Transcript Highlights:

• This is a federal bill affecting federal royalties that are shared with the states.
• From federal policy changes.
• We're more reliant on federal money than ever before, between the labs and the federal government.
• funding to implement evidence-based programs in the federal Title IV-E Clearinghouse.
• Which we did, and we found the Firstborn program to be a commendable program.

Transcript Highlights:

• relevant federal data due to the federal relevant federal data due to the federal government<00:
• We estimate that these programs make up 2/3 of the funds we receive from the federal government.
• 48.360> programs Federal funding for entitlement programs has been more volatile in recent months
• This is the federal agency that oversees our medical assistance program.
• it to federal law. it to federal law.

Bills: HF3425

Keywords: supportive housing, grants, housing assistance, funding, Minnesota Statutes, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We are also looking at reduced federal funding to administer the SNAP program.
• Our whole agency is cost-allocated across these federal programs, so it will change the way that the
• In safety net programs.
• And again, that's only through Be Well and for those federal programs.
• the federal government.

Transcript Highlights:

• programs.
• the federal government matches state dollars to support the Medicaid program.
• Every state has a Medicaid program. It's an entitlement program under federal law.
• So, two different programs.
• For programming that's not just continuously asking for TSROC money to support ongoing programs as an

Transcript Highlights:

• So currently, the structure includes the federally designated coalition, which there is a federal statute
• So currently, the structure includes the federally designated coalition, which there is a federal statute
• So, for example, the federally designated coalition is required and funded by the federal government
• They might run the legal program. They might run a transitional housing program.
• But I struggle with our program as we interact with individuals But I struggle with our program as we

Summary: The committee held a panel discussion on Florida’s domestic violence system, focusing on how state and federally funded services are coordinated, the role of the Florida Partnership to End Domestic Violence (FPEDV), the Florida Domestic Violence Collaborative, DCF, and certified domestic violence centers. Members reviewed the post-2020 restructuring after the dissolution of FCADV, the current hotline, legal services, training, and technical assistance contracts, and the Legislature’s recent work on lethality assessments under SB 1224. Panelists also described prevention, shelter, counseling, child advocacy, and legal support services, along with the statewide network of 41 certified centers serving all 67 counties. Testimony highlighted both collaboration and tension. FPEDV and Women in Distress described overlapping training and technical assistance roles, but FPEDV said its relationship with DCF has been difficult and at times obstructive, while DCF said communication and coordination are ongoing. Women in Distress and other providers emphasized the importance of direct services, the statewide hotline, injunction assistance, child welfare co-located advocates, and prevention programs. Several members asked about funding flows, certification, and whether the current structure is sufficient for rural counties; witnesses said federal FVPSA funds are formula-based, DCF contracts directly with centers, and rural programs face staffing and fundraising challenges that limit beds and services. A major portion of the discussion centered on the lethality assessment work group and implementation of the new statewide tool. FDLE explained that the work group concluded the Maryland model was copyrighted and costly to replicate exactly, so Florida adopted a statutory assessment that is not evidence-based in the same way, with training available online and 46 of about 400 law enforcement agencies having completed it so far. Senators raised concerns about multiple assessments, redacted police reports, and whether the tool will be useful without better coordination and data collection. Witnesses also discussed rising domestic violence, teen dating violence, and strangulation cases, with providers reporting increased demand, full shelters, and greater use of hotels and mobile crisis responses. No formal votes or actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• In authorizing the program on an ongoing basis, DSH will be able to Thank you. ...four-year program.
• And in one case, not on this program but also a similar program, like I said, the CCE program, the letters
• who operates the BrightLife Kids programs, and Coots, that operates the Soluna program, have a long
• We believe these programs are critical tools that are needed now morning. federal immigration efforts
• program from two hearings ago.

