Since the pandemic, Democratic state Sen. Tom Umberg has joined hundreds of thousands of California’s lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants and witnesses and “Zoomed” in remotely to court hearings. For Umberg, a practicing attorney and former federal prosecutor from Santa Ana, using remote video to help chip away at California’s backlogged court system has been undeniably beneficial for everyday Californians who have to go to court for one reason or another.

They can log into their appearances on their phones or computers instead of taking a day off work to make a time-consuming trip to the courthouse, he said. By the same token, lawyers charge their clients less when they don’t have to bill them hundreds of dollars an hour to drive to and from court for routine procedural hearings that make up the bulk of a court’s daily calendar. “Remote access is a way to be able to reduce costs and create greater accessibility, particularly to those who are indigent,” Umberg told CalMatters, using the legal term for someone who is too poor to afford a lawyer.

Umberg wants to make remote court hearings permanent, so it’s been frustrating for him to see the issue turn into a tedious annual fight in the California Legislature, despite video hearings being wildly popular. Ninety-six percent of the people who’ve taken a survey after one of the more than 3.5 million remote court hearings since 2022 said they had a positive experience, according to the Judicial Council of California, of which Umberg is a member.

Yet rather than adopt a permanent law authorizing remote video in court, each year since 2021, lawmakers have temporarily extended the pandemic-era video program for another year or two. The latest extension is Umberg’s Senate Bill 92, which would allow criminal court proceedings to continue to be held via video for another year. If a law isn’t passed, no remote video will be allowed in criminal courtrooms after Dec. 31. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a similar bill that allowed remote technology in civil and certain juvenile proceedings until Jan. 1, 2026.

SEIU, public defenders oppose Umberg’s bill

The resistance to a permanent adoption comes primarily from the state’s public defenders associations and from one of the state’s most influential unions, Service Employees International Union California, which represents around 15,000 trial court workers in 34 counties. SEIU’s endorsements are highly sought in Democratic election campaigns, as is the union’s campaign cash.

SEIU’s state council and local affiliated unions have given more than $9.1 million to California’s sitting legislators’ election campaigns, according to data from OpenSecrets. The opponents say they don’t object to using video appearances in certain cases, particularly for routine procedural matters. But, for more serious proceedings, they cite concerns about fairness to defendants and accuracy in the official court record. They say some areas don’t have access to reliable internet, creating connectivity problems for those trying to Zoom in.

Court reporters worry about creating inaccurate transcripts when they can’t clearly hear video. More broadly, the opponents groups cite worries about maintaining the integrity of the justice system. “Too many things cannot be clear in a video call, such as overall demeanor, physical cues of emotional richness and the possibility of off-camera coaching,” Lesli Caldwell, a former Solano County public defender representing the California Public Defenders Association, told the Senate Public Safety Committee earlier this month.“Video evidence leads to dehumanization … of both witnesses and defendants.”

Courtroom workers also share those worries, said Michelle Castro, a retired lobbyist and director of government relations at SEIU California, who is now a consultant for the union. In an interview with CalMatters, she brushed off a reporter’s question about court workers being worried about the technology eventually replacing their jobs. Castro said SEIU’s court employees, particularly court reporters, are, however, worried about not being able to do their jobs well.

Castro said that as it stands, court reporters in the courtroom sometimes can’t clearly see or hear what’s being presented via video feed, leading to concerns that the reporters’ transcripts will be inaccurate, she said. “They have a license that says they’re required to provide a verbatim record that has to be 100% accurate,” Castro said. “If it’s not, it threatens their license.” Umberg said that to address those concerns and others, his pending legislation requires that a court reporter is present in the courtroom during a criminal hearing using remote video technology.

The court reporter can also pause the hearing at any time if the audio is unclear. Plus, Umberg said defendants can choose to attend hearings in person. The Judicial Council, the policymaking body of California’s courts, supports Umberg’s bill. The council said the bill contains several provisions to protect the integrity of the system, including requiring witnesses to attend felony trials in person, and it gives judges the authority to order in-person court proceedings when it is appropriate.

Will remote hearings bill get watered down?

That was enough to sway Umberg’s colleagues earlier this month on the Senate Public Safety Committee, where it passed unanimously, even though some committee Democrats had reservations. “I’ve said a million times: I am not a fan of remote court proceedings, remote depositions,” Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener, a former San Francisco deputy city attorney who has a Harvard law degree, said during the hearing. “But I understand the reality of where the legal system is right now.

And I know that the authors and stakeholders have done a lot of work to put safeguards in place so that people are not forced into this.” In 2022, Umberg’s bill to allow remote hearings in civil proceedings through 2026 was amended over his objections, forcing him to take the unusual step of urging colleagues on the Senate floor to vote against his bill. Umberg was furious that the bill was changed to require, among other things, mentally ill people committed to state mental hospitals to attend in-person hearings. Mentally ill people, he said, had been allowed to attend court remotely from their hospitals even before the COVID-era rules took effect.

