|
Prepared by Precision Advocacy
As the legislature approaches its spring recess next week, activity in the Capitol is entering a brief but important pause following an intensive period of policy development and early budget hearings. In recent weeks, committees have begun hearing substantive policy bills while budget subcommittees have laid the groundwork for negotiations ahead of the May Revision. This recess provides a natural inflection point in the legislative calendar, offering members, staff, and stakeholders an opportunity to assess bill progress, refine proposals, and continue stakeholder engagement before the pace of hearings accelerates significantly in April.
Housing Choice Voucher Program Audit
The California State Auditor published a report last week titled Housing Choice Voucher program: Households Face Long Wait Times for Vouchers and Potential Housing Loss When an Emergency Housing Program Ends. The audit focused on three counties, Orange, Riverside, and Sacramento, chosen because they are similar in size and structure. It examined how each county manages the Housing Choice Voucher program. According to the audit, Orange County's housing voucher system is generally compliant and well managed, but it faces significant challenges due to limited federal funding.
The Orange County Housing Authority, which serves 31 cities and the unincorporated areas of the county excluding Anaheim, Garden Grove, and Santa Ana, reopened its Housing Choice Voucher waiting list in 2023 for the first time in 11 years. That reopening drew more than 57,000 applications in just 12 days, underscoring the scale of unmet housing need in the County. About 13,976 households remained on the waiting list as of December 2024. The auditor found that Orange County complied with key federal requirements for notifying the public about the waiting list opening and went beyond minimum notice requirements through multilingual media, outreach to libraries and nonprofits, local welfare centers, shelters, and a toolkit for the Board of Supervisors to help publicize the reopening.
The report also concludes that the County generally complied with fair housing and waiting list requirements, and that its overall policies and procedures were sufficient. Still, the auditor identified a limited compliance gap – Orange County did not provide applicants with adequate information on state and local equal opportunity laws and did not include a housing discrimination complaint form. Although this did not rise to the level of broader noncompliance, the finding suggests a need for more complete applicant-facing fair housing materials. In its formal response, the County acknowledged the recommendation and noted that it had already taken steps to strengthen fair housing compliance support.
The most significant issue for Orange County is not administrative failure, but funding insufficiency. The auditor found that the County, like the other agencies reviewed, does not have enough federal funding to fully use all the vouchers allocated to it. In 2024, Orange had 11,360 vouchers allocated but used only 10,352 because it exhausted available funding first. The report notes that Orange would have needed more than $21 million in additional funding in 2024 alone to fully utilize all its allocated vouchers. Rising rents have sharply increased per-voucher costs, with Orange County’s average cost per voucher climbing from $964 in 2015 to $1,750 in 2025. Based on the waiting list size and current costs, the auditor estimates the County would need about $205 million in additional annual funding to serve all households currently on its waiting list. In other words, long waiting times appear driven primarily by structural federal underfunding.
On program outcomes, Orange County performed relatively well compared with the other agencies in the audit. During the 2022 through 2024 audit period, the County approved about 67% of the applicants it evaluated for vouchers. Of those who received vouchers, 72% ultimately obtained housing by the end of the audit period. The report indicates the County also complied with key requirements for the Family Unification Program, the Foster Youth to Independence Initiative, and the Emergency Housing Voucher program, and it approved most applicants in those special purpose programs.
With respect to the impending end of the Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) program in 2026, Orange County is in a comparatively better position than some other agencies. The auditor found that Orange County expects to be able to transition all its EHV households into the regular Housing Choice Voucher program, unlike Sacramento and certain other agencies facing projected shortfalls. However, the report notes that the County had not yet individually contacted all EHV households as part of that transition, and it recommended that Orange County identify any households at risk of losing assistance and immediately notify them if assistance may stop. The County’s response agreed with the recommendations in the report.
Overall, the audit portrays Orange County as a housing authority that is generally operating in compliance with federal rules, using robust outreach practices, and administering its programs more effectively than some peer agencies, but still struggling under the weight of overwhelming demand and inadequate federal funding. The central takeaway for Orange County is that even a relatively well-run voucher program cannot come close to meeting local needs without substantially more rental assistance funding.
Senate Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services: H.R. 1
The March 19, 2026, Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 3 hearing focused heavily on the downstream impacts of H.R. 1 on California’s health and human services safety net. The deliberations underscored that significant federal policy changes are expected to shift both cost and responsibility onto counties, particularly for uninsured care, at a scale the current system is not designed to absorb.
