Transcript Highlights:

• Grant funding provides important support, but predictable and sustainable funding is needed.
• Predictable and sustainable funding is needed to ensure continuity and effectiveness to meet the state's
• As the subcommittee hears from subsequent panels about the need for funding and other resources to implement
• They need to come with their local funding. Of the responsibility, a stake in the game.
• They need to come with their local funding to come with the state funding. Great, thank you. LAO.

Transcript Highlights:

• Education needs were not funded first. This is despite that doomsday provision.
• Funding was based on funds available and not what was needed.
• So the General Assembly needs to be sure that the change in funding will continue to ensure an equal
• Is it based on need and not the availability of funds?
• Is it based on need and not the availability of funds?

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the prior minutes and then shifted to an update from Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith on early childhood education, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. They said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ABC as a large state program with about 23,800 funded slots and roughly $114 million in annual appropriations. Department officials said they are reviewing slot allocations because about 1,000 seats are funded but unfilled, while more than 2,000 families are on waiting lists, and they plan to reduce or reallocate slots from providers that have not filled them over several years. They also said they are examining whether income thresholds, curriculum expectations, daily rates, and summer programming should be updated, and members raised concerns about access, local control, transportation, and whether the program should better align with K-12 choice and school readiness goals. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical data and other information for future discussion. The committee then received a legal presentation from BLR attorney Taylor Lloyd on the constitutional and statutory framework for education adequacy in Arkansas. She reviewed the Dupree and Lake View cases, explaining that the state must maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools, and that adequacy and equity are distinct but related concepts. She emphasized that the General Assembly is responsible for defining adequacy, studying whether the system meets that standard, and reacting to the evidence, while the courts ultimately decide constitutional compliance. Lloyd also explained the current adequacy definition, the role of the matrix as a funding tool rather than a spending mandate, and the distinction between unrestricted foundation funding and restricted categorical funding. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum followed with a historical overview of how Arkansas responded to the court cases and developed the current adequacy process. She traced major legislative actions from the 1980s through the Lake View litigation, including the creation of funding formulas, categorical aid, isolated funding, declining enrollment funding, and the 2003-2004 adequacy study that led to the Continuing Adequacy Evaluation Act and the matrix used to set foundation funding. She also described later changes to the adequacy statute, the financial reporting requirements for districts, and the ongoing use of surveys, stakeholder testimony, and consultant studies in the biennial adequacy process. Members asked questions about whether private or homeschool programs could use public funds for expenses like utilities, whether stakeholders should include those groups, the difference between average daily membership and attendance, and whether school board members are surveyed; staff said those issues would need further research or were outside the scope of the presenters’ role.

Transcript Highlights:

• in funding.
• funding.
• with some of the constitutionally required funding that the state needs to provide to schools through
• This resolves the funding gap and gets us to the $22.5 million, I think it is, that we need.
• The need for this funding is in question.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard the administration’s spending plan for Proposition 4’s climate smart agriculture and biodiversity chapters, along with related trailer bill language. CDFA outlined proposed funding for existing programs such as SWEEP, Healthy Soils, Urban Agriculture, and invasive species work, plus new or phased-in programs including year-round and mobile farmers’ markets, tribal food sovereignty, and regional farm equipment sharing. The Department of Conservation described funding for the California Farmland Conservancy Program and Working Lands and Riparian Corridors Program, while the Department of Finance and LAO discussed pending allocations and generally found the overall approach reasonable, though LAO suggested the Legislature may want more statutory guidance and reporting, especially for new programs. Members focused on implementation details, equity, and accountability. Questions covered how programs would serve vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, whether new solicitations would be reopened for previously oversubscribed grants, how outcomes are tracked, and how to structure guidance for new programs such as farm equipment sharing. The chair emphasized that the Legislature wants clearer direction on program design and noted that AB 2313 should guide implementation of the regional farm equipment sharing allocation. The committee also discussed the administration’s request to directly appropriate bond funds to departments and to exempt bond program guidelines from the Administrative Procedures Act; LAO supported the APA exemption with possible legislative guardrails for public notice and comment. The committee then heard on the farm-to-school proposal, with CDFA requesting $24.9 million General Fund for incubator grants, technical assistance, and network support. CDFA said the program has reached nearly half of California schoolchildren and has shown strong demand and positive evaluation results. LAO supported the core program but recommended rejecting the $3 million technical assistance component as too broad and suggested the Legislature consider using Proposition 98 for some of the funding. Members debated that point, with some expressing concern about using General Fund dollars for a new discretionary request during a tight budget year. The biodiversity and nature-based solutions chapter included funding for the Wildlife Conservation Board, state conservancies, and tribal nature-based solutions. WCB described major recent investments and proposed projects tied to 30 by 30, habitat restoration, tribal partnerships, and public access. Members raised concerns about long-term stewardship, the size of the WCB allocation, and whether the Legislature should receive more detail on how funds will be distributed. The committee also heard requests for Bolsa Chica wetlands maintenance and Rincon Island decommissioning funding from the State Lands Commission, with members questioning long-term liability, remediation costs, and the role of private oil operators. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with public comment from stakeholders largely supporting the APA exemption, farm-to-school funding, biodiversity investments, and related conservation programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• The deletion of rider 26 reflects no longer needing funding to freeze veteran home room rates, and the
• I request funds to U.S.
• And I assume that this match of federal funds and state funds.
• Do you have the funding and the personnel you need to meet your responsibilities dealing with the increased
• Do you have the funding and the personnel needed to address your responsibility?