Two legislative sources, asking not to be identified to avoid criticism of SEIU, said the labor union was responsible for the amendment. Castro, the SEIU legislative advocate, said her team had nothing to do with the changed bill. The traumatic experience of transporting mentally ill patients would have saddled taxpayers with “millions and millions of dollars for reasons that are inexplicable,” Umberg said on the Senate floor. “If this bill is signed, we now will torture those who are in state hospitals. ” The Senate voted unanimously to kill the measure.

The following year, Newsom signed an extension of the program that Umberg could live with, allowing patients at state mental hospitals to keep attending court remotely as they had previously.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Californians want to use Zoom for court appearances. Will lawmakers let them? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In 2021, four years after finishing her last jail term and living in transitional housing in Riverside County, Erica Smith was ready for a permanent home. She’d saved enough to cover a security deposit and the first and last month’s rent for an apartment for her and her daughter.

But after three months of searching, Smith ran out of money, having burned through $10,000 on stays in motel rooms. She’d never found a place to live. Smith had a series of drug-related and theft convictions on her record.

Numerous cities within Riverside had adopted laws called crime-free housing that aimed to prohibit landlords from renting to tenants with criminal histories. “It’s just terrible,” said Smith, 54. “Why am I not able to provide a place for me and my daughter to live?” Soon, Smith will have more opportunities for housing, courtesy of a new state law. Assembly Bill 1418, which takes effect Jan. 1, will ban local governments across California from enforcing crime-free housing policies.

Not only do crime-free housing rules stop landlords from renting to those with prior convictions, but many also call for the eviction of tenants based on arrests or contact with law enforcement. Dozens of cities and counties in California began implementing the laws during the wave of “tough on crime” measures in the 1990s, with local elected officials, police and prosecutors contending they helped keep neighborhoods safe. But crime-free housing policies have come under increasing criticism as unfair, unforgiving and racially discriminatory.

The blanket bans have prevented spouses and children of those convicted from accessing housing and forced evictions of domestic violence victims after police responded to their apartments. Under AB 1418, local governments will no longer be able to mandate landlords evict and exclude tenants for alleged or prior criminal conduct.

It does not prevent landlords from initiating nuisance-related evictions and screening prospective residents based on criminal histories of their own accord. More than 100 cities passed crime-free housing policies between 1995 and 2020, covering potentially 4.5 million renters, according to a new report by Rand Corp., a Santa Monica-based nonpartisan research institution.

The study found that contrary to proponents’ claims, crime-free housing did not lower crime rates. “Our overall finding is crime-free housing policies are completely ineffective,” said Max Griswold, an assistant policy researcher at Rand and the study’s lead author. In contrast, the analysis determined that the rules increased eviction rates on average by about 20%, an effect Griswold called “unexpectedly large.” The study found that cities with crime-free housing policies have a larger percentage of Black residents than those without. “They’re creating more segregation,” Griswold said of the rules. “At the end of the day, that seems to be their purpose.” Momentum to curtail crime-free housing laws has grown in recent years.

A 2020 Times investigation found the policies had disproportionately affected Black and Latino renters in California. Last year, the city of Hesperia and San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department agreed to pay $1 million to settle a civil rights lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging crime-free housing policies targeted Black and Latino residents for removal.

Citing The Times’ story and the Hesperia case, Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Hawthorne) introduced AB 1418 in February. Soon after, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta issued formal guidance to local governments urging them to reconsider their programs on racial justice grounds. “Doing that on the heels of the big Hesperia case put cities on notice that the walls were closing in on them,” said Anya Lawler, a lobbyist representing the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the National Housing Law Project, two nonprofits that are principal supporters of the bill.

Over the summer, California’s Reparations Task Force, in its recommendations for remedying the legacies of slavery and other more modern government-sanctioned policies that discriminated against Black residents, called for repealing crime-free housing laws. AB 1418 attracted no formal opposition. It passed both houses of the Legislature without a dissenting vote in a committee or on the Assembly or Senate floors. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1418 in October.

Among the new law’s backers is the California Apartment Assn., the state’s largest landlord organization, which contended that local governments shouldn’t require landlords to exclude or evict tenants. As AB 1418 made its way through the Legislature, the two largest cities in the Inland Empire, Riverside and San Bernardino, agreed to repeal their crime-free housing laws. San Bernardino did so as part of a settlement challenging the policy in a case filed by legal aid groups, and joined by Bonta’s and Newsom’s offices, on behalf of low-income residents in the city.

At a hearing on the policy in August, Michael Griggs told San Bernardino City Council members that he’d faced hurdle after hurdle trying to find housing. Griggs served six years in prison for robbery and assault charges related to a crime he committed as a teenager and was released in 2015. While incarcerated, Griggs began taking college classes. He earned a scholarship to Pitzer College and now is pursuing a master’s degree in social work at Cal State San Bernardino.

