, the committee moved and adopted Executive REC after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• of our centers to understand and support their funding needs.
• So D.H... ...of our centers to understand and support their funding needs.
• If you're asking here in BCP, you would need to know if you have the funds for it. Yeah.
• Is it that the crisis centers report their total funding needs for operation is $105 million?
• The crisis centers report a statewide need far above the current funding levels.

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations from the Department of State Hospitals (DSH), the Commission for Behavioral Health, and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) on budget proposals and implementation updates. DSH outlined its proposed 2026-27 budget, including funding for patient operating expenses, IST solutions savings, conditional release program costs, LPS bed allocation changes, electrical infrastructure projects at Napa and Patton, SB 380 transitional housing feasibility work, and expanded dental services at Metropolitan and Patton. DSH also reported that it has met court-ordered IST treatment benchmarks in the Stiavedi v. Clinton case, with average time to initiate treatment down to about five days and pending placements reduced to roughly 250, while noting that Proposition 36 could increase referrals and SB 1323 may divert some individuals earlier into community-based treatment. Members asked about rising outside hospitalization costs, Medicare enrollment, the timing and structure of capital projects, and whether IST solution funds are being fully used; DSH said the savings reflect slower-than-expected ramp-up of community programs and that the Central California FACT replacement program is still on track for January 2027 activation. The Commission for Behavioral Health described its role under the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), including data, evaluation, grantmaking, technical assistance, and transparency work. It highlighted the new statewide Innovation Partnership Fund, a five-year, $20 million-per-year program with small and large grant categories; the first RFA drew strong interest, with more than 400 questions and over 1,000 bidders’ conference participants. The Commission also discussed a proposed extension to spend down about $4.1 million remaining for the Alcove Youth Drop-in Center grants so sites can finish implementation and Stanford can complete the final evaluation. Members asked about grant duration, whether projects can be renewed, what qualifies as innovation, and whether the fund could support service delivery rather than awareness campaigns or training; the Commission said awards are expected to be three-year contracts and that proposals must be new or meaningfully expanded approaches that support BHSA priority populations. DHCS reviewed major behavioral health changes under CalAIM and BH Connect, including peer support, mobile crisis, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, updated specialty mental health access criteria, and new substance use treatment standards based on ASAM’s fourth edition. DHCS reported strong contingency management results, with more than 13,000 members served and 95% testing negative for stimulant use during treatment, and said 21 Indian health care providers have been approved to offer traditional health care practices. It also described BH Connect initiatives such as the $1.9 billion access reform and outcomes incentive program, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation by four counties, and transitional rent services. On BHSA implementation, DHCS said it is not tracking individual county contract cuts but is monitoring county plans and statewide outcomes, while stakeholders raised concerns about local prevention and service gaps. DHCS also outlined its H.R. 1 implementation strategy, including outreach, streamlined renewals, exemptions for disabled, substance use, and medically frail individuals, and proposed clinic navigator and outreach funding; it said it has not yet produced a focused estimate of H.R. 1 impacts on behavioral health populations. The discussion ended with DHCS noting that B-CHIP bond funding has supported 437 infrastructure projects, creating 546 new or expanded facilities and more than 9,500 residential beds across the state.

Transcript Highlights:

• part of the state where you're seeing more need for these funds to schools and whether they support
• And so if we were to base the funding on a different time period, that would need to be reflected in
• On the isolated special needs, isolated funding... Expenditure, no budget.
• On the isolated special needs, isolated funding... Mr.
• left over that moves down to special needs isolated funding.