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• a federal fund to a gift fund.
• When I look at unexpended funds the last few years, I find it hard to believe that we're going to need
• more funds?
• more funds?
• And by, excuse me, sir, you mean by fund?” “By fund. Yeah.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• The funding available in the climate bond will help to bridge a needed gap in close-to-home parks that
• So you have enough funds, you think, to handle the funding you need for these rule revisions, these regulations
• We would have to have further discussions with CalRecycle as to what additional funding they may need
• The information you need to make your request for state funding.
• The final funds that they need to help bring that to the finish line.

Transcript Highlights:

• One piece of it, the $15 million, is flexible funding for potential changes in capacity that are needed
• I am testifying pro for the capital budget, as this provides the needed funding for the continued preservation
• Fund.
• needs.
• The bad news is we still need $40 million to fund the rest of the projects down that list.

Bills: HB2295

Committee: House Capital Budget

Keywords: Washington capital budget, supplemental capital budget, capital appropriations, state building construction account, taxable building construction account, climate commitment account, natural climate solutions, housing trust fund, affordable housing, supportive housing, homelessness, manufactured home communities, mobile home parks, school construction, school modernization, school seismic safety, healthy schools, school electrification, SCAP, behavioral health facilities

Transcript Highlights:

• Why do these funds have monies left over at the end of the two-year period if these funds are needed?
• Why do these funds have...” “Yes. Why do these funds have money left over if the funds are needed?
• If the money is needed in these funds, like the Crime Victims Fund, if these funds are necessary, then
• And so if there’s a big purchase that we need to utilize those funds for, maybe you need to kind of collect
• And so both of those funds have been swept to the point where both funds needed general revenue pickups