From the outset, the hearing framed H.R. 1 as a major structural disruption to Medi-Cal and CalFresh, driven by new work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks, and reduced federal funding. State officials emphasized that these changes are not marginal, they are expected to result in hundreds of thousands of Californians losing coverage in the near term, and up to nearly 2 million over time. This is occurring after more than a decade of expansion that had reduced California’s uninsured rate to historic lows, meaning the system is now moving in the opposite direction.
A central theme throughout the hearing was that counties will be the “backstop” when individuals lose Medi-Cal coverage. Under longstanding law, counties are required to provide care to medically indigent residents, those with no other coverage, but that system has been largely dormant since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) dramatically expanded Medi-Cal. Today, only about 10,000 individuals statewide are enrolled in county indigent programs, compared to roughly 850,000 prior to ACA expansion.
However, that dynamic is expected to change quickly and dramatically. Legislative Analyst’s Office testimony indicated that between 20% and 50% of those losing Medi-Cal, potentially 400,000 to 1 million people, could turn to county indigent care programs. This would represent a massive and rapid increase in demand for a system that, in many counties, has been scaled down or functionally inactive for years.
For Orange County, this shift carries several important implications.
First, Orange County will likely experience increased pressure on its health care safety net, including county clinics, contracted providers, and emergency departments. As more individuals lose coverage due to work requirements and administrative churn (such as six-month renewals), the County can expect more uninsured residents seeking care through indigent programs or uncompensated care settings.
Second, the county faces a structural funding mismatch. The hearing made clear that the primary funding source for indigent care, 1991 realignment health revenues, has not been designed to scale with demand. Much of that funding has already been redirected over time (particularly under AB 85 in 2013) or is currently used for public health responsibilities. As a result, Orange County may have limited fiscal flexibility to absorb new costs without tradeoffs, such as reducing public health services, narrowing eligibility, or seeking new revenues.
Third, counties retain broad discretion over indigent care programs, which means Orange County will need to make policy decisions about how to respond. The hearing highlighted that counties can adjust eligibility thresholds, benefit levels, and provider networks, but doing so involves tradeoffs between cost containment and access to care. For example, the County could scale back services to the statutory minimum, but that would provide significantly less coverage than Medi-Cal and could worsen health outcomes and system strain.
Finally, the hearing underscored that counties are still in the early stages of planning. Many indigent care systems have reduced infrastructure, including provider contracts and administrative capacity, and will need to rebuild or expand those systems quickly. This creates both operational and fiscal uncertainty, particularly as federal guidance and state implementation details continue to evolve.
In sum, the hearing made clear that H.R. 1 represents a fundamental shift in California’s health care safety net—from a state- and federally-supported coverage model back toward a more county-driven system of last-resort care. For the County, this will likely mean increased demand for services, constrained funding, and the need for near-term policy and operational decisions about how to structure and finance indigent care moving forward.
Background
Senate Health Committee Kratom Hearing
The February 18, 2026, Senate Health Committee hearing on kratom and 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) highlighted a growing public health concern that is directly relevant to Orange County, particularly given the County’s delegated enforcement authority under the state’s food and drug laws and its existing local regulatory framework. The hearing was framed around a fundamental disconnect – although both the federal government and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) consider kratom and 7-OH products unlawful for sale, they remain widely available in retail settings such as smoke shops, gas stations, and convenience stores, locations common throughout Orange County communities.
From a scientific and regulatory standpoint, the background materials reinforced testimony that kratom is not a single, uniform substance but a mixture of alkaloids with varying effects. While the naturally occurring compound mitragynine is relatively weaker, it can be converted, through processing or metabolism, into 7-OH, a significantly more potent compound that binds strongly to opioid receptors and can produce effects comparable to or stronger than traditional opioids. Notably, 7-OH is estimated to be 7–15 times more active at opioid receptors and up to 350 times more potent as an analgesic than mitragynine, raising concerns about addiction, tolerance, and overdose risk, particularly as newer commercial products concentrate or synthetically enhance this compound.
For Orange County, these pharmacological distinctions are especially important because local ordinances already attempt to regulate potency – specifically by restricting products containing more than 2% 7-OH and limiting sales to individuals over 21. The hearing highlighted how these types of local policies align with emerging statewide concerns, as witnesses repeatedly emphasized that higher-potency products, not traditional leaf kratom, are driving the most significant health risks.