After his acceptance into graduate school in 2022, Griggs said, he spent six months searching for apartments throughout the Inland Empire only to have landlords reject him because of his criminal history. He said he found a place in Highland, a city with a crime-free housing policy about 10 miles from campus, only because the landlord’s background check did not extend to convictions that occurred longer than seven years prior. “People want to move forward with their life,” said Griggs, 34. “How can they move forward with their life without having the first fundamental thing, which is housing, a safe place to live?” Griggs said he’s looking forward to AB 1418 erasing crime-free housing policies on a broader scale. “It’s hard work to do this at the city level,” he said. “I’m happy that the state is stepping up.” Local officials in Riverside and San Bernardino said they had already scaled back enforcement of crime-free housing programs.

Ryan Railsback, a spokesperson for Riverside city police, said the department stopped dedicating an officer to overseeing crime-free housing rules in 2020 because of staffing shortages that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In San Bernardino, the discussions at the state and local levels about potential harms caused by crime-free housing rules led city leaders to reconsider them after three decades on the books, said Jeff Kraus, a city spokesperson. “The nature of crime has changed,” Kraus said. “The laws have changed. People’s opinions have changed. It’s probably a good time to review them now.” For Smith, who remains homeless and living in her car with her 12-year-old daughter, AB 1418 represents another chance.

She’s protested crime-free housing policies alongside advocacy groups locally and at the state level, and recently obtained a federal Section 8 housing voucher that would subsidize her rent. Smith has yet to find a landlord that will accept the voucher, but she is counting on that to change. “I’m excited and quite hopeful that because I’ve been dutiful in opposing these crime-free rules that part of the reward will be that housing for us is coming very soon,” Smith said.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post New law has Californians with criminal records ‘quite hopeful’ they’ll finally find housing appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Jayne Jordan, 61, was a lifelong Californian until August, when she sold her home in Corona and moved to Azle, Texas. Jordan wanted to stay close to her daughter and grandchildren, who are planning to move from Irvine to the Lone Star State next year in order to buy a home.

When she joined a Facebook group of California migrants to Texas, she found a community willing to help her choose the right moving company and weigh in on which route to take for the 1,360-mile drive. She soon found through the Facebook group that her neighbor across the street in Azle had also moved from the same neighborhood in Corona. “It’s a small world,” Jordan said. “A lot of people from California are moving here.” Jordan’s move is reflective of a larger trend for California, where more residents have been moving out over the last few years than new people moving in.

In 2022, 818,000 Californians left for other states, while 476,000 moved in, resulting in a total domestic loss of 342,000 to the Golden State, according to newly released census data. But some states have been taking in more of California’s former residents than others, with Texas leading in that category. In 41 U.S. states, more people arrived from California than moved to California last year, according to the data. More than 100,000 Californians moved to Texas last year, compared with around 40,000 who made the opposite move. Florida drew nearly 75,000 people from California, with 30,000 moving in the opposite direction.

Washington, Nevada and Florida each saw around 50,000 Californian arrivals and far fewer people move to California. Only 42 Californians moved to West Virginia in 2022, by far the lowest total of any state. New Jersey, the state that most bucked the trend, had around 6,600 more people move to California than arrived from the state. Experts attribute the exodus from California primarily to the high cost of housing in the state but also to issues such as crime, politics and traffic.

As Texas booms, the state will have to contend with many of the same issues that are driving California to leave, says Mechele Dickerson, a professor of law at the University of Texas at Austin and an expert on the housing crisis. Texas is appealing to Californians who are looking for lower housing costs and don’t mind the trade-offs. “We have more land that can be developed,” Dickerson said. Between July 2020 and July 2022, Texas’ housing stock soared by almost 5% — the third-biggest gain of any state.

California’s housing stock increased by just 1.6% during the span. In raw numbers, Texas added more than twice as many housing units as did California. “Some people blame Californians for driving up housing prices, particularly in the city of Austin,” Dickerson said. As buyers “come here with cash in hand having sold their homes in California,” she said, longtime renters are priced out of cities like Austin.

Those renters are pushed to suburbs and exurbs, which are seeing booms comparable to those in California’s suburban and exurban areas. “We used to laugh at those people in L.A.” because of their long commutes, Dickerson said, “and now that’s what we’re seeing” as people move farther from city centers in search of affordability. Texas is seeing rising home values that are making some areas less affordable, and cities are also grappling with other social issues Californians are familiar with. “We have been challenged by what to do with a growing unhoused population” as low-income people are displaced by the cascading effects of a housing crisis, she said.

Though Texas has added a lot of housing, “we’re building more on the high end and not affordable housing,” Dickerson said. California saw an exodus during the COVID-19 pandemic, as remote work and soaring home values had some residents moving to cheaper locales. Recent data show the so-called exodus — which hit coastal cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco particularly hard — eased considerably in the last two years. The California recovery has been uneven, with some suburban areas seeing major booms while downtown San Francisco continues to struggle. But those who have made the move say they are surprised how many transplanted Californians they find in Texas.

Locally, Dickerson said, there is a common joke: “We are becoming California, not just because the Californians are moving here.” Issues of traffic, homelessness and affordability may have driven people to abandon California, but those issues may not be far behind in Texas’ major cities, either. Marie Bailey, 44, moved from El Segundo to a Dallas-Fort Worth suburb in 2017.