Committee: House Corrections and Public Institutions

Summary: The committee first met in executive session and adopted a House Committee substitute combining House Bills 2592, 2834, and 2787 into one measure. The combined substitute was then voted do pass by a unanimous roll call, recorded as 15 ayes and 0 noes after a brief correction to the tally. The committee then heard House Bill 1786, which would raise the Highway Patrol’s spending threshold for purchasing vehicles, watercraft, aircraft, and related specialized equipment without returning to the legislature from $100,000 to $500,000. The sponsor and Highway Patrol witnesses said the current cap is outdated because boats, armored vehicles, bomb trucks, and aircraft equipment now cost far more than $100,000, while members asked about inflation, the revolving fund, and whether a lower increase might be more appropriate. No opposition testimony was offered. Next, House Bill 2885 was heard. It would redirect the first $1 million in annual boat registration fee revenue away from general revenue and into the Missouri Water Patrol Division. The sponsor and Highway Patrol said registration revenue has declined while operating costs have risen, and the division needs the money to support enforcement, search and rescue, dive operations, and boating safety programs. Members asked how much revenue is collected and whether the change would affect other programs; testimony indicated the bill would mainly earmark existing revenue rather than increase overall department funding. The committee also heard House Bill 2694, which would exempt four fee-supported funds from the end-of-biennium sweep to general revenue: the Highway Patrol Academy Fund, the State Forensic Laboratory Account, the Boiler and Pressure Vessels Safety Fund, and the Elevator Safety Fund. The sponsor and Department of Public Safety witnesses said the sweeps make long-term planning difficult and can disrupt training, lab support, and safety inspection operations, though members raised concerns about excess balances, guardrails, and whether fee reductions should be considered if reserves grow too large. Finally, House Bill 1712 was heard; it would make intentionally failing to charge an electronic monitoring device a crime, closing a loophole in existing tampering law. The sponsor, a sheriff, and other witnesses said the bill addresses deliberate attempts to evade monitoring, while members discussed battery warnings, rural access to electricity, and the costs and benefits of pretrial release. No votes were taken on the later bills before the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• well fund.
• We decided to fund them out of the abandoned well fund.
• We decided to fund them out of the abandoned well fund.
• There's no general fund money, but they need enabling language to do that.
• Because to get a FERC permit, you need 100% capacity. And you need capacity. You need capacity.

Committee: House Appropriations

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 2014, the budget for the Industrial Commission, with Representative Kempenich walking through the agency’s major components: the administrative office, Bank of North Dakota, housing finance, Department of Mineral Resources, and the State Mill and Elevator. He described mostly special-fund operations, including bond payments, economic development programs, the rail loan program, the Rebuilder’s Loan Program, housing incentive funding, abandoned well reclamation work, lignite research, litigation reserves, and a capacity purchase arrangement for a future natural gas pipeline. He also explained several one-time funding items, such as grid resiliency grants, housing-related transfers from the Strategic Investment Fund, and enhanced oil recovery funding repurposed from a prior salt cavern study. Members asked about the reduction in housing incentive funding from the Senate version, the use of one-time Strategic Investment Fund dollars for ongoing housing programs, and whether a trigger should be added to increase housing funding later. Kempenich said no trigger was discussed and emphasized that housing needs vary widely across the state. Another exchange focused on the enhanced oil recovery grant program, which he said would be driven largely by the Energy and Environmental Research Center and would use repurposed funds. A longer discussion covered the natural gas pipeline capacity purchase, including its purpose, possible routes, and the idea that the state would be buying capacity rather than immediately building a pipeline. The committee adopted Amendment 25.0181.0207 on a 21-1 vote, with one member absent and not voting. The committee then passed HB 2014 as amended on a 21-1 vote, with one member absent and not voting. Representative Kempenich was designated to carry the bill. The chair then noted this was the final budget hearing for the committee, with one bill remaining to be heard later.

Transcript Highlights:

• "So that's the funding mechanism that provides what we need to build out this system and operate it.
• is funded by the General Fund.
• Is funded by the General Fund, so we really do need a framework addressing that issue.
• And there are also, we need to ensure that there's fair play and that the funds are distributed appropriately
• by two funds: the Gambling Control Fund and the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund, which is often

Transcript Highlights:

• It is a basic need.
• time that that fund source is available, and that funding balance.
• time that that fund source is available, and that funding balance.
• We need to not be hemmed in by whatever OKA money is in or whatever fund source comes down, whether it's
• what those needs are and the best approach to address those needs.