Public health data presented during the hearing further contextualizes the issue for counties. Statewide, approximately 169,000 Californians reported kratom use, with hundreds of overdose deaths identified over recent years, figures that are likely underreported due to limited toxicology screening capabilities. Background materials also note rising national exposure trends, including poison control data showing adverse effects ranging from agitation and vomiting to severe outcomes such as seizures, respiratory depression, and cardiac arrest. These trends suggest that Orange County, as a large and diverse jurisdiction, is likely experiencing similar patterns of use and under-detection.
The hearing’s clinical testimony reinforced these concerns with real-world implications. Providers described patients presenting with opioid-like dependence and withdrawal tied specifically to 7-OH products, often requiring treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. A key theme was that consumers are frequently misled by product labeling and marketing. 92% of 7-OH products are marketed as “kratom,” often without clear disclosure of potency or risks, and many products use child-appealing packaging or wellness-oriented claims that obscure their pharmacological effects.
From an Orange County governance and implementation perspective, the hearing highlighted ongoing enforcement challenges that mirror those faced locally. While CDPH and counties have authority under the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law to treat these products as adulterated and remove them from shelves, enforcement remains uneven due to resource constraints, limited laboratory capacity, and jurisdictional gaps (particularly in non-traditional retail settings). Local officials noted that identifying and distinguishing 7-OH products often requires specialized testing, which is not routinely available, complicating enforcement efforts.
Overall, the hearing and background materials together suggest that Orange County is already positioned at the forefront of this issue, both because of its local ordinance framework and its enforcement role, but continues to face significant challenges as the market evolves. The proliferation of higher-potency products, inconsistent labeling, and limited statewide regulatory clarity are outpacing existing local controls. The discussion ultimately pointed toward the need for a more coordinated state-local approach that strengthens enforcement tools, clarifies legal status, improves testing and data collection, and better aligns consumer awareness with the actual risks of these products, while avoiding unintended consequences such as shifting the market further underground.
Background
State of the Judiciary Address
California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero delivered her annual State of the Judiciary address to the legislature on Monday, offering a measured and steady overview of the work of California’s judicial branch and emphasizing themes of stability, public trust, and continued modernization.
She highlighted the growing number of threats against judges and underscored the need for additional resources to protect judicial officers from both physical and online risks. In parallel, the Judicial Council of California continues to advance legislative efforts aimed at strengthening judicial privacy protections, recognizing the close connection between privacy and security.
Justice Guerrero also pointed to the continued success of remote court appearances. Since March 2022, more than 6 million proceedings have been conducted remotely, with a reported 95% satisfaction rate among participants. However, she noted that the statutory authority for remote proceedings is set to expire on January 1, 2027, raising questions about the long-term future of these widely used tools.
CARE Courts are now operational in all 58 counties, with 3,810 petitions filed between October 2023 and January 2026, resulting in 925 care agreements and plans, and an additional 1,835 individuals actively engaged in proceedings. The program is expected to expand further to include individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features. Justice Guerrero described CARE Courts as “bridges to stability, safety, and hope.”
On trial court capacity, she emphasized ongoing shortages in judgeships, particularly in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Despite recent funding increases, gaps remain significant, contributing to case backlogs and, in some instances, the dismissal of misdemeanor and felony cases due to court congestion. While Riverside has received several temporary judges, she called for more permanent and predictable solutions.
Addressing emerging technology, Justice Guerrero discussed both the opportunities and risks associated with artificial intelligence in the courtroom. The Judicial Council recently adopted new standards for AI use, emphasizing accuracy, transparency, and human oversight, with the goal of balancing innovation with accountability and maintaining public confidence in judicial outcomes.
She also addressed concerns about access to justice amid the presence of federal immigration enforcement activities in courthouses. The Judicial Council has provided guidance and training on the legal implications of these activities and relevant California protections. A proposed rule under consideration next month would formalize data collection on civil arrests at courthouses to better inform future policy decisions.
Finally, Justice Guerrero acknowledged the challenges surrounding the 2025 State Bar exam, describing corrective actions taken by the courts, including scoring adjustments, expansion of provisional licensing, and a return to in-person testing using the multistate exam. She noted that future recommendations related to the State Bar will face increased scrutiny to ensure public protection and professional standards.