Summary: The hearing opened with remarks from the chair and members about recent federal cuts to public health, mental health, family planning, and Title X funding, with strong concern about the impact on California programs and providers. The committee then turned to the Department of State Hospitals, which presented its 2025-26 budget proposal of $3.4 billion, including new positions, capital improvements, and funding tied to increased patient costs and incompetent-to-stand-trial services. DSH reported major progress in reducing the IST waitlist and wait times, said it had met the court’s 28-day treatment benchmark for those without extenuating circumstances, and described workforce recruitment and retention efforts such as residency programs, fellowships, outreach, and hiring streamlining. Members asked about future IST referral trends, SB 1323’s effect on diversion and community treatment, and workforce lessons in high-cost regions; public comment urged reconsideration of county IST growth cap methodology in light of new criminal justice initiatives. The committee next received an informational overview of Proposition 1 and its changes to behavioral health funding and governance. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that Prop. 1 restructured county MHSA funding buckets, expanded the Commission for Behavioral Health, shifted prevention and early intervention responsibilities, and authorized a $6.4 billion bond, including $4.4 billion for behavioral health facilities through BHCIP. DHCS said it had released guidance for county integrated plans and was receiving extensive public comment. Members focused on BHCIP application requirements, especially letters of support and tribal projects, and raised concerns about whether DHCS’s implementation matched statutory intent. DHCS said it had authority to set application requirements and that tribal entities were treated differently because of sovereignty and funding structure. DHCS then updated the committee on BHCIP, the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program, and related bond implementation. The department said BHCIP had awarded about $1.7 billion across five rounds, with more than 130 projects and 223 distinct facilities funded, and that it was preparing to award the new bond funds after receiving nearly $8 billion in applications. The LAO’s assessment found that more than half of awards served at least 80% Medi-Cal enrollees, but also raised concerns that the regional allocation model could reinforce inequities, that the program had not sufficiently addressed the highest-need regions such as the southern San Joaquin Valley, and that smaller counties and less launch-ready applicants faced barriers. For bridge housing, DHCS said more than $1.1 billion had been awarded, serving over 5,000 people and supporting more than 2,000 operational beds, but the Governor’s budget proposes to eliminate Round 4 funding as the administration weighs other statewide investments and Proposition 1 implementation workload. Public commenters and members urged more accountability, better regional equity, stronger labor and community involvement, and caution about funding for for-profit psychiatric facilities. Finally, the committee heard on the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative. CalHHS and DHCS described CYBHI as a broad prevention- and equity-focused effort with more than 1,300 organizations funded, over $2.1 billion awarded, and multiple work streams spanning schools, community programs, workforce, and digital supports. DHCS highlighted school-based services, the fee schedule rollout, and digital platforms BrightLife Kids and Soluna, which it said are reaching users statewide and providing low-barrier access to coaching and support. Members and public commenters raised concerns about delays in school fee schedule implementation, the large share of funding going to digital tools, the need for more in-person services, and whether the initiative is sufficiently tracking outcomes and equity impacts. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Businesses can deduct sales taxes from federal income, so this is the tax that the federal government
• the federal share.
• Under the federal government, California and other states are still able to claim federal dollars for
• Do we still get federal dollars?
• It anticipated that federal policy changes may be required to change the current MCO tax program and

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• By the way, this program is funded with federal dollars through GUSNIP.
• The 24% is what we help fund our program with, in addition to various grants. and contracts, federal
• So the total program activity proposed. $10.3 million for this program.
• So, maybe after a little while the dust settles with the federal programs with weather and climate,
• It's a federal agency.

Transcript Highlights:

• , but for all federal programs.
• In some ways, this makes the census a more high-profile event than many other federal programs might
• All of that allocated based on the And so. dollars through these programs from the federal government
• Although the census is federally operated, all of the programs the Bureau administers, those optional
• Although the census is federally operated, all of the programs the Bureau administers, those optional

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on census preparation, focusing first on testimony from U.S. Census Bureau staff James Whitehorn and Andrea Grace Johnson. They described the Bureau’s decade-long geographic and redistricting programs, including the Boundary and Annexation Survey, School District Review Program, Participant Statistical Area Program, and Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA), along with the Block Boundary Suggestion Project and voting district collection. They emphasized that Massachusetts has been a strong partner in these efforts and explained how the Bureau is using updated street data, building footprints, machine learning, and change detection to improve address lists and track new housing. Whitehorn also reviewed the 2030 redistricting data program, the legal basis for it under PL 94-171, the role of state nonpartisan liaisons, and the expected timeline for data delivery. He noted that OMB’s revised race and ethnicity standards will merge those questions into one and add a Middle Eastern/North African category. Committee members asked about the new standards, state contacts, and how boundary updates are submitted, and the witnesses said they would provide the slide deck and contact information. Wendy Underhill and Helen Brewer of NCSL then testified about why census preparation matters for states, stressing its impact on data, federal funding, and political representation. They outlined optional steps states can take before 2030, including staying in touch with Census Bureau staff, identifying state and local personnel involved in census work, supporting local participation in Bureau programs, and creating complete count committees or commissions. They cited Massachusetts’s prior complete count committee and grantmaking efforts as an example and said such efforts can improve self-response and overall accuracy. They also noted that state legislatures can act as conveners and trusted messengers, and they discussed broader issues such as privacy protections, differential privacy, budget uncertainty, and the possibility of future litigation or a citizenship question. Secretary of State William Galvin then gave extended remarks on Massachusetts’s 2020 census experience and the need to prepare early for 2030. He said the state faced major challenges in 2020 from the pandemic, litigation, and rhetoric about citizenship, and that Massachusetts relied heavily on local records, university data, and community outreach to document residents, especially students and non-native-born populations. He argued that the state should strengthen local recordkeeping now through LUCA, annual resident lists, assessors’ and zoning records, and other local data sources, and he urged support for a proposed $500,000 appropriation for census-related grants and technical assistance. Galvin said better preparation is needed because housing patterns, population shifts, and local administrative capacity have changed since 2020, and he emphasized that the goal is to improve the completeness of the records the Census Bureau will use in 2030.