Summary: The Health Care Budget Subcommittee held a panel discussion on Florida’s mental health and substance abuse system, with representatives from DCF, AHCA, two managing entities, and two providers describing how the state’s behavioral health network is funded and operated. Members focused on the implementation of prior legislative investments, especially the $50 million in recurring funding from Representative Maney’s bill and the earlier $126 million community behavioral health appropriation. Witnesses said the newer funds were used mainly for crisis beds, discharge planning, outpatient services, regional collaboratives, and a USF Marchman Act report, while the larger behavioral health appropriation supported CAT, FACT, FIT, forensic teams, residential and outpatient services, and crisis care, with most dollars going directly to services and only a small share to administration. A major theme was access to crisis care and the role of mobile response teams, 988, and central receiving facilities in diverting people from Baker Act admissions and reducing readmissions. DCF and providers said mobile response teams have expanded, are being used to de-escalate crises and connect people to care, and have shown strong diversion results and reductions in Baker Acts in some regions. Members also asked about waitlists, children in crisis, and how to handle people without housing or support; providers said discharge planning is individualized but often constrained by homelessness, transportation, and a lack of safe placements, and several witnesses identified housing as one of the biggest barriers to recovery and stability. The committee also examined provider sustainability, reimbursement, and funding gaps. Witnesses described delays caused by contract timing, cost allocation rules, and Medicaid reimbursement rates that do not always keep pace with labor and operating costs, especially for smaller providers and rural networks. DCF and AHCA said managing entities can provide advances, retroactive rate adjustments, and technical assistance, and that Medicaid managed care plans have network standards and complaint/dispute processes. Members raised concerns about a reported $7 million loss in federal non-sustainable funds, provider closures, and whether there is a formal ombudsman process for disputes; DCF said the federal reductions were known and tied to one-time funds, and that the department generally handles provider issues informally while working with managing entities to preserve continuity of care.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we know that the state funding for the CSU has not kept up with need, and educator preparation is
• And we know that the state funding for the CSU has not kept up with need.
• And educator, And we know that the state funding for the CSU has not kept up with need, and educated
• High-needs districts and subjects need the full $100 million funding from the GSTG.
• High-needs districts and subjects need the full $100 million funding from the GSTG. Thank you.

Summary: The committee heard an informational discussion on California’s educator pipeline and shortages, with testimony from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the Learning Policy Institute, CSU educator preparation leaders, and CTA. Witnesses said state investments of more than $2.1 billion have helped rebuild teacher supply, with credential issuance and preparation enrollment rebounding after COVID, but demand remains high because of turnover, early-career attrition, and persistent vacancies. Panelists emphasized that shortages are especially acute in special education, bilingual education, STEM, and in high-need schools and regions, and that underprepared teachers, substitutes, and emergency permits remain heavily used. Several speakers stressed that retention, working conditions, compensation, and stable funding are as important as recruitment. Members focused on whether current data systems are sufficient to measure need and track where teachers end up working. The Commission said it can monitor assignments for credential alignment, but does not have full employment data to determine whether grant recipients or credentialed teachers are actually deployed in the shortage areas for which they were trained. The chair asked for better regional and subject-area data, and the committee discussed the risk that layoffs and budget instability could undermine teacher pipeline investments. CSU representatives urged stronger support for student-teacher stipends, better coordination with districts, more capacity for special education preparation, and more stable CSU funding to expand educator preparation. CTA testified that school climate, class size, health benefits, and administrative support are essential to retaining teachers. The committee then moved to budget proposals. For the Golden State Teacher Grant Program, Finance proposed a $14.4 million reappropriation for 2026-27, and the Student Aid Commission supported continued funding, saying the program has influenced candidates’ decisions to enter teaching and work in priority schools. For educator residencies, Finance proposed $250 million one-time Proposition 98 funding through 2029-30; the LAO said it could be adopted if aligned with legislative priorities, and CTC said the program has strong uptake and supports retention. For the computer science supplementary authorization grant, Finance proposed increasing awards from $2,500 to $6,000 and reducing the match requirement, but the LAO recommended rejecting the change because only about one-fifth of the original funding has been used. The committee also discussed registered apprenticeship pathways, rural access, and whether federal Title II, Title III, or IDEA funds could support bilingual and special education teacher preparation. Several items were held open for further information and follow-up.

Transcript Highlights:

• We know there will be budgets that need further general fund adjustments, and we will be working with
• fund.
• So the requested adjustment consists of funds needed to cover shortfalls, including $11,700 in personnel
• We'd like to be fully funded. ...funded.
• We're fully funded from the Dental Fund.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Anything below the line, we do not have funding this biennium to fund, and they would need to be deferred
• needs for water projects for the next 14 years. ...this study and address anticipated funding needs
• So it was interesting to me that we're talking about 14 years, but then we have funding needs beyond
• But with the funding gap, I think there is a need to make a decision on prioritization of the projects
• So then if you look at the total estimated funds needed, the completion is about $762 million.