She and her husband built a home for $750,000, while a “tiny fixer upper” in El Segundo would’ve cost upward of $1 million. The couple quickly figured out that they could capitalize on the niche in the real estate market for California migrants to Texas. For years, Bailey has administered the Facebook group where Jayne Jordan and 45,000 others swap recommendations on how to make the move. She runs a real estate firm that places Californians all over the state. “99% of our clientele are people moving from California,” Bailey said. As for why people make the move, “No. 1 is cost of living and No. 2 is politics.”

Texas is Republican red in the same way California is a bastion of Democratic blue, battling on issues including abortion, gun control, immigration and LGBTQ+ rights. The political difference might make some hesitant to make the move, but for others it is a major bonus. Bailey’s husband, who was previously employed by the UCLA medical system, “wouldn’t even talk about his politics because he was afraid of losing his job,” she said. “Nowhere is perfect,” Bailey said, “but we fit in a lot better here.”

Though clients miss the beaches and “the weather is more extreme” in Texas, by and large those who have made the move with Bailey’s firm are happy, she said. Plus, she added, “We like not having to pay $5 or $6 per gallon in gas.” The average price of a gallon of gas in Texas was $2.91 on Nov. 3 versus $5.18 in California. Back in Azle, Jordan and her husband are adjusting to their new life.

Their family home in Corona sold in four days and they now live in a new custom build. It’s a more rural community than what they had in Corona, so “there’s a lot of really big bugs that we’re not used to,” but otherwise Jordan and her husband are settling in. “We have noticed people in Texas are far more friendly than in California,” she said, and the cost of living is far lower.

She also likes living in a place with a lower fire danger and less air pollution compared to the Inland Empire. “No, don’t miss it at all,” she said of the state she called home for six decades.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Droves of Californians are moving to Texas. Here’s the life they are finding appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Brothers Tou Sue Vang, 32, and Andrew Vang, 28, along with their mother, Monica Moua, 58, were part of “a national network of thieves, dealers, and processors” who provided the stolen auto anti-smog devices to a metal refinery for more than $600 million dollars, according to a statement from the U.S. attorney’s office.

Twenty-one people from California and New Jersey have been charged in the case, prosecutors said. The three Sacramento family members pleaded guilty to conspiring to transport the devices in return for more than $38 million.

Tou Sue Vang also pleaded guilty to 39 charges related to money laundering, prosecutors said.

Catalytic converters are easily stolen and contain precious metals including platinum.

“Some of these precious metals are more valuable per ounce than gold, and their value has been increasing in recent years,” the U.S. attorney’s office said. “The black-market price for catalytic converters can be above $1,000 each.”

California accounts for 37% of catalytic converter theft claims nationwide, with about 1,600 reported stolen each month, federal prosecutors said.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Californians plead guilty in $600 million nationwide catalytic converter theft scheme appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

For 25 years, some of California’s best-known early childhood services have been funded by an almost ironic source: Taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products.

That was the deal voters made when they passed Proposition 10 in 1998, levying a tobacco tax and dedicating the money for programs that would help families with young children. The arrangement was never supposed to last forever.

Advocates for youth services have known from the beginning that fewer people would smoke over time, and the funding would fall. Now, the money for so-called First 5 California programs is starting to plummet and First 5 leaders around the state say they are beginning to trim their budgets and cut back on programs.

The trend is accelerating following last year’s approval of Proposition 31 to uphold a state law banning the sale of flavored tobacco products, compelling youth programs to adjust their budget assumptions. “We all expect revenues to go down, the question is what will be the magnitude,” said Michael Ong, chair of the state’s Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee. The cuts are unfolding in different ways based on local decisions.

For example, the First 5 in Stanislaus County most recently cut one of its PlanetBaby! programs, which provide support for pregnant women and moms of babies up to a year old. That comes in addition to other recent funding cuts for programs supporting foster children and dental health services. First 5 funds a broad number of programs in partnership with nonprofits, local hospitals, clinics and county health and education offices.

Services vary by county, but some of the programs they fund include: children’s mobile immunization clinics, dental services, developmental screenings, family case management, parenting classes, and home visits from a nurse for first-time mothers. By 2026, the First 5 Association of California expects to receive almost 30% less from tobacco tax compared with 2021. It came up with yearly projections based on updated tobacco tax estimates from the state’s Department of Finance. Last spring, First 5 projected it would receive approximately $348 million from California’s cigarette taxes this budget year. After voters passed the flavored tobacco ban, updated estimates show that First 5 expects to receive $38 million less than that.

By 2026, that number could go down to $280 million, according to the projections. How much of that each local First 5 gets is based on a formula that takes into account a county’s birth rate. It’s far less than First 5 received from tobacco taxes two decades ago. In 1999-2000, First 5 received about $690 million in tobacco tax revenue, the most ever, according to First 5 California. California tacks on $2.87 tax to each standard pack of cigarettes. From 1989 to 2019, California’s smoking rate among adults has dropped from 22% to 10%, according to UCSF research.