Transcript Highlights:

• funding to implement evidence-based programs identified in the federal Title IV-E Clearinghouse.
• Head Start is a federally funded program.
• Within our program, we are sponsors of the summer food program.
• There are state-funded Head Start programs, so it doesn't all have to be federal.
• RESA plans, other programs serving American Indians, and several other federal health insurance programs

Transcript Highlights:

• So currently, the structure includes the federally designated coalition, which there is a federal statute
• So, for example, the federally designated coalition is required and funded by the federal government
• First, federally designated... First, federally designated—so if maybe the department and Ms.
• Would we be able to draw down the federal funds if we didn't have a federally designated coalition?
• They might run the legal program. They might run a transitional housing program.

Summary: The committee held a panel discussion on Florida’s domestic violence system, focusing on the roles of the state, the federally designated coalition, direct-service providers, and law enforcement. Members reviewed the history of the system after the dissolution of the former coalition in 2020, the creation of the Florida Partnership to End Domestic Violence, DCF’s Office of Domestic Violence, and the current contract structure involving Women in Distress and its subcontractors for hotline and legal services. Panelists also discussed the 2024 lethality assessment law, the workgroup’s conclusion that the evidence-based Maryland tool could not be used because of copyright and cost issues, and the state’s current use of statutory questions instead. DCF and FDLE described the statewide certification and funding framework, including more than $60 million in domestic violence funding for fiscal year 2025-26 and the requirement that law enforcement complete lethality-assessment training by October 1, 2026. Testimony highlighted both collaboration and conflict. Florida Partnership to End Domestic Violence and Women in Distress described overlapping training and technical-assistance roles, but disagreed sharply about the quality of their relationship with DCF and whether the current structure is duplicative. DCF said it maintains communication with both the coalition and the centers and emphasized that the coalition is federally required, while the coalition argued that the department has obstructed its work. Women in Distress and Hope Villages stressed direct services, prevention, and the need for more housing, staffing, and funding, especially in rural areas. They also described programs in schools, hospitals, and child welfare settings, and noted that children exposed to domestic violence often need specialized services. Members asked about funding flows, certification, rural coverage, the number of centers, and the lethality assessment rollout. DCF said the 41 certified centers serve all 67 counties and that no new applications have been received in about 15 years. FDLE reported that 46 of roughly 400 law enforcement agencies had completed the lethality-assessment training and attestation, with the statutory deadline still ahead. Panelists said domestic violence appears to be increasing, citing higher hotline demand, shelter occupancy, and local case numbers, while also noting that statewide crime data remains outdated. The discussion ended with calls for better coordination, clearer implementation of statutes, more funding, and possible legislative fixes to improve data collection, training, and service delivery.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is all 100% federally funded.
• That figure is that Kentucky or is that the total federal program?
• Uh there's no federally fund funded.
• <00:04:32.639> program?
• federal program? federal program?