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met with a quorum and heard updates from Department of Water Resources Director Reese Haas and Lieutenant Governor/State Water Commission Chair Michelle Strinden on statewide water funding, major projects, and two legislative studies requested in House Bill 1020. Haas reviewed the status of the Northwest Area Water Supply and Southwest Pipeline projects, noting NAWS construction is expected to move water by fall and Southwest’s Hebron-Rugby expansion phase one is in final design with bids expected next month. He also summarized the department’s budget outlook, including Resources Trust Fund and Water Project Stabilization Fund balances, the effect of oil price volatility and stripper well exemptions on revenues, and the status of project buckets, carryover, lines of credit, regionalization, bid trends, and administrative/process updates. Committee members asked about project prioritization, municipal funding demand, maintenance expectations, replacement versus deferred maintenance, and whether the 2025 session may have underfunded municipal water supply needs. Haas said the commission uses the same high/medium/low prioritization process across all buckets, reviews maintenance plans as part of policy, and is seeing strong demand in the municipal bucket. He also explained that the department’s 14-year projection is based on the next seven legislative sessions and that the state faces a projected $1.3 billion shortfall over that period if all planned projects are funded under current assumptions. Deloitte then presented draft findings from the cost-share policy study and the governance/finance study. For cost share, Deloitte said the model shows a roughly $1.3 billion shortfall over 14 years and about $1.8 billion through 2031 under current policy, and offered seven options including tighter eligibility for replacement projects, state funding caps for the Mouse River and Red River Valley projects, a priority-based cost-share scale, timing shifts, use of existing lines of credit, and delayed reimbursement timing. For governance, Deloitte outlined draft options for Southwest, NAWS, and Red River ranging from maintaining current structures with stronger planning to transferring ownership or adding formal oversight, and recommended broader use of performance metrics, long-term financial planning, and clearer decision trees. No votes or formal actions were taken; the commission discussed the scenarios and the studies will return in revised form later in the spring.

Transcript Highlights:

• In order for us to sustain these efforts, they need to be fully funded.
• We will need additional funding to update kindergarten through second grade and grades six through 12
• </c><01:32:03.000><c> additional</c><01:32:03.400><c> funding</c> five uh we will need additional funding
• five uh we will need additional funding to<01:32:03.880><c> update</c><01:32:04.239><c> kindergarten
• The funding formula has not kept up with these inflationary costs and needs of our students.

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's what allows us to fund small public housing authorities in parts of the state. need to do.
• years so that like for a couple funding years so that you you you &gt;&gt; We<00:52:31.839><c> need<
• <00:59:26.079><c> needs</c><00:59:26.400><c> historically</c><00:59:26.880><c> and</c> funding needs
• historically and funding needs historically and currently. currently. currently. um<00:59:29.119><c>
• Um, now jumping back into just kind of historic funding needs for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund

Committee: House Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• , and the information needed for monitoring, oversight, and allowing the funds to be released to states
• , and the information needed for monitoring, oversight, and allowing the funds to be released to states
• , and the information needed for monitoring, oversight, and allowing the funds to be released to states
• , and the information needed for monitoring, oversight, and allowing the funds to be released to states
• What maintains the smooth flow of the programs, the funds, and the information needed for monitoring,

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• needs of their communities.
• FAIR funds will fund improvements to municipally owned bridges across the Commonwealth.
• , municipal need, or, as I said, some connection to a state facility... ...need, municipal need, or,
• the long-term needs... ...if there's future funding they know, then they could start to think about
• This is desperately needed funding through the state's most successful road and bridge program.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Transportation

