vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Bill Status - SCR-161 California Runaway and Homeless Youth Prevention Month.
Bill Status - SCR-161 California Runaway and Homeless Youth Prevention Month.

skip to content
home
accessibility
FAQ
feedback
sitemap

login

x

 Quick Search:

 Bill Number
Bill Keyword

Home

Bill Information

California Law

Publications

Other Resources

My Subscriptions

My Favorites

Bill Information
 >>
 
Bill Search
 >>
 
Status

Status

PDF2
Bill PDF

 |Add To My Favorites | Version: 09/04/18 - Chaptered
08/29/18 - Enrolled
08/06/18 - Introduced

 

SCR-161 California Runaway and Homeless Youth Prevention Month.(2017-2018)

Text

>>

Votes

>>

History
>>

Bill Analysis
>>

Today's Law As Amended
>>

Compare Versions
>>

Status
>>

Comments To Author

>>

Add To My Favorites
>>

Steps bill has passed through in each house:Senate: Cmt3rdPassPassChp Assembly: Cmt2ndPass

Bill Status

Measure:

SCR-161

Lead Authors:

Wiener (S) 

Principal Coauthors:

-

Coauthors:

Atkins (S) , Beall (S) , Cervantes (A) , Chiu (A) , Cooley (A) , Dodd (S) , Eggman (A) , Galgiani (S) , Glazer (S) , Gloria (A) , Hill (S) , Kalra (A) , Lackey (A) , Lara (S) , Low (A) , Mayes (A) , McGuire (S) , Portantino (S) , Rodriguez (A) , Rubio (A) , Steinorth (A) 

Topic:

California Runaway and Homeless Youth Prevention Month.

31st Day in Print:

-

Title:

 Relative to California Runaway and Homeless Youth Prevention Month. 

House Location:

Secretary of State
The 2024-25 Budget: Child Welfare
Specifically, in 2022-23 (the most recent fiscal year for which full-year data is available), General Fund expenditures for FURS were $13.4 million, representing less than half of the total budgeted for the program. In 2023-24, expenditures are trending higher but still not on track for the program to spend its full funding allocation. Could program funding be reduced without impacting intended beneficiaries while also maintaining the local FURS infrastructure?
Implementation Challenges: Why have actual expenditures been under budget? Are there obstacles preventing the program from being more fully utilized?
Funding Source: Given recent state focus on expanding programs and infrastructure for children and youth behavioral health, as well as state participation in various federal Medicaid demonstration projects, could other sources of funding support FURS?
Alternative Programs: Are there other programs that could prioritize and tailor services to this population in the absence of FURS funding?

SILP Housing Rate Supplement:

Interaction With New CCR Rates Structure: Does DSS intend to incorporate regional variation in SILP housing costs as part of the forthcoming permanent CCR rates structure? If so, then this budget solution potentially could proceed without an adverse effect on youth placed in SILPs because the issue would be addressed as part of the forthcoming overall rate reform. However, waiting to address the issue as part of the broader CCR rate reform likely would mean that implementation of new SILP rates would occur later than currently scheduled. (At the same time, given that the SILP housing supplement has not yet been implemented, youth would not be made worse off than they are currently.)

Los Angeles County Public Health Nurse Pilot:

Potential for Additional Savings: Given the program’s delayed implementation, if the Legislature chooses to move forward with this budget solution, are there additional General Fund savings that could help address the budget problem in the current year?
Funding Source: Given the state’s implementation of the Family First Prevention Services program and increased focus on child welfare system prevention and early intervention—including the $222 million General Fund block grants to counties to develop comprehensive prevention plans—could the public health nurse pilot be funded as part the county’s broader prevention efforts? Alternatively, are there other local funding streams that could replace state General Fund dollars for this program?
The 2024-25 Budget: Preliminary May Revision Analysis for Child Welfare
For more background on foster care rates under CCR and context for this proposal, please refer to our previous analysis.
Updated Trailer Bill Language (TBL) Seems Responsive to Some Stakeholder Feedback. After publishing the initial TBL proposal in March 2024, DSS conducted around 15 feedback sessions to engage stakeholders on various elements of the new proposed rates structure. Stakeholders shared significant feedback, particularly related to the new program elements proposed for the rates structure, namely the strengths building and immediate needs components. Based on our understanding of stakeholder feedback and initial review of the updated TBL, it seems that the administration has made numerous amendments to the proposed language that are directly responsive to stakeholder feedback. For example, DSS received feedback related to non-minor dependents (NMDs) and concerns that the proposed tier 1 rates for NMDs in SILPs would amount to a reduction (relative to current rates) for some youth. Concerns also were raised that NMDs should be able to directly control their allocated strengths building dollars, rather than the dollars being managed by a DSS-contracted spending plan manager. In response, the updated TBL clarifies that strengths building dollars for NMDs in SILPs should go directly to the youth, rather than through a spending plan manager.
Some Questions Remain, DSS Will Continue Engaging Stakeholders. While the amended TBL makes significant updates in response to some stakeholder feedback, some issues still will need to be addressed prior to finalizing the language. In particular, stakeholders continue to have questions around the latent class analysis (LCA) process used to determine the proposed tiers for the new rates structure, as well as questions around the timeliness, uniformity, and applicability of the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) assessment tool. Stakeholders also continue to raise that the proposed administrative portion of the rates across tiers is too low for short-term residential therapeutic programs and foster family agencies, and that all rate components should receive an annual California Necessity Index cost-of-living adjustment. DSS plans to continue engaging stakeholders on these and other issues that remain to be addressed. For example, DSS conducted a webinar on May 22 to discuss the CANS and LCA process.
Updated TBL Includes Trigger Language.
Attorney General James Reaches $310,000 Settlement-in-Principle with Syracuse Landlord for Failing to Address Lead-Based Paint Hazards
More than 11 percent of the Black children tested in 2021 had elevated blood lead levels, compared to just two percent of white children tested.Over the last 30 years, D’Angelo has owned and managed at least 48 rental properties with at least 116 individual rental units in Syracuse. According to city and county records, all of D’Angelo’s rental properties were built prior to 1940, and therefore are all presumed to contain lead-based paint. Most of these properties are in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. D’Angelo currently owns 39 rental properties in and around Syracuse, 22 of which have had lead-related violations. As a result of the settlement-in-principle, D’Angelo will pay $310,000: $80,000 will go to current and former tenants harmed by lead paint exposure at the properties he owned over the past eight years and $230,000 will fund the identification and resolution of lead hazards at the 22 currently owned properties with lead-related violations.  Further, D’Angelo will be barred from selling any of these properties without the OAG’s approval until all lead hazards have been resolved.Attorney General James thanks Onondaga County and the City of Syracuse for their close collaboration and partnership on this matter. The OAG will continue to work with local partners statewide to combat childhood lead poisoning.“My administration has fought to secure millions of dollars in historic funding to address the scourge that lead has had on our community. In order to make real progress, however, we need partners at all levels of government,” said Onondaga County Executive Ryan McMahon. “Thank you to Attorney General James and Mayor Walsh for their efforts to ensure we have a unified front that holds irresponsible landlords accountable while making the necessary improvements to provide safe housing for members of our community.”“With the help of Attorney General James, this settlement sends a powerful message to careless landlords: you can’t escape your responsibility to provide a safe and healthy living environment for your tenants,” said Syracuse Mayor Ben Walsh. “In partnership with Attorney General James and County Executive McMahon, we will continue to use the tools and authority we have available to hold bad landlords accountable and protect children and families from the effects of lead exposure.”
Comment on Revised Housing Element by Sept 8 2023 - City of Piedmont

The City submitted a revised Housing Element in May 2023 with added detail regarding timelines, evaluation, and some proposed programs in response to verbal feedback from State reviewers. 
The City received formal comments from HCD on May 23rd, in a letter which confirmed the City had made substantial progress toward certification since first receiving written comments on its draft Housing Element in February 2023. Since receiving the letter, the City has worked diligently to address all outstanding concerns. Planning staff have met with State reviewers multiple times to discuss HCD’s questions and receive informal feedback on proposed revisions. 
The City is optimistic that with these revisions, HCD will deem the City’s Housing Element to be in “substantial compliance” with State requirements. 
Implementation already underway
Even as the City awaits certification from State reviewers, staff are actively working to implement the programs and policies outlined in the Housing Element:

Last year, the City established a new incentive for affordable ADUs and made it easier to convert existing spaces into new housing. This spring, the City conducted a survey of ADU owners, partly aimed at better understanding the barriers to ADU creation and how the City can incentivize affordable ADU rentals.
The City Council will consider two proposals intended to make it easier to create new housing at their next meeting on Tuesday, September 5 – a new incentive for affordable ADUs and objective design standards for multifamily and mixed-used buildings.
The City has recently begun work on the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, a centerpiece of the adopted Housing Element. City Council awarded a contract to JZMK Associates to prepare the Specific Plan in July. Community engagement on this planning process will begin in early fall. 
Planning staff are initiating other housing programs and actively pursuing State and regional grants to help finance the housing plan.