Experts say tobacco tax projections should be taken cautiously as revenues are difficult to forecast immediately after a major change, such as the flavored tobacco ban. Ong, chair of the state tobacco oversight committee, said First 5s would ideally try to diversify their sources of revenue if they can. “But that’s a pretty tall order for county governments,” Ong said. Statewide, tobacco tax dollars make up about 73% of First 5’s annual budget, although this largely varies by county. For example, First 5 in Kern County relies almost entirely on tobacco taxes.

Meanwhile, the First 5 in Monterey County said in its most recent annual report that almost 40% of its funding now comes from grants and philanthropy. Last month, a Kern County grand jury released a report where it determined that its local First 5 would need to find additional revenue streams, other than tobacco, “to offset this downward spiral.” One possibility, according to the report: have California and local governments increase alcohol taxes.

And while taxes aren’t an easy sell to voters, especially in a red county like Kern, it’s important to consider all options, said Amy Travis, executive director of First 5 Kern County. “We know it (tax) works,” said Travis. “We know tobacco use is declining, so I think it’s a matter of asking what’s next? Is that alcohol, marijuana, sugary beverages?” Shammy Karim, executive director at First 5 Stanislaus County, said any new funding stream should come at the state level to maintain some uniformity and equity in the types of services available in all 58 counties. “I used to work in Santa Clara County, and in Santa Clara County, I could reach out to Google or Apple or other Silicon Valley organizations and say, here’s what I need. And most of the time, I would get it,” Karim said. “I don’t have the opportunity to do that here.”

In Orange County, some immediate cuts are coming in the form of less funding for nonprofits that run shelter beds for families with young children. “We didn’t pull the rug underneath them, but we have been working on a plan to reduce our funding in the homeless services arena,” said Kim Goll, the executive director of First 5 Orange County. While First 5 is not the only funder of these shelter services, losing their share could result in less staffing, for example, Goll said. “Our community will feel those cuts and we’ll be a smaller organization because of the flavor ban.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Californians are smoking less: Why that’s a problem for some early childhood services appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Tax season approaches: Cue dread, confusion, and mentally preparing to part with a chunk of your money.

At least, that’s how many people think of taxes.

But in recent years, especially after payments related to the pandemic and rising gas prices in California, submitting a tax return has also become key to receiving money.

Adam Kuhn learned this the hard way. His wife, who is a contractor, lost all of her work early in the pandemic. She received some unemployment benefits, but even with Adam’s work as a software trainer, the couple’s earnings in 2020 were low enough that they didn’t owe taxes. “So why would we bother?” Kuhn, a Sacramento resident, said. They didn’t bother.

Then, in 2021, California started sending out its own pandemic stimulus payments, which reached up to $1,200. To get the payments, you had to have filed a 2020 tax return. The state did a second round of payments in late 2021, also predicated on having filed a 2020 return.

In 2022, with gas prices soaring and a massive budget surplus on their hands, state lawmakers decided to send out another round of payments to help with the rising cost of living — again tied to 2020 tax returns.

“I wish I had filed taxes especially because, you know, it’s not that much trouble to file taxes, and especially when you don’t owe anything,” said Kuhn. “We do okay for two people with no kids, but we certainly don’t make a ton of money,” they said. They were late on their rent several times in 2020, but luckily their landlord was “gracious” about it, Kuhn said. If they had received some of those payments, they said, the couple probably would have spent the money on food.

It’s a recurring problem. One of the main ways California helps people financially — and redistributes wealth — is by passing money through the tax system. It’s not just one-time pandemic payments; there are also yearly payments, called refundable tax credits, that provide thousands of dollars to lower-income people through the tax system.

But some of the people eligible for those programs earn little enough that they don’t owe any taxes. So, many don’t file a tax return. And if they don’t file, they can’t collect what is essentially free money on the table.

“Your best bet is to file your taxes, because there may be things like stimulus payments or the [gas payments] that we can’t anticipate,” said Anna Hasselblad, director of public policy at United Ways of California, a network for dozens of organizations across the state which, among other things, provide free tax prep.

That’s especially true for any Californian earning less than $30,000, Hasselblad said, because they are likely eligible for cash back, in the form of a tax credit.

The official line, from the state’s Franchise Tax Board, is essentially the same: Filing your taxes, even if you don’t owe any, can be beneficial, because it allows you to potentially get tax refunds, payments via tax credits if you qualify, and potential future one-time payments like the pandemic stimulus packages. You can file a state tax return even if you have no income from work — this includes seniors living off of Social Security — wrote tax board spokesperson Andrew LePage in an email.

One caveat: High fees charged by paid tax preparers might make the trade-off of filing taxes if you don’t owe any not worth it. But many people qualify for free, individualized tax prep through an IRS program — more on that later.

Kim Kaufman, a retiree in Los Angeles, hasn’t paid California taxes for several years; she paid off her house a handful of years ago, she said, and the state doesn’t tax the Social Security checks she receives.

When she heard about the gas payments and learned they were based on 2020 tax returns, “I thought ‘Well, shit. I could’ve used that money,’” Kaufman said. It would have chipped away at her property tax and home insurance bills.