Committee: All JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE

Summary: The committee heard budget presentations and took executive recommendations on several Department of Human Services divisions, including Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health Services; Children and Family Services; County Operations; Developmental Disability Services; and Medical Services, with most divisions showing little or no significant change in total appropriations. Staff and agency witnesses repeatedly explained that many large appropriations are maintained for flexibility, federal matching requirements, or contingency needs, even when actual spending is much lower than the authorized amount. Members also raised concerns about staffing vacancies, long-vacant budgeted positions, and the use of excess appropriation authority across DHS. In Aging, Adult and Behavioral Health, members questioned federal funding levels for mental health and substance abuse grants, the status of senior centers and Meals on Wheels, the Medicaid tobacco settlement program, community alcohol safety grants, and the veterans mental health grant. Agency officials said federal block grants are largely committed, that senior center funding had been delayed by shutdown timing but was now back on track, that the tobacco settlement program had been moved internally within DHS, and that the veterans mental health appropriation remains unfunded. Senators also criticized the adequacy of support for seniors and asked for more detail on how transportation, meal services, and local contributions are funded. In Children and Family Services, members asked about rising appropriation levels, foster care and adoption subsidies, professional fees, the number of children in foster care, and the Children’s Trust Fund. DHS said increases reflect added flexibility for residential treatment, adoption subsidies, and prevention services, while the foster care population has remained fairly steady at about 3,400 children. The Children’s Trust Fund was described as supporting primary prevention programs such as Baby and Me and community schools, and members asked whether it could be administratively combined with other efforts. Questions also covered TANF subgrants, with DHS explaining that it had reduced outside subgrants after discovering over-obligation and was rebuilding reserves. In County Operations, members focused on the summer EBT program, SNAP employment and training, the farmer’s market program, and the state’s TANF reserve position. DHS said summer EBT is still being funded through temporary appropriations because it is a newer program, SNAP employment and training is largely federally funded and may expand under a pending policy change, and TANF reserves were drawn down after prior over-obligation but are now being stabilized. In Developmental Disability Services, members asked about vacancies, human development center staffing, facility construction funds, and the Booneville work program, and DHS said the program has reopened and staffing recruitment continues. In Medical Services, members asked about FMAP, the Our Kids B CHIP program, school-based Medicaid reimbursements, nursing home distress funds, and several large appropriation lines that far exceed actual spending; DHS said these are maintained for claims payment, nursing home receivership contingencies, and other flexibility needs. Each division reviewed was adopted by executive recommendation after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because we still need to provide those meals, even though we're not getting that federal funding.
• We never fully fund our veterans. I think we need to do a better job.
• And I think we need to look at funding them. I think that's the bare minimum, right?
• So we do need to get you some funding. You've requested some funding.
• Then we need to start funding some of those things.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Summary: The committee first heard an Aging and Long-Term Services Department budget presentation comparing the LFC and executive recommendations. The main differences were in the Aging Network, Adult Protective Services, Program Support, and Long-Term Care Division, especially the executive’s proposed $10 million infusion into the Kiki Savadra Senior Dignity Fund and $6.2 million for expanding New Mexico Care. LFC staff explained that the committee recommendation was lower in general fund and fund-balance use, while the executive emphasized rising senior population needs, meal and transportation costs, and the cost savings of keeping older adults at home. The secretary also reviewed the department’s special requests, including the conference on aging, outreach, emergency preparedness, and the Kiki fund, and described New Mexico Care’s growth, its evaluation results, and the department’s plan to separate Kiki into its own accounting fund. Members largely focused on senior services, rural meal delivery, transportation, caregiver support, and the Kiki fund. Several members urged stronger support for non-metro aging providers and for New Mexico Care, citing its role in keeping seniors out of nursing homes and the program’s reported savings and outcomes. Questions also covered eligibility, background checks for caregivers, respite care, dementia and Alzheimer’s screening, and whether Kiki funds can support home modifications such as ramps. The committee then voted to adopt the LFC recommendation with one executive language change: adding the executive’s page 14 language allowing an additional 12.5% distribution for initial payments to aging network providers at the start of FY27. Representative Dow opposed the motion. The committee then moved to the Attorney General’s budget. LFC staff explained that the office’s budget relies heavily on the Consumer Settlement Fund, with both recommendations reducing general fund revenue while increasing settlement-fund use, and that performance measures were in consensus. The Attorney General said the office was not seeking more general fund, but wanted greater ability to use funds it recovers. He highlighted major consumer and public safety work, including litigation against major social media and AI platforms, a case involving Snapchat and child exploitation/extortion, the statewide crime gun intelligence center, efforts to address oilfield theft, work on missing and murdered Indigenous persons, and efforts to protect federal funds coming into New Mexico.

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
• For one-time costs, for year one-time cost, we would need one-twelfth of the funds appropriated in Schedule
• The funding would need to be provided in the year prior for prospective pay to be enacted in the first
• , but the funding is running out and we will need more funding to continue to provide the services.