For more information about the Housing Element update, visit PiedmontIsHome.org or subscribe to the City’s Housing Updates email newsletter to receive news directly. With questions, email [email protected].
The 2024-25 Budget: Child Welfare
The initial framework proposed by DSS does not indicate what the rates would be for each of the tiers and components. Given that this and many other details of the rates structure are yet to be finalized, alongside the time that will be needed for automation changes, it will take some time before the new rates could be implemented. The administration currently projects that the new rates structure could be implemented no earlier than 2026-27. Therefore, the Governor’s budget does not account for the actual cost of implementing the new rates in the budget year.
Comments and Considerations
Assessing Proposed Reductions and Delays. As described in our publication Overview of the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature faces difficult budget decisions this year and likely more in the future. The administration has not offered justification around why these specific child welfare program elements are proposed for reduction/delay, aside from indicating that they are part of the overall package of budget solutions necessary to address the estimated budget deficit. Notably, across the budget, there are few program areas where the Governor proposed ongoing programmatic cuts to established programs; the proposed ongoing child welfare and California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids program cuts are unique in that way. At the same time, given the significant budget problem facing the state, ongoing programmatic reductions will be necessary. In addition, for any of the Governor’s proposed budget solutions that the Legislature chooses to reject, it will need to solve for that portion of the budget problem in another way. As the Legislature considers these initial options for budget solutions included in the Governor’s budget for child welfare programs, questions to consider include:
FURS:

Funding Amount: Based on available data, counties have not been fully expending their FURS allocations. Specifically, in 2022-23 (the most recent fiscal year for which full-year data is available), General Fund expenditures for FURS were $13.4 million, representing less than half of the total budgeted for the program. In 2023-24, expenditures are trending higher but still not on track for the program to spend its full funding allocation. Could program funding be reduced without impacting intended beneficiaries while also maintaining the local FURS infrastructure?
Implementation Challenges: Why have actual expenditures been under budget? Are there obstacles preventing the program from being more fully utilized?
The 2023-24 Budget: Overview of the Spending Plan (Final Version)
We estimate the Governor’s budget addressed an $18 billion budget problem in that proposal. (This is somewhat lower than the $22 billion budget problem the administration has referenced. As described earlier, the difference between our estimates are mainly attributable to differences between what we consider baseline spending.) The Governor’s budget solutions focused mainly on spending, with $13.6 billion in spending reductions, spending delays, and spending reductions subject to trigger restoration. In addition, the Governor also proposed $4.3 billion in cost shifts and $350 million in revenue‑related solutions, which included, most notably, an initial proposal for the state to reauthorize the MCO tax.
Governor Did Not Propose Using State’s Reserves. The Governor did not propose using any reserves. The Legislature can only access required deposits in the BSA or the Proposition 98 Reserve in response to a disaster or if the Governor calls a fiscal emergency. Although a fiscal emergency was most likely available, we understand the Governor did not call one in order to save the state’s reserves in response to continued economic uncertainty and in case they are needed for future deficits. As our office has noted, fiscal conditions could worsen in the coming years. In January, the administration similarly expressed that, if revenues declined further, using reserves would be considered.
Governor’s Spending Reductions Focused on Areas With Large, Recent, Temporary Spending Augmentations. In recent years, the state has focused spending on one‑time and temporary purposes mainly in some key areas, including: natural resources, energy, and climate; housing and homelessness; and transportation. Although to a lesser extent, however, on an ongoing basis, recent surpluses have been dedicated to health, human services, and higher education. In general, the Governor’s budget did not propose large reductions to health and human services programs. Rather, the Governor’s proposed spending‑related solutions were concentrated in areas that received large one‑time and temporary augmentations (for example, natural resources, climate, energy, and transportation).
Governor’s May Revision
Governor’s May Revision Addressed a Larger Budget Problem.
VA News
<p>To solve the most urgent health care issues facing VHA, the NCi2I initiative seeks to promote cooperation between partners and specific VA medical sites. DRHCI provides VHA with the chance for dynamic cooperation and will connect VHA strategic priorities with solutions that are scalable and sensitive to the needs of Veterans through collaborative efforts between VA, academia and business.</p>

<p>More National Centers for Innovation to Impact will be established by the VHA Innovation Ecosystem to leverage local innovation centers and create innovative solutions that allow VA to provide Veterans with access to high-quality health care.</p>