She plans to file a return this year, “in case something like this comes up again,” she said.

“I’ll do it early. I’m not gonna wait until, you know, April.”

More and more aid programs are being delivered as tax-based benefits, said Elizabeth Linos, a public policy professor at Harvard who has studied how people interact with the tax system. “What we’re seeing is that people will be missing out on benefits if they’re not filing their taxes.”

“IT’S YOUR MONEY, GO GET IT”

California’s biggest cash back credit for low-wage people is CalEITC, or the state’s earned income tax credit. That credit alone can give tax filers as much as $3,417 cash back, and combined with the federal credit, the sum can grow larger. There’s also federal cash-back credit for people with kids under 17, and another California credit for families with kids under 6.

So, for example, if you’re a single parent in California making $25,000 with two kids under 6, you could receive $9,990 when you file your taxes in 2023, according to figures provided by the California Budget and Policy Center.

“We like to say, ‘It’s your money, go get it,’” said Hasselblad, with United Ways of California. “And going and getting it means also: Ask for help if you need it.”

Despite all the money on the table, lots of people don’t file their taxes and miss out. It’s difficult to know exactly how many people are in this group. Nationally, about one fifth of the people who are eligible for the federal earned income tax credit don’t receive it, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. When researchers looked at California households who receive food assistance and are eligible for CalEITC, they found that about 400,000 households that qualified for credit didn’t receive it, largely due to low-income families not filing taxes.

It’s hard to convince people they should file a tax return even if they know they could get cash back. In 2020, Berkeley researchers partnered with California state agencies to research whether small “nudges” — including sending text messages and letters with information about the tax credits to 1 million people — aimed at people who were probably eligible, but who might not claim the benefit, would increase filing. The nudges had no effect.

Another approach was slightly more successful. Researchers reached out to households with emails and voice messages explaining they could receive stimulus payments and directing them to a simplified filing tool designed by Code for America, but the largest boost was only from 0.43% to 2.4%.

California saw an uptick in low-income tax returns in 2020, which the state’s Franchise Tax Board attributed to pandemic-related factors. In 2021 the number of tax returns from people or households making less than $30,000 went down again.

TRYING TO MAKE IT EASY TO FILE

This summer the state Franchise Tax Board plans to send letters to two groups of Californians.

For people who filed a timely 2022 return and appear to qualify for CalEITC but didn’t claim the credit, the tax board will make them aware of the credit and allow them to fill out just one form to receive it. For people who worked and have filed taxes recently but missed 2021, they will potentially receive a letter explaining how much money they might qualify for, as well as how to receive free help filing a return.

Illinois has run a promising pilot with another approach: Sending people forms that are already filled out. The state sent tens of thousands of letters to people who had filed a federal tax return and claimed the federal earned income tax credit, but who hadn’t filed an Illinois state tax return. Those people received letters explaining that they might be eligible for an Illinois tax credit, as well as a form with their tax information already filled out, which they could review for accuracy. Recipients could simply sign the letter and mail it back, or take a photo of their signed letter and email it to the Illinois Department of Revenue. Almost half responded and got refunds in the first year of the pilot.

“I don’t understand why — if the IRS and the California tax board, kind of broadly knows how much I owe in the first place, or if I owe anything at all — why they don’t just send me a letter?” Kuhn, the Sacramento resident said. “Why have to go through Intuit, or, you know, Turbo Tax or whatever?”

GETTING FREE TAX HELP

One big reason people don’t file tax returns is that taxes are hard.

“It’s entirely too complicated, it’s entirely too difficult, and there’s a lot of fear around, you know, getting it wrong,” said Teri Olle, California campaign director for Economic Security Project Action, an advocacy organization. “We, as a country and as a state, do not make it automatic in the way that a lot of other countries do,” she said.

But there is a network of over 100 sites across California that offer free tax prep. The help is provided by trained volunteers and the program is funded in part by the IRS. It’s generally for people making $60,000 or less, people with limited English, and folks with disabilities; California has a lookup tool for finding a site near you, and many sites offer multiple languages.

Anna Perez manages United Way of Kern County’s free tax prep program, which typically operates at 10 sites across the county during tax season. People who visit a site, Perez says, will generally get checked in, chat with a volunteer who will ask them questions about their situation and collect their paperwork, and then that information will get passed on to another volunteer who is certified to prepare their tax return. Then the return will get double-checked by yet another volunteer, reviewed by the client who came in, and then a return will get filed — all for free. The whole process typically takes 45 minutes to an hour, Perez says.

There are also locations that provide free tax help specifically for people over 60. And if you want to file yourself, the Franchise Tax Board recommends some free online tools.

“The bottom line is, a lot of Californians qualify for tax credits,” said Hasselblad, “and none of them should have to pay a tax preparer to get those credits.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Why Californians should file taxes even if they don’t owe any appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Details:

Coachella, Calif. – The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department reminds everyone taking a trip to visit friends or family over the Memorial Day Weekend to always buckle up and keep children in child safety seats.