Transcript Highlights:

• Your department looks at it and says, where do we need these funds? Is that...
• We need to look at funding, properly funding, the judges, the commissioners, the public defenders, and
• of the settlement needs to be, and doesn't have to be a lot, but we just need to... ...fund that at
• I just need help implementing it. Okay. But this would be additional funding.
• the courts at the level they need to be funded locally.

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• The growing needs of the participants without having to request additional GR to match federal funds
• So it brought the trust fund to the floor. or where it needed to be on September 30th, 2021, I think
• Investing in flexible funding grant program empowers communities to address their unique needs the needs
• Flexible funding could solve this, directly aiding. those who need it the most.
• It's a combination of tailored. interventions and services, and we urgently need this funding to make

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Articles VI, VII, & VIII

Transcript Highlights:

• It just seems like an odd choice to be reducing funding for ICH and their staffing support when the need
• It's a very real need, but so are so many of the other General Fund needs.
• As we are making progress, we need to see an increase in the funding, and we need to make sure that we
• Providers and the people we serve need these funds now more than ever. The federal government...
• and the people we serve need these funds now more than ever.

Summary: The subcommittee heard several May Revision proposals related to the state’s housing and homelessness reorganization. On the first item, administration and Finance staff described technical adjustments to move administrative positions and resources between the California Housing and Homelessness Agency, HCD, and Cal ICH, plus authority for a chief deputy director at the new Housing Development Finance Committee. The LAO recommended approval but asked for clarification on funding for the chief deputy position. Several senators questioned whether the staffing shifts would reduce Cal ICH’s capacity and whether adding communications support and a new executive position was appropriate absent new housing funding; the item was held open. The second item proposed a new $100 million CalHFA Disaster Rebuilding Fund, with $56 million General Fund and $44 million in existing National Mortgage Settlement funds, to help disaster-impacted homeowners access construction financing through tools such as a loan loss guarantee and interest rate buy-downs. CalHFA said the fund would help close the gap between insurance proceeds and rebuilding costs and would work through approved lenders. The LAO raised concerns about the lack of alternatives analysis, the broad delegation in the trailer bill, and the General Fund cost. Senators pressed for more detail on the estimated number of homeowners served, lender and homeowner eligibility, equity safeguards, and the role of the Legislature in program design; the item was held open. The third item was trailer bill language for HAP Round 7, including accountability metrics, pro-housing designation requirements for certain large cities and counties, local match requirements, and a mechanism to recapture unspent funds. HCD said the proposal would streamline reporting by using one consistent set of system performance measures and would phase in the new requirements. The LAO questioned the timing, the burden of pro-housing designation, the size and source of the local match, and whether the proposal conflicted with the Legislature’s prior goal of getting funds out quickly. Several senators criticized the added requirements and the lack of new funding, while others said the proposal could improve accountability and reduce administrative burden by reusing existing plans. The item was also held open. The fourth item began a proposal to reduce local development impact fees on state-funded affordable housing projects, framed as a condition on competitive multifamily funding rather than a statewide mandate. The presentation started but the transcript cuts off before questions or action on that item.

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
• 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.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So after December 31, 2029, centers that receive funding will need to have that designation.
• of our centers to understand and support their funding needs.
• If you're asking here in the BCP, you would need to know if you have the funds for it. Yeah.
• Is it that the crisis centers report their total funding needs for operation is $105 million?
• The crisis centers report a statewide need far above the current funding levels.

