Roundup: Latest Actions from the Commission on State Mandates and What It Means for Counties
Back to News
COUNTY PREVAILS IN INCORRECT REDUCTION CLAIM MATTER
Last Friday, the Commission on State Mandates (Commission) approved Los Angeles County’s claim that the State Controller’s Office (SCO) incorrectly disallowed their reimbursement claims for the Child Abduction and Recovery state-mandated program. The Commission’s decision directs the State Controller’s Office to reinstate all costs incorrectly reduced.
The state is required to reimburse counties for the state-mandated requirements of this program; that county district attorneys’ offices actively assist in the resolution of child custody problems, including visitation disputes, enforcement of custody decrees, and any other court order in child custody proceedings.
The SCO is authorized to perform audits of counties’ claims for reimbursement for state-mandated programs, and may disallow reimbursement claims that they determine lack documentation or are unreasonable. If claims are disallowed, counties may file Incorrect Reduction Claims with the Commission to contest that the SCO incorrectly reduced the amount of their reimbursement costs.
To date, CSAC estimates that 20 counties are similarly affected by SCO audits of the Child Abduction and Recovery program. Two additional counties have Incorrect Reduction Claims for this program pending before the Commission, which can be viewed under the Incorrect Reduction section of the pending caseload page.
A complete list of all matters pending before the Commission and recent actions is available on the pending caseload webpage. To receive updates directly from the Commission, contact Commission staff directly at csminfo@csm.ca.gov. To receive updates from the State Controller’s Office (SCO), sign up for their email lists here.
Questions about the Commission on State Mandates or the state mandate reimbursement process in general? Contact Jessica Sankus, Principal Fiscal and Policy Analyst, at jsankus@counties.org.
AUGUST 14 HEARING OUTCOMES
The Commission convened last Friday at 10am and the hearing agenda can be viewed here. The Commission took the following actions:
| Type of Matter | Matter / Program | Action and Next Steps |
|---|---|---|
| Test Claim | Race-Blind Charging, 24-TC-07 | Approved. Next: The Commission prepared and published draft Parameters and Guidelines for this newly approved program. Counties can file proposed modifications and comments on the draft Parameters and Guidelines on or by September 8, 2026. |
| Parameters and Guidelines | Emergency Shelters: Persons with Pets, 24-TC-06 | Approved. Next: The SCO issues claiming instructions within 90 days after the Commission adopts or amends the Parameters and Guidelines. |
| Incorrect Reduction Claim | Child Abduction and Recovery, 25-4237-I-05 | Approved. The Commission’s decision directs the State Controller’s Office to reinstate all costs incorrectly reduced. Is your county similarly affected? Contact legcoordinator@counties.org with questions. |
REBUTTAL COMMENTS FILED
Criminal Procedure: Discrimination II, 25-TC-04 (View Matter) (aka The Racial Justice Act)
Recent Action: Last Friday, the claimant and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) filed rebuttal comments to the Department of Finance’s (DOF) comments on the test claim filed in July. View the comment letters here: Claimant’s letter, CSAC’s letter, DOF’s letter.
Next Steps: The Commission tentatively plans to hear this matter during their hearing on February 12, 2027. The Draft Proposed Decision will be issued for comment approximately eight weeks prior to the public hearing
About the Program: AB 256 (Chapter 739, Statutes of 2022) expanded the provisions of AB 2542 (Chapter 317, Statutes of 2020), the original Racial Justice Act, and made these requirements retroactive as well as prospective. The Racial Justice Act provides that individuals charged with or convicted of a crime may file habeas corpus petitions to raise issues of bias or discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or national origin in their cases. The test claim for reimbursement argues that counties should be reimbursed by the state for the costs of Public Defenders to comply with AB 256, specifically the obligation to represent individuals who allege issues of bias or discrimination in their cases.
- Does this seem familiar? A previously approved test claim for the same program captured one implementation phase of AB 256 (Penal Code Section 745(j)(3)), which commenced on January 1, 2024, and pertains to certain cases for individuals serving sentences in state prisons or county jails, or individuals committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice. This new test claim captures subsequent implementation phases (Penal Code Sections 745(j)(4) and 745(j)(5)).