Roundup: Latest Actions from the Commission on State Mandates and What It Means for Counties
Back to News
Since our update earlier this month, busy bees at the Commission on State Mandates published seven updates to matters pending before the Commission ahead of their next hearing, scheduled for Friday, June 12. To see what all the buzz is about, descriptions of these updates are included below.
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, subscribe to their email lists.
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.
PROPOSED DECISIONS AND PARAMETERS AND GUIDELINES
Child Physical Abuse and Neglect Exams, 24-TC-05 (View Matter)
Recent Developments: Commission staff issued the proposed decision for the Commissioners to deny Santa Clara County’s Request for Reconsideration on the Commissions’ previous decision to partially approve the test claim. Commission staff also issued the Parameters and Guidelines and proposed decision for the Commissioners to adopt the Parameters and Guidelines for the partially-approved newly adopted state-mandated program. The Commission will consider this matter during their hearing on June 12
Background: Earlier this year, the Commission partially approved this test claim. Read the Commission’s decision here. Subsequently, the Commission posted the Claimant’s Request for Reconsideration on the Commission’s decision, which requests that the Commission amend their decision to approve reimbursement for child abuse exams rendered to children covered by private medical insurance.
About the program: AB 1402 (Chapter 841, Statutes of 2023) intended to provide no-cost medical examinations to victims of child abuse and neglect by prohibiting charging the victims. The bill required counties to set up systems to provide examinations at no cost to the victim and instead submit invoices for reimbursement to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, subject to appropriation by the Legislature. The Legislature did not provide an appropriation for this purpose in subsequent state budgets. The provisions of this bill resulted in the removal of authority for county human services departments (or the appropriate equivalent) to bill Medi-Cal for these services. Prior to AB 1402, counties billed Medi-Cal or private health insurance for physical abuse or neglect exams. The test claim for reimbursement argues that the state must reimburse counties for the cost of physical abuse or neglect exams for children.
Stops: Notification by Peace Officers, 24-TC-03 (View Matter)
Recent Developments: Commission staff issued the Parameters and Guidelines and proposed decision for the Commissioners to adopt the Parameters and Guidelines for this newly adopted state-mandated program. The Commission will hear this matter on June 12.
About the program: AB 2773 (Chapter 805, Statutes of 2022) requires, beginning January 1, 2024, a peace officer making a traffic or pedestrian stop to state the reason for the stop before asking any other questions (i.e., the ubiquitous initial question “Do you know why I pulled you over today?” is not allowable). Peace officers are also required to document the reason for the stop on any citation or report resulting from the stop. The test claim was approved by the Commission in February 2026.
Custody of Minors-Child Abduction and Recovery, CSM-4237 25-PGA-01 (View Matter)
Recent Developments: The Commission published a draft proposed decision and parameters and guidelines concerning the State Controller’s Office’s (SCO) letter, and therein the Commission staff recommends that the Commission deny the SCO’s request for a Statement of Decision and recommends partial approval of the requested technical changes to the Parameters and Guidelines. This matter is agendized to be heard during the Commission’s next hearing on June 12.
Background: In October 2025, the SCO submitted a letter to the Commission regarding the Custody of Minors – Child Abduction and Recovery Program, which included a request for a Statement of Decision from the Commission and a request to amend the Parameters and Guidelines. See below for background information about this program.
PROPOSED DECISIONS
Child Abduction and Recovery, 24-4237-I-04 (View Matter)
Recent developments: Commission staff issued the proposed decision for the Commissioners regarding Sacramento County’s Incorrect Reduction Claim for previously disallowed claims for reimbursement. The Commission will hear this matter on June 12. See below for background information about this program.
Emergency Shelters: Persons with Pets, 24-TC-06 (View Matter)
Recent developments: Last week, Commission staff published a proposed decision for this test claim, recommending partial approval. The Commission will hear this matter during their hearing on June 12.
About the program: AB 781 (Chapter 344, Statutes of 2023), amongst other things, requires emergency plans for cities and counties to designate shelters able to accommodate pets in their next emergency plan update, and requires that whenever a city or county designates any number of emergency shelters, emergency cooling shelters, and emergency warming shelters, it shall designate at least one shelter that can accommodate persons with pets. Sacramento County filed a test claim with the Commission in December 2024 to request reimbursement for counties for the costs to comply with AB 781.
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
CARE Act County Legal Counsel, 25-TC-02 (View Matter)
Recent developments: The Department of Finance issued a comment letter to the Commission regarding this test claim. Therein, in addition to other comments, Finance appears to assert that the time and labor for county counsel to advise county behavioral health agencies on CARE Act cases is not eligible for reimbursement from the state because county behavioral health agencies make a choice to engage their counsel. They argue that the enacting statute of the CARE Act does not require county counsel to support county behavioral health agencies in this process above and beyond the general counsel they provide to all county departments, and “An additional mandate specific to county counsel is not legally compelled, and should not be inferred as practically compelled, as the use and amount of reliance on county counsel is discretionary for CBHAs.” (page 2).
Next steps: Counties and other interested parties can file rebuttal comments with the Commission before or on June 22. The Commission tentatively plans to hear this matter during their hearing on February 12, 2027.
About the program: Earlier this year, Commission staff uploaded to their website a new test claim for reimbursement for the Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment (CARE) Act (also referred to as “CARE Court”). Amongst other things, the Claimant argues that county attorneys are mandated to participate in extensive court proceedings and provide counsel to county entities that develop and carry out CARE agreements and plans, and that these expenses are eligible for reimbursement from the state.
COMMENTS FROM THE STATE CONTROLLER’S OFFICE
Child Abduction and Recovery, 25-4237-I-05 (View Matter)
Recent developments: The SCO issued a comment letter to the Commission rebutting the findings of the proposed decision for the Commissioners regarding Los Angeles County’s Incorrect Reduction Claim for previously disallowed claims for reimbursement. Therein, the SCO argues that the findings of their audit were lawful and accurate. See below for background information about this program.
Next steps: Counties and other interested parties can file rebuttal comments with the Commission before or on June 22. The Commission will hear this matter on August 14.
More information about the Custody of Minors-Child Abduction and Recovery Program
The Custody of Minors – Child Abduction and Recovery Program is one of the first programs to be deemed a reimbursable state mandate after Proposition 4 (1979) required the state to reimburse local governments for the costs to comply with state-mandated programs. Since 1979, the state has reimbursed counties for the state-mandated requirement 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 to verify the actual amount of the mandated costs, to determine whether costs claimed are supported by appropriate documentation, and to ensure that claims are not unreasonable or excessive (Government Code sections 17558.5, 17561, and 12410).
When the SCO disallows costs previously claimed by counties, the affected county may choose to either remit the disallowed amount to the state, or the SCO offsets (withholds) commensurate amounts from state-mandated costs reimbursements filed by that county in subsequent fiscal years.