Summary: The subcommittee heard budget and policy updates from the Department of State Hospitals, the Commission for Behavioral Health, and the Department of Health Care Services. DSH described its proposed 2026-27 budget of $3.2 billion, including savings tied to IST solutions, higher patient-driven operating costs, and a small increase in caseload projections. Officials said the department has met court-ordered IST treatment benchmarks, with wait times reduced from a pandemic peak of 1,953 pending placements to about 250, and average treatment initiation now around five days. Members asked about the effects of Proposition 36 and SB 1323, rising outside hospitalization costs, Medicare enrollment, and whether IST solution funding was being overbudgeted; DSH said referrals are slightly down overall, aging and medically complex patients are driving outside care costs, and the IST solution savings reflect slower-than-expected program activation rather than a service gap. The department also outlined proposed funding for CONREP cost increases, a new county-by-county LPS bed allocation model, electrical infrastructure upgrades at Napa and Patton, SB 380 transitional housing feasibility work, and additional dental staffing and space at Metropolitan and Patton. The Commission for Behavioral Health reviewed its role in the Behavioral Health Services Act transition and its new Innovation Partnership Fund. Staff said the commission is shifting from county-level innovation oversight to a statewide grant strategy, with the first $20 million RFA drawing strong interest and awards expected in mid-June. Members asked how “innovation” would be defined, whether grants could be renewed after the initial three-year contracts, and how the state would ensure the money supports real service delivery rather than general outreach or training. The commission also sought a liquidation deadline extension for the Alcove youth drop-in center grants so remaining funds can be spent before they revert, allowing sites to finish implementation and support the final evaluation. DHCS provided an overview of CalAIM and BH Connect implementation, including updated specialty mental health access criteria, new ASAM-based substance use treatment standards, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation, and transitional rent services. The department also addressed BHSA implementation, saying it does not track specific local program cuts but will monitor county three-year plans, performance measures, and outcomes as counties shift to the new funding structure. On H.R. 1, DHCS said it is preparing outreach, eligibility simplification, and exemption strategies to reduce Medi-Cal coverage losses, including clinic navigators, a statewide outreach campaign, and possible employment supports through a future waiver. The department also reported that BH-CHIP bond funds have supported 437 infrastructure projects, creating 546 facilities and more than 9,500 residential beds, with additional outpatient capacity and tribal investments. Finally, DHCS outlined a proposed 988 trailer bill to create a statewide designation process for 988 centers and mobile crisis teams, with implementation no earlier than October 1, 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• Of those CCTR awarded funds not yet in contract, it is typical that contracts need time to complete the
• We ask that uncontracted funds not be treated as lack of need.
• There are still folks that have still not gotten what they need from those funds. We also...
• Fund spending, could help mitigate the need for additional budget solutions and help preserve services
• So these indicators could help determine whether counties need or should access provisional funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, taking a look at that need and taking a look at HJR7 and setting up this dedicated funding, that
• manage their local projects, funding capabilities, and reduce their need for state assistance.
• this need, and this will leave a long-term water funding gap. ...an infrastructure funding gap of just
• I need to go to the Texas Water Fund. That would be ideal. But still, I support HJR7.
• Our point is that the majority of the water supply funding and/or the funding needs in the state would

Bills: HB3077 , HJR2 , HJR7 , HJR7

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Other funds means any funds other than foundation funding.
• Over half of superintendents reported being extensively in need of additional funding for special education
• Being extensively in need of additional funding.
• He said it was interesting that superintendents would not recognize it as needing funding when they are
• need to do.

Summary: The joint education committee continued its adequacy study with a detailed Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on resource allocation, covering how Arkansas school districts and charters spend foundation and other funds on matrix and non-matrix items. Staff explained the methodology for mapping expenditures, the district and school categories used in the analysis, and key findings showing that districts spend more per student from all fund sources than the foundation amount alone. The presentation highlighted that classroom teachers account for the largest share of matrix spending, while operations and maintenance, student support staff, nurses, and other lines also drew significant attention. Members asked for additional breakdowns by district type, size, rural/urban status, and trend data, and several questions focused on how waivers affect funding and spending, especially for library media specialists and other positions. The committee then discussed non-matrix spending, including instructional aids, non-technology-related facilities, school safety, mental health services, dyslexia support, food service, gifted and talented, career and technical education, and other items not explicitly defined in the matrix. Staff reported that non-matrix spending exceeded $2 billion in 2025, with most of it coming from other fund sources, and that the top superintendent-identified unmet needs over recent surveys were mental health services, school safety, and dyslexia support. Members raised concerns about dyslexia identification and funding, possible over-identification, and whether some support costs are being coded in ways that obscure the true spending picture. There was also discussion of facilities funding, the building fund, and the Department of Education’s partnership program for school construction and maintenance, with staff agreeing to provide more information and potentially bring department officials back for a future meeting. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly requested more granular data and clarifications, including waiver counts and funding impacts, trend lines for superintendent-reported needs, district-by-district spending spreadsheets, and definitions for certain matrix and accounting terms such as salary enhancement, LEA indebtedness, and other employee health insurance. The chair noted that the committee would continue the adequacy process over the coming months and use the worksheet in the binder to develop recommendations for the next biennium. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; instead, the committee received the report, asked for follow-up data, and agreed to continue the discussion at future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• While campuses fund some repairs each year, the state general fund allocation cannot meet the needs of
• Since that time, the CSU has relied on several less predictable funding sources to meet its capital needs
• A consistent multi-year funding plan is essential to addressing CSU's capital needs effectively.
• or things like that, so we can actually map out when we need the funding.
• So basically, we funded fewer gym projects in the past, which meant that that need continued to remain