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 4987, the administration’s transportation bond bill centered on Chapter 90 roadway funding and related capital programs. Administration officials described the bill as a roughly $5.5 billion package that would continue $300 million per year for Chapter 90 over four years, with part of the funding distributed by the traditional formula and an additional $100 million based solely on road miles to better support rural and smaller communities. They also highlighted authorizations for municipal pavement work, Shared Streets and Spaces grants, accelerated bridge and pavement repairs, MBTA rail modernization and reliability, housing-related transportation improvements, and a new DCR-focused PRISM program for parkways and related infrastructure. Officials emphasized that the bill is financed through the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues, and said it would help municipalities plan more predictably, speed project delivery, and support housing, safety, and climate goals. Committee members and witnesses discussed the bill’s broader scope beyond traditional Chapter 90, especially the $200 million for transportation projects that support housing development and the $200 million for MBTA modernization and rail reliability. Members asked about the rationale for a four-year authorization amid fiscal uncertainty, federal funding volatility, and the status of commuter rail electrification. Administration officials responded that the capital authorization is backed by dedicated transportation revenues rather than the operating budget, and said multi-year certainty helps cities and towns make better long-term repair decisions. They also said the MBTA’s rail modernization funds would support locomotive procurements, including battery-electric and Tier 4 diesel locomotives, as part of a longer-term regional rail and electrification strategy. Municipal officials and regional advocates strongly supported the bill. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, along with town and city officials from Sherborn, Conway, and Yarmouth, said the increased Chapter 90 funding and road-mile-based distribution are especially important for small and rural communities with limited local revenue capacity, and that multi-year funding would let them bundle projects, bid at better prices, and address backlogs more proactively. A Better City and MAPC also supported the bill but urged the committee to treat it like a traditional bond bill by adding policy provisions and considering new transportation revenue tools, such as TNC fee changes, road pricing, parking taxes, and other mechanisms. The committee took no vote during the hearing and adjourned after testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• In terms of this strategy that is due to the Legislature, we would need funding to bring on consultants
• Funding available.
• to fund private energy...
• So why do we need to have ongoing staffing and funding? Thank you.
• The current DSGS funding level is not sufficient to fund the program in 2026.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy heard six budget-related items and took no votes, holding all items open for a future hearing. The first item concerned a climate bond expenditure plan for the California Transmission Accelerator Revolving Fund under SB 254. GoBiz, IBank, and the Department of Finance described a request for nearly $26 million and 10 limited-term positions to develop financing strategies and evaluate transmission projects, while the LAO said the proposal was broadly consistent with Prop. 4 but noted that the Legislature may want to provide more direction on program design. Senators questioned how the proposal would lower ratepayer costs, protect state funds, and ensure accountability for billion-dollar transmission projects. The second item covered trailer bill language to redirect funding among demand-side reliability programs. Finance proposed moving $22 million from the DEPA program to DSGS for summer 2026 and using CalSHAPE interest funds for ELRP or an equivalent CPUC program in 2027-28, with CEC and CPUC coordinating the transition. Senators and LAO questioned why CalSHAPE funds should not continue supporting schools, and several members argued DSGS has been more successful and should continue rather than be shifted to ELRP. CEC and CPUC explained that DSGS and ELRP serve different reliability functions and do not address public safety power shutoffs. Public commenters, including school groups and clean energy advocates, split between extending CalSHAPE for school HVAC/plumbing projects and preserving or expanding DSGS. The committee also heard on petroleum market oversight implementation under SBX1-2 and ABX2-1, with the CEC and its Division of Petroleum Market Oversight requesting additional staffing to support inventory monitoring, refinery resupply analysis, and market oversight. Senators pressed for details on investigations, refinery margins, gasoline price spikes, and the transportation fuels transition plan, while staff said the draft plan would be released soon and that DPMO’s work on branded versus unbranded gasoline remains ongoing. Finally, the CPUC presented three additional proposals: implementing AB 1207’s climate credit reforms, studying large-load/data center cost impacts under SB 57, and preparing for regional market participation under AB 825. The LAO repeatedly cautioned that some of these requests may go beyond statutory minimums and urged the Legislature to decide how much policy direction and staffing it wants to provide. Public commenters supported DPMO funding, opposed ending CalSHAPE, and strongly favored continued DSGS funding over a new ELRP structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• But then we shifted solely to CIFCO cases to avoid losing the funding needed for social workers, and
• we cleared the CIFCO backlogs. ...the funding needed for social workers.
• That would be the level of annual funding needed for county-run Home Safe programs to maintain their
• Unfortunately, the need is far greater than we have the funds to serve and to continue to grow.
• It’s just funding. Correct. What about the need for MOUs between departments in California?