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Interim Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Energy met for a public hearing and presentation on the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). After approving the minutes, members heard from Shannon Hall of the Department for Community Based Services and Rick Baker of Community Action Kentucky, who explained that LIHEAP is a 100% federally funded block grant used in Kentucky to help low-income households pay home energy bills, prevent utility disconnects, and support weatherization and crisis assistance. Hall outlined the program’s income eligibility limits, the fact that payments go directly to vendors or utilities rather than households, and the program’s funding levels, including $43.4 million spent in federal fiscal year 2025 and an anticipated $58 million for federal fiscal year 2026. The presenters described LIHEAP’s main components: fall and spring subsidy programs, winter crisis assistance, and weatherization. They gave participation figures for recent program cycles, including tens of thousands of households served in each component, and explained that weatherization prioritizes elderly, disabled, households with children, and high-energy-burden homes. They also noted that weatherization is carried out in partnership with the Kentucky Housing Corporation and includes repairs and efficiency measures such as insulation, air sealing, and safety checks. Rick Baker described Community Action Kentucky’s role as the statewide administrator through 23 local community action agencies, emphasizing their presence in all 120 counties and their local board structure. Members praised Baker’s long service and the program’s importance for families facing high energy costs, especially in coalfield areas. One member asked for clarification on a slide reference to “Assurance 16,” but the transcript cuts off before the answer is completed. No votes or other committee actions were taken beyond approving the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are programs through WIOA.
• more hours a month, that they're doing work program participation in a work program or training program
• training programs and programs just like what we've been talking about, but people aren't any better
• So what we have right now is the federal workforce program, which is TANF, I mean TANF and SNAP, which
• People inside of state government all run programs, and everybody loves their program.

Summary: The subcommittee received a brief DHS update on the Living Choices Assisted Living Waiver reimbursement rate process, with Secretary Janet Mann reporting that the new cost reporting period began in January and that DHS has begun provider and contractor conference calls as the process moves forward. The bulk of the meeting focused on DHS’s overview of TANF and, especially, SNAP changes under the federal One Big Beautiful Bill. Mary Franklin explained new SNAP work requirements for adults ages 18 to 64 who are not otherwise exempt, including the three-month time limit in a 36-month period unless they meet an 80-hour monthly work, volunteer, education, or training requirement. She also reviewed exemptions, noted that some prior exemptions were removed while new tribal-related exemptions were added, and described SNAP Employment and Training providers, budgets, service areas, participant characteristics, and outcomes. Members asked about how mandatory referrals will work, whether funding and vendors are sufficient, how cross-program participation is tracked, how verification and recertification will be handled, and how error rates and sanctions will be managed. DHS said mandatory participants will be referred directly to providers, verification will occur at application and recertification, interviews can be by phone, and the department will return with more information on error-rate mitigation and other requested data. DHS then outlined upcoming Medicaid community engagement requirements for the ARHOME population under the same federal law, which must be implemented by January 1, 2027. The department said it is preparing policy, system changes, data matching, communications, and an outbound customer-service verification process, with a soft launch planned for July to help identify who would meet the requirement or need to provide more information. Members raised concerns about notice, local versus centralized decision-making, and how clients will document work, school, caregiving, or medical exemptions. The meeting concluded with broader discussion of the Alliance for Opportunity audit and a shared emphasis on using SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, and workforce programs together to improve outcomes, expand training options, and better connect Arkansans to education and employment opportunities. The committee also discussed extending the audit contract at a future meeting and adjourned without taking any formal vote in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then lastly, on page 7, we operate a federal new market tax credit program.
• Um, that's that program. We are a AAA. Uh, bonded program.
• Um, that's what we actually have in hand for projects from the federally funded programs.
• That's a very small federal program.
• , that is a federally funded program.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our program is a state program. We receive no federal dollars. No federal dollars. Okay.
• The DBE program is a federal program under the U.S.
• The DBE program was established by Congress in 1982 and governed by federal regulation 49 CFR parts 23
• The DBE program is a federal<00:19:46.320> program<00:19:46.720> under<00:19:47.039>
• federal program under the US Department of<00:19:48.160> Transportation<00:19:48.720> and<