Transcript Highlights:

• These are the real stories of our children and families without the funding needed for early learning
• So please reject these cuts and preserve education funding. Our kids need you.
• So please reject these cuts and preserve education funding. Our kids need you. Thank you.
• The current proposal still severely underfunds the need and prohibits staff salary funding.
• Cutting funding does not reduce need.

Bills: HB2289

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: appropriations, budget, fiscal matters, state spending, general fund, supplemental budget, biennial budget, substitute bill, public defense, civil legal aid, courts, judicial branch, homelessness, supportive housing, affordable housing, behavioral health, juvenile rehabilitation, youth services, child welfare, foster care

Transcript Highlights:

• Additional funding would allow more schools to have access to these much-needed resources.
• Those that struggle the most, that need this funding the most, tend to be the most under-resourced.
• Schools have clearly demonstrated the need for funding.
• We also know that they need more time to encumber the funds due to permitting and approval delays.
• A UC Berkeley study in 2020 cited a $5.8 billion funding need for these programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's here is funding for you for your particular needs and let's support you.
• Schools have clearly demonstrated the need for the funding.
• We also know that they need more time to encumber the funds as well.
• A UC Berkeley study in 2020 cited a $5.8 billion funding need for these programs.
• A UC Berkeley study in 2020 cited a $5.8 billion funding need for these programs.

Summary: The committee heard a series of budget proposals focused on education finance, with repeated questions about whether the state’s investments are coordinated, targeted to the highest-need students, and likely to produce measurable results. On the first item, the administration proposed $1 million for a study of California’s curriculum framework, standards, and instructional materials process, plus $250,000 for supplemental ELA/ELD guidance. CDE and Finance said the study would examine how other states organize standards, frameworks, and adoptions, while the chair and members questioned why California has gone so long without updating some standards, what the study would actually accomplish, and whether the proposal was too vague to justify the cost. The issue was held open. The committee then took up a proposed $25 million statewide literacy network within the system of support. CCEE and CDE said the network would coordinate multiple existing literacy leads, create a clearinghouse of evidence-based resources, and improve coherence across the state’s many literacy initiatives. Members pressed on how a one-time, five-year allocation could support a long-term system, how the work would reach distressed and rural districts, and whether the proposal would translate into classroom change rather than just another layer of coordination. The issue was also held open. Next, the committee reviewed a $500 million proposal to expand literacy coaches and reading specialists and to create a math coaches program. CDE described the existing literacy coach cohorts as producing positive reports from participating LEAs, while the LAO recommended modifications, especially for the math coach portion, including limiting eligibility to elementary schools, setting minimum grant amounts, directing funds to eligible school sites, and making eligibility automatic rather than application-based. Members focused on whether coaches were actually being placed at the schools with the greatest need and whether the state has a coherent long-term strategy for literacy and math investments. The committee also heard a $40 million proposal for training and implementation of K-2 reading difficulty screeners, which the LAO said was reasonable but could be reduced because $25 million had already been provided for training; CDE said the new funds were needed for full implementation, procurement, and sustainability. Finally, the committee heard a $10 million proposal for a developmentally appropriate TK multilingual learner screener, with CDE explaining why the preschool language-identification process is different from K-12 EL assessment and the chair asking staff to explore whether a single, more consistent approach could be developed. The meeting concluded with a presentation on universal school meals and kitchen infrastructure, including a $31.5 million backfill, an $84.1 million increase for projected meal growth, a COLA adjustment, and $150 million for kitchen upgrades and training to support freshly prepared meals.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we really truly need more state funding, and we need to reopen the funding formulas.
• So we really truly need more state funding, and we need to reopen the funding formulas that fund districts
• Municipalities need this funding.
• This means that we need the state to provide more funding because local funding just isn't enough in
• We need our classroom to be fully funded to meet the needs of our students who need us the most.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Summary: The Joint Ways and Means Committee held its final public hearing on the FY26 state budget, with chairs and members emphasizing that public testimony would help shape the budget and asking speakers to keep remarks brief. Committee leaders introduced members, explained the hearing process, and repeatedly thanked residents, students, and advocates for participating. No votes were taken during the hearing. Testimony focused heavily on education funding and the Chapter 70 formula. Students from Amherst, Northampton, Gateway Regional, Chester Elementary, and other districts described budget-driven cuts to electives, special education supports, paraprofessionals, counselors, transportation, and building maintenance. They urged higher Chapter 70 aid, increased minimum aid, rural school aid, and a reopening or restructuring of the funding formula, arguing that current formulas leave many districts unable to meet student needs and force local layoffs and overrides. Other speakers urged funding or protection for a range of programs and facilities, including the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute for homicide survivor services, the Museum of African American History, the Massachusetts Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and CART/interpreter services, the Access to Counsel housing legal aid program, the Department of Mental Health and Pocasset Mental Health Center, and Pappas Rehabilitation Hospital for Children. One speaker opposed offshore wind-related spending and urged a reset of the state’s energy approach, while another advocated ending the aircraft sales tax exemption. Committee members responded sympathetically to many speakers, asked a few follow-up questions, and several expressed support for maintaining or expanding the programs discussed.