This year’s Click it or Ticket campaign is from May 23-June 5. During this time, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department will have additional officers on patrol actively looking for drivers and passengers who are not wearing a seat belt. This includes vehicles where children are not secured in child safety seats.

“Wearing a seat belt should be an automatic for all drivers and passengers,” Sgt. Matos said. “It’s the safe thing to do, especially when it comes to securing children in child safety seats.”

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 10,893 people killed in crashes throughout the country in 2020 were not wearing seat belts. In California, 756 people killed in crashes in 2020 were not wearing seat belts, or nearly 20 percent of all traffic deaths in the state.

California law requires a child to be secured in a safety or booster seat until they are at least 8 or at least 4 feet, 9 inches tall. Children under the age of 2 must ride in a rear-facing seat unless the child weighs 40 or more pounds or is 40 or more inches tall.

California has a primary seat belt law, which allows law enforcement officers to ticket someone for not wearing a seat belt without committing another traffic violation.

For media inquiries regarding this incident please contact the Media Information Bureau.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Californians Encouraged to Always Wear Their Seat Belt appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Chelsea Hylton | Contributed

CalFresh, California’s largest food assistance program, helps provide low-income families and individuals who meet federal income eligibility rules with monthly food benefits.

The program, known federally as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, seeks to improve the nutrition of low-income families and individuals. The goal of the program is to increase purchasing power so household food needs can be met.

Here is more information about how you can access the CalFresh program.

Where can I apply for CalFresh?

The CalFresh application can be accessed online by clicking here.

It can also be accessed by calling the Customer Service Center (CSC) at 866-613-3777, Monday through Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m.; and on Saturdays, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Someone can assist you in filling out the application.

The application can also be accessed by visiting any Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) district office or extension site.

What documents are required to apply for CalFresh?

In order to apply you will need to show proof of ID, proof of any income, and proof of immigration status (for non-U.S. citizens).

Who is eligible for CalFresh?

Californians can have some income, own a home, or own a car and still be eligible for CalFresh.

If your household’s gross income is less than $150 per month and money on hand or in the bank is less than $100, you are eligible for the CalFresh program.

You’re eligible if your household’s combined monthly gross income and available resources are less than your monthly rent or mortgage, plus utilities.

You are also eligible if you:

• Receive Supplemental Security Income/State Supplemental Payment (SSI/SSP)

• Receive CalWORKS or General Relief benefits

• Your household includes a migrant or seasonal farmworker, and you are homeless.

• You are a US citizen, legal resident, or an immigrant who meets certain criteria.

Half- or full-time students ages 18 to 49 at a two-year, four-year, or graduate school also may be eligible. Receiving benefits will not affect your credit score or student loans.

How long does it take to approve the CalFresh application?

An individual who submits an application can receive approval of benefits within three days of receiving the application.

If you are eligible for CalFresh assistance, you will receive an Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) debit card.

You can use your EBT card to buy food at participating grocery stores, order groceries online for pickup or delivery at participating grocery stores, and participating farmers’ markets.

How much in food benefits does CalFresh provide?

It depends on your situation.

The program provides up to $835 of extra money each month for a family of four and $250 per month for individuals 18 and above.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post What Californians Should Know About the CalFresh Food Program appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Bechara Choucair | Contributed

A single state contract with Kaiser Permanente to provide Medi-Cal services in counties where it operates will further the state’s goals of making quality health care more accessible and affordable.

The Legislature will begin this week to consider a proposal by the California Department of Health Care Services to engage Kaiser Permanente in a single, direct contract for Medi-Cal services in counties where we operate.The change is significant, and so are the benefits to the most vulnerable enrollees.

Medi-Cal is the state and federally funded program offering health care to low-income residents. Kaiser Permanente proudly provides the highest-quality Medi-Cal coverage and care in the state to more than 900,000 people in 22 counties. We are a direct contractor with the state in five counties, including Sacramento and San Diego. We subcontract with local Medi-Cal health plans in the other counties.

The health conditions and demographic mix of our Medi-Cal membership are comparable to other Medi-Cal managed care plans, as measured by the Department of Health Care Services.

We base our Medi-Cal services on our continuity-of-care approach. This approach, for example, allows a single mother covered by Kaiser Permanente to move between employee-sponsored coverage, Covered California and Medi-Cal over the course of a year without disruption to her health insurance and access to physicians.

The change under consideration this week allows more people like her in the other areas we serve to enjoy a similar seamless approach. It also allows us to do the same for foster children and for seniors who are dually enrolled in Medicare and Medi-Cal.

The state is engaging in new, standard contracts with Medi-Cal managed care health plans to ensure greater quality, transparency and accountability. Because Kaiser Permanente provides both care and coverage within a select geographic presence, unlike other health plans, we cannot participate in the state’s established procurement process. The Department of Health Care Services’ direct, single-contract proposal, spelled out in budget trailer bill language and in Assembly Bill 2724 by Assemblymember Dr. Joaquin Arambula , seeks to align our delivery model with the growth and quality goals the state has laid out for Kaiser Permanente.