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The August 2025 interim meeting of the Commission on Race and Access to Opportunity began with roll call, confirmation of a quorum, approval of the June meeting minutes, and welcoming a new member, Ivonne Smith, who noted her background in MWBE and DBE work. The chair also offered condolences to a member whose father recently passed away and explained that the committee had invited agency officials to answer questions raised at the prior meeting. The first presentation was from Singer Buchanan of the Kentucky Finance and Administration Cabinet, who described the state’s equal opportunity and contract compliance office and its certification programs for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses and minority/women business enterprises. He outlined outreach efforts, including partnerships with veterans’ organizations, the Kentucky Department of Veterans Affairs, UK, and transportation-related groups; explained that the programs are intended to expand market access rather than provide grants; and said the office has moved to an online application portal that has processed 227 new applications since December 2023. He reported 536 total vendors across the programs, including 29 service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, and said the office is considering website testimonials to improve outreach. Members asked about staffing, application assistance, and whether the state program conflicts with federal policy; Buchanan said the office has three staff members and that the program is state-funded and, based on legal advice, should continue under Kentucky law. Tony Yusefi of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet then presented on the federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. He explained the program’s legal basis under federal DOT regulations, its eligibility standards, and its purpose of creating a level playing field while helping firms grow and eventually compete without assistance. He described certification requirements, annual documentation, prompt-payment protections, commercially useful function reviews, good-faith effort requirements, and sanctions for violations. He also discussed barriers facing DBEs, including access to capital, bonding, insurance, training, and prequalification requirements, and noted that 50 firms were removed last month for noncompliance with annual documentation rules. Yusefi said the cabinet has expanded supportive services, including an online application platform, bid notifications, and a nine-class business development program; 95 DBEs are enrolled this year, and the bid-matching system reaches an average of 377 DBEs monthly.

Transcript Highlights:

• Defendant Program.
• Our 24-7 Dads program is a program that has wraparound services for men.
• The United States Department of Agriculture sets all regulations to administer the program at the federal
• As outlined in **H.R. 1**, states can choose to use the Federal Fiscal Year 2025 or Federal Fiscal Year
• Earlier, 1,020 was the sample size that the federal government chooses to sample within the SNAP program

Transcript Highlights:

• The OA serves an important role in aiding Native American communities that lack access to federal programs
• It doesn't create any new programs. It doesn't expand the scope of federal lending.
• SBA's small business contracting programs help connect eligible small businesses with federal Eligible
• small businesses with federal contracting opportunities and programs, such as the women-owned small
• It modernizes federal housing programs. It streamlines federal housing programs.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the two major programs funded in this budget entity are the Voluntary Pre-Kindergarten program, or
• VPK, and the School Readiness Program.
• This program is funded with both federal and state funds, with the majority of the funding coming from
• And back then, the program at the federal level, the federal regulations have always governed what that
• So the state set, we're going to set it at 150% of the federal poverty level, and that's how the program

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met with a quorum and focused on School Readiness, specifically the new provider reimbursement rates and the School Readiness Plus program. The chair gave an overview of how School Readiness is funded and administered, noting that the Legislature now sets county-based reimbursement rates using market and cost data, and that School Readiness Plus was created to help families who would otherwise fall off the subsidy “cliff” at 85% of state median income by extending assistance up to 100% of state median income. Panelists from the Children’s Forum, the Association of Early Learning Coalitions, and the Division of Early Learning described the programs as major workforce and family-support tools that help parents stay employed and help providers recruit and retain qualified staff. Testimony emphasized that higher reimbursement rates increase parental choice, help providers cover rising child care costs, and support better staffing and lower turnover. The panel also said School Readiness Plus is easing the pressure on families to turn down raises or promotions for fear of losing child care assistance, though uptake is still early because the program only began in late 2024 and is only available to current School Readiness families at redetermination. The Division of Early Learning reported about 275 children enrolled in School Readiness Plus as of March 10, with expenditures of about $161,420 through January 2025, and said participation is increasing. Members asked about the federal-state funding split, wait lists, reverted funds, coalition accountability, county-based rate differences, and whether the entrance eligibility threshold should be raised or shifted to state median income. The panel said roughly 70% of School Readiness funding is federal, about 4% has typically reverted in recent years, and the wait list is around 12,000 children, with reasons including income ineligibility, lack of available seats, and funding limits. They argued that raising the entrance threshold would expand access but would require additional funding, and they also discussed the need to reduce workforce barriers such as in-person testing and training requirements. The meeting ended with no formal action beyond the presentation and member discussion, and the subcommittee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• the cuts to the Title X program.
• The program rules were changed, which devastated the entire program system.
• wrong in relation to the program.
• Although the specific focus and extent are unknown, the current reductions in force to federal programs
• California has seen increased funding from federal services and programs, and that was before the all-out

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Also threats to some federal. rural food programs.
• We also provide services in the Children's Health program that is also a federal-state joint funded program
• as Medicare, which is a federal program for individuals.
• So, federal law requires certain populations and services be covered by the Medicaid program.
• Because we operate a managed care Medicaid program, we have a number of federal requirements to measure

Keywords: 1184, house, all