<p>Jane Johnson, executive medical center director at Cincinnati VAMC, said, “The DRHCI will be a central resource to help improve the implementation of new solutions throughout VA. It will offer solutions to Veterans and providers faster by streamlining navigation challenges and building infrastructure.”</p>

<p>Learn more about innovation at VA: Visit our <a href="https://www.innovation.va.gov/ecosystem/views/home.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">website</a>, <a href="https://marketplace.va.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Diffusion Marketplace</a>, <a href="https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USVHA/subscriber/new?topic_id=USVHA_1468" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">subscribe to our weekly newsletter</a> and <a href="https://pathfinder.va.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">explore VA Pathfinder</a> to learn more about our opportunities.&nbsp;</p>

https://news.va.gov/131313/vha-launches-center-innovation-digital-remote/feed/
0

Understanding VA Survivors benefits and best practices for avoiding posthumous scams
The 2022-23 Budget: The Governor’s Homelessness Plan
In addition, DHCS intends to apply a cap to most BH‑CIP funding for different regions of the state. (These caps would be determined by these regions’ share of 2011 realignment funds for behavioral health.) However, DHCS will reserve a small amount (not subject this cap) to distribute at its discretion depending on what statewide demand ultimately is.
Local Application Requirements. In order to obtain BH‑CIP funding, local entities will be required to participate in a pre‑application consultation on project readiness requirements. Following this, when applying for funds, local entities will be required to submit documentation of (1) control over the property to be acquired or rehabilitated, (2) approval for any necessary local permits, (3) adherence to behavioral health facility licensing requirements, (4) preliminary construction plans and time lines, (4) capacity to meet the local match requirement (further discussed below), and (5) engagement with the local community (including any necessary contracts to ensure that Medi‑Cal services are provided in facilities proposed for acquisition or construction). Local entities also will be required to share results from local behavioral health needs assessments (which inform which facility types they will prioritize) and how they intend for projects to advance racial equity.
Local Match Requirement. The amounts that local entities will be required to provide as the match for BH‑CIP funding vary by applicant type. Specifically, (1) tribal entities will be required to provide 5 percent in matching funds; (2) counties, cities, and nonprofits will be required to provide 10 percent in matching funds; and (3) for‑profit or private organizations will be required to provide 25 percent in matching funds. In addition, under BH‑CIP, the local match can be provided in the form of cash or in‑kind contributions (such as land or existing structures) subject to approval from the state.

Community Care Expansion Program
Community Care Expansion (CCE) Program Implementation Update. DSS received $805 million—$450 million federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 funds, $53 million Home‑ and Community‑Based Services ARPA Fund, and $302 General Fund—in 2021‑22 to administer the CCE program.
The 2023-24 Budget: Overview of the Spending Plan (Final Version)
For example, the administration’s estimates included an assumption about the costs of inflation in future years that was not current law. (We explained the differences between our estimates in more detail in our report, The 2023‑24 Budget: Overview of the Governor’s Budget.) 
Budget Problem Includes $4.5 Billion in New, Discretionary Proposals. Most of the reason that the state faced a budget problem in 2023‑24 was that state revenues declined relative to expectations from June 2022. (We describe these dynamics in more detail later in this report.) However, about $4.5 billion of the budget problem is the result of new, discretionary spending in the budget package. (We define discretionary spending as new spending or revenue reductions that were not previously authorized under current law or legislative policy.) These discretionary spending amounts are listed in Appendix 3.
How the Spending Plan Addresses the Budget Problem
The state has several types of solutions—or options—for addressing a budget problem, but the most important include: reserve withdrawals, spending reductions, revenue increases, and cost shifts (for example, between funds). Figure 1 summarizes the budget solutions that budget package used to address the $27 billion budget problem. They include: $13 billion in spending‑related solutions, $10 billion in cost shifts, and nearly $4 billion in revenue‑related solutions. (As we discuss in more detail later in this report, the spending plan does not use any of the state’s reserves to close the deficit.) The remainder of this section describes each of these components in more detail. 

$13 Billion in Spending‑Related Solutions
The budget package includes $13 billion in spending‑related budget solutions. They can be categorized into three types: reductions, delays, and reductions subject to trigger restoration. Nearly all of these solutions would apply to one‑time and temporary spending enacted in recent budgets. Appendix 1 provides a list of the spending solutions in the 2023‑24 budget package. The remainder of this section describes the spending solutions by type.
$5.6 Billion in Reductions. A spending reduction occurs when the Legislature eliminates an appropriation previously approved under current law or policy.