In closing, she called for judicial compensation that is competitive with other public sector attorneys, commended Gavin Newsom for appointing a diverse bench, and reaffirmed the Judiciary’s commitment to fairness, access, and the rule of law.
Upcoming Hearings
The legislature will be on Spring recess the week of March 30. The hearings listed in this update are for the following week.
Agendas are typically posted on the committee websites in the Assembly and Senate a few days prior to the hearings. To view hearings after they take place, you may access them in the Assembly or Senate media archives where they are generally available within a few hours of committee adjournment.
Monday, April 06, 2026, 2:30 p.m.
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Health
State Capitol, Room 127
California's Response to HR 1:
Defending Health Care Affordability and Access – Part 3
Financing California's Health Care Safety Net Under HR 1
4260 Department of Health Care Services
4140 Department of Health Care Access and Information
Overview of the Medi-Cal budget, estimate changes, budget change proposals, and trailer bills
Proposition 56 investments: provider rates support
Managed Care Organization Tax and Hospital Quality Assurance Fee Program
State investments to protect access to reproductive health services and gender-affirming care
Monday, April 06, 2026, 3:00 p.m.
Assembly Joint Hearing Select Committee on the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games and Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism
State Capitol, Room 447
Informational Hearing: An Overview of the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games
Wednesday, April 08, 2026, 9:30 a.m.
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation
State Capitol, Room 447
Prop. 4 Wildfire and Forest Resilience
Prop. 4 Biodiversity and Nature-Based Solutions
3540 Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
3480 Department of Conservation
3600 Department of Fish and Wildlife
3885 Delta Stewardship Council
3720 California Coastal Commission
Wednesday, April 08, 2026, 1:00 p.m.
Assembly Joint Hearing Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Human Services and Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Education Finance
State Capitol, Room 444
Early Childhood Education
State of Universal Preschool Oversight
Transitional Kindergarten Implementation Oversight and Proposals
5180 Department of Social Services
6100 California Department of Education
Thursday, April 09, 2026, 9:30 a.m. or upon adjournment of Session
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection, and Energy
1021 O Street, Room 2200
0540 Natural Resources Agency
0650 Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
3900 California Air Resources Board
8660 California Public Utilities Commission
Thursday, April 09, 2026, 9:30 a.m. or upon adjournment of Session
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 3 on Health and Human Services
1021 O Street, Room 1200
4260 Department of Health Care Services
Medi-Cal Benefits
California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM)
Medi-Cal - Home and Community-Based Services
Medi-Cal - Other Administration, Fiscal Intermediary
Family Health Programs
4265 Department of Public Health
Center for Health Statistics and Informatics
Center for Healthy Communities
Center for Family Health
Center for Health Care Quality
4140 Department of Health Care Access and Information
4150 Department of Managed Health Care
Thursday, April 09, 2026, 9:30 a.m. or upon adjournment of Session
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration and General Government
State Capitol, Room 113
0855 Gambling Control Commission
1045 Cannabis Control Appeals Panel
1115 Department of Cannabis Control
2100 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
8570 Department of Food and Agriculture
Thursday, April 09, 2026, 9:30 a.m. or upon adjournment of Session
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation
State Capitol, Room 112
0552 Office of the Inspector General
5225 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Grant Opportunities
Below is a list of the latest grant opportunities released by the state. All opportunities for local jurisdictions may be found here.
Application deadline: 5/12/26 11:59
Title: Impact Projects
State Agency / Department: CA Arts Council
Match Funding? No
Estimated Total Funding: Total funding available will be determined based on passage of the state budget and Council allocation priorities.
Funding Method: Advance(s)
Application deadline: 5/12/26 11:59
Title: State-Local Partners
State Agency / Department: CA Arts Council
Match Funding? 100%
Estimated Total Funding: Total funding available will be determined based on passage of the state budget and Council allocation priorities.
Funding Method: Advance(s)
Application deadline: 5/12/26 11:59
Title: Arts and Youth
State Agency / Department: CA Arts Council
Match Funding? No
Estimated Total Funding: Total funding available will be determined based on passage of the state budget and Council allocation priorities.
Funding Method: Advance(s)
Governor’s Press Releases
Below is a list of the governor’s press releases beginning March 18.