Transcript Highlights:

• 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.
• Districts are seeing increased identifications, and there needs to be aligned funding to help provide

Summary: The committee heard opening public comment and then took up several K-12 budget items in the Governor’s January proposal. On LCFF and necessary small schools, the Department of Finance described a 2.41% COLA, a roughly $2.2 billion increase for districts and charters, and a $30.7 million ongoing augmentation to raise necessary small schools funding by 20%. The LAO supported funding the COLA and said the small schools proposal had merit, but questioned the 20% figure and warned about a sharp funding cliff around the enrollment thresholds. Members and witnesses repeatedly raised declining enrollment, attendance, and the need to align funding with outcomes and local cost pressures. The chair and several members also asked whether consolidation, shared administration, or alternative formulas could better address small district costs, and the issue was left open for further discussion. The panel then discussed special education equalization. Finance proposed $509 million ongoing Proposition 98 funding to raise the statewide special education base rate to $999 per ADA, which would fully equalize SELPA base rates; the LAO said the same target could likely be reached with less money under current assumptions. CDE strongly supported equalization as an equity issue and said about 15% of students are identified with disabilities, with identification rising by roughly 20,000 to 25,000 students per year. Members raised concerns about staffing shortages, high caseloads, and the need to use any additional funds for inclusive practices, alternative diploma pathways, and the extraordinary cost pool. The committee also discussed whether the budget language should reflect the $509 million amount or the $999 rate, and the item was held open. For the Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant, Finance proposed restoring $757.3 million one-time to complete the program, while the LAO recommended approval because learning loss remains unresolved and districts have generally used the funds for tutoring, supplemental instruction, and other academic supports. CDE explained that LEAs must revisit their needs assessments and that many districts are using the funds alongside other support systems, but members pressed for clearer accountability and better data on how much money actually goes to tutoring or other direct services. The committee then reviewed the Student Support and Professional Development Discretionary Block Grant, with Finance proposing $2.8 billion one-time and the LAO saying discretionary funding can help districts address local priorities but should be paired with fiscal oversight and possibly more targeted priorities. Members split between supporting flexibility for local needs and worrying that the grant could be used to cover ongoing structural deficits without clear evidence of student-outcome gains; the issue was also held open. Finally, the committee heard a high-level overview of school facilities funding under Proposition 2, with Finance proposing to continue $1.5 billion in bond spending in 2026-27. OPSC said that at the current pace all Prop 2 K-12 funds would likely be exhausted around 2029-30, and that demand is shifting toward modernization as enrollment declines in many areas. Members asked about school closures, reuse of unused sites, and the new small school district facilities program, which OPSC said is moving toward proposed regulations and would begin accepting modernization applications in November 2026 and new construction applications in January 2027. The committee also briefly noted community college facilities funding and asked for more information later in the process.