The proposed agreement, which would begin in 2024, is consistent with the state’s mission to provide Medi-Cal services through a whole-person care approach. Most importantly, it provides significant benefits to Californians who depend on Medi-Cal for care and services. It also:

Advances equity by requiring Kaiser Permanente, over time, to serve even more vulnerable populations with complex needs in all areas where we serve our members and patients in California, creating more equitable access to the state’s highest-quality plan. This will help further expand our existing commitment to delivering high-quality care and coverage to people with limited incomes and resources.

Eases access by removing confusing layers of administration, resulting in a single, direct contract that offers less fragmented care and improves the patient experience.

Increases affordability by eliminating the need for the state to pay administrative oversight fees to local plans for services they delegate to Kaiser Permanente, resulting in savings that will be used to reduce costs and invest in care.

Does more for Medi-Cal overall by requiring Kaiser Permanente to:

• Leverage its model to help Federally Qualified Health Centers and other safety net providers to improve quality.

• Strengthen the safety net by helping to expand the virtual care and clinical capacities of the state’s Federally Qualified Health Centers and our other clinic partners.

• Provide more specialty care through piloting in-person, outpatient specialty care visits for the highest-need patients.

Participating in Medi-Cal is part of Kaiser Permanente’s mission as a nonprofit.

We provide Medi-Cal enrollees with the same access to our care and coverage while receiving lower reimbursements, operating in Medi-Cal at a significant loss.

We will not compete with local plans and will continue to support the core functions of safety net providers. We will collaborate with counties on several topics, such as behavioral health, public health and more.

In total, the single-contract proposal requires Kaiser Permanente to collaborate with local health plans, counties and the safety net to determine enrollment growth, implement Medi-Cal reforms and, ultimately, provide higher-quality, more affordable health care for everyone who depends on Medi-Cal.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Most-vulnerable Californians stand to benefit under health care contract proposal appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The health care trailer bill, AB 133, makes bold changes toward a more equitable and prevention-focused approach to health care through expanded behavioral health initiatives supporting California youth and people with severe behavioral health challenges, including those experiencing homelessness; extending Medi-Cal eligibility for postpartum individuals; supporting continued telehealth flexibilities; and advancing the state’s innovative CalAIM initiative.

“We’re investing California’s historic surplus to accomplish transformative changes we’ve long dreamed of – including this historic Medi-Cal expansion to ensure thousands of older undocumented Californians, many of whom have been serving on the front lines of the pandemic, can access critical health care services,” said Governor Newsom. “I thank the Legislature for its steadfast partnership to bring California closer to universal health care coverage and advance comprehensive initiatives to ensure California’s communities come back from the pandemic stronger and healthier than before.”

Under AB 133, approximately 235,000 Californians aged 50 years and older are newly eligible for Medi-Cal, including preventive services, long-term care and In-Home Supportive Services. In 2019, California became the first state to extend Medi-Cal coverage to all eligible undocumented young adults up to the age of 26 and with today’s expansion, the state has the most inclusive health coverage for low-income persons in the country. AB 133 also extends the Medi-Cal postpartum care period from 60 days to 12 months without requiring a mental health diagnosis, including for eligible undocumented Californians.

Governor Newsom signed the legislation at a Clinica Sierra Vista location in Fresno administering COVID-19 vaccinations to residents, in addition to serving the community’s primary medical, dental and behavioral health needs.

During his visit, the Governor highlighted the state’s multi-pronged strategy to reach communities with low vaccination rates and the first-in-the-nation measures announced yesterday to require all state workers and workers in health care and high-risk congregate settings to either show proof of full vaccination or be tested at least once per week. Local governments and businesses are encouraged to adopt similar measures amid the growing threat of the Delta variant.

Changing the life trajectory of children and youth in California, the health care trailer bill creates a prevention-focused behavioral health system in which all Californians age 25 and younger are supported and routinely screened for emerging and existing behavioral health needs – enabling them to grow up healthier, both physically and mentally. The initiative includes the creation of a statewide portal to connect young people with telehealth visits.

AB 133 implements an important component of the California Comeback Plan’s $12 billion homelessness package, creating the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program at the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to expand treatment and housing options for all Californians, including people experiencing homelessness who struggle with the most acute behavioral health needs. AB 133 implements the Plan’s $2.2 billion investment for DHCS to provide competitive grants to local governments to construct, acquire and rehabilitate real estate assets or to invest in mobile crisis infrastructure to expand the community continuum of behavioral health treatment resources. The Plan’s total investments in this space constitute the biggest expansion in decades for clinically enhanced behavioral health housing.

In addition, AB 133 advances the state’s CalAIM initiative, a major transformation of the delivery of Medi-Cal to better manage risk and improve outcomes through whole person care approaches and addressing social determinants of health, and extends telehealth flexibilities allowed during the pandemic through December 2022, including payment parity for services delivered through audio-only modalities.

For full text of the bill, visit: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.

gov.ca.gov | Contributed

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Governor Newsom Signs Into Law First-in-the-Nation Expansion of Medi-Cal to Undocumented Californians Age 50 and Over, Bold Initiatives to Advance More Equitable and Prevention-Focused Health Care appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.