March 25: Governor Newsom announces nearly $900 million for cutting-edge transportation systems of the future
March 24: Governor Newsom terminates states of emergency – 3.24.26
March 24: Governor Newsom calls FCC Chair Brendan Carr a “disgrace,” says California will lead more antitrust enforcement to protect consumers from Trump’s rising costs
March 24: California doubles down on ocean health with historic investments, following landmark report findings
March 24: News you won’t see on Fox News: California revoked over 280 hospice licenses, 300 more providers under investigation since Governor Newsom’s hospice moratorium
March 23: California and European Commission discuss cooperation to accelerate the global transition to a carbon-neutral, resilient, and equitable future
March 23: Governor Newsom announces appointments 3.23.2026
- Mabelle Hueston, of Balboa Island, has been appointed to the University of California Board of Regents
- Dorene Dominguez, of Los Angeles, has been appointed to the University of California Board of Regents
- Carl “Chip” Robertson, of Los Angeles, has been appointed to the University of California Board of Regents
- John “Rusty” Areias, of Walnut Grove, has been appointed to the University of California Board of Regents
- Janet Reilly, of San Francisco, has been reappointed to the University of California Board of Regents
- Gregory Sarris, of Sonoma, has been reappointed to the University of California Board of Regents
- Andrea Evans, of San Francisco, has been appointed to the California State University Board of Trustees
- Kelly Dermody, of San Francisco, has been appointed to the California State University Board of Trustees
- Fauzi Hamadeh, of San Mateo, has been appointed to the California Community Colleges Board of Governors
- Joseph R. Williams, of Rialto, has been reappointed to the California Community Colleges Board of Governors
- Cirian Villavicencio, of Sacramento, has been reappointed to the California Community Colleges Board of Governors
- Tom S. Epstein, of Orinda, has been reappointed to the California Community Colleges Board of Governors
March 20: Governor Newsom announces appointments 3.20.2026
- Antonio Buelna, of Fresno, has been appointed Chief of Infrastructure Maintenance at the California High Speed Rail Authority
- Marilyn Norris, of Oakdale, has been appointed Chief of Safety and Security at the California High-Speed Rail Authority
- Luisa Ortega, of Pasadena, has been appointed to the California Citizens Compensation Commission
- Andrew Moreno, of Fresno, has been appointed to the California State Board of Optometry
- Marshall Riddle, of Modesto, has been appointed to the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians
- Alex Pereira, of Antelope, has been appointed to the Board of Naturopathic Medicine
- Matthew Cappiello, of Redlands, has been appointed to the Board of Naturopathic Medicine
- Faisal Qazi, of Fullerton, has been appointed to the Osteopathic Medical Board
- Lee Bycel, of Kensington, has been appointed to the California Commission on Aging
- Ted Miyahara, of San Diego, has been appointed to the 22nd District Agricultural Association, Del Mar Fair Board
- Elsa Morales-Roth, of Chula Vista, has been appointed to the 22nd District Agricultural Association, Del Mar Fair Board
March 20: Governor Newsom proclaims Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month
March 20: El Gobernador Newsom y la Primera Pareja Siebel Newsom incorporan a la 19.ª generación al Salón de Fama de California
March 20: Governor Newsom, First Partner Siebel Newsom induct 19th Class of the California Hall of Fame
March 20: Governor Newsom proclaims Nowruz
March 20: California announces 300 wildfire projects fast-tracked in 300 days
March 19: Governor Newsom announces appointments 3.19.2026
- Rhonalyn Cabello, of Sacramento, has been appointed Deputy Director, Office of Public Affairs at the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery.
- Janeth Corona, of El Centro, has been appointed to the Salton Sea Conservancy Governing Board.
- Irvine Carrillo, of Lancaster, has been appointed to the California Architects Board.
- Ronald Jones, of Oakland, has been reappointed to the California Architects Board
- Heather Snipes, of Eureka, has been reappointed to the Advisory Commission on Special Education
- Victoria “Vicki” Graf, of Newport Beach, has been reappointed to the Advisory Commission on Special Education
March 19: Governor Newsom proclaims Women’s Military History Week
March 19: California is taking Donald Trump to court for breaking the law to put polluter profits before American lives
March 19: Governor Newsom marks 10 years of nation-leading red flag law, new data shows California setting the pace on gun safety
March 18: El Gobernador Newsom amplía la educación financiera en las escuelas y el acceso a la creación de riqueza para las mujeres.
March 18: Governor Newsom expands financial literacy in schools and wealth-building access for women
|
