The Brief

A constant hum fills the air at California’s tax agency this time of year — phones ring and keyboards clack as hundreds of thousands of Californians and businesses seek tax guidance.

Call volume quadruples to up to 10,000 a day; average wait times soar from four minutes to 20. “Right from the get-go when the bell rings at 7:30 you (already) have a wait,” said call center chief Thor Dunn, adding that workers with other jobs are trained to hop on the phones during peak periods. “All hands on deck.”

So later this year — for next tax season — California’s 3,696-person Department of Tax and Fee Administration plans to use generative artificial intelligence to advise its approximately 375 call center agents on state tax code. The AI will then inform what they pass on to California business owners asking for tax guidance.

Trained with massive datasets often scraped from the web without consent from authors, generative artificial intelligence models can generate content like text, imagery, and audio. A large language model such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, which ignited interest in generative AI following its release in fall 2022, essentially predicts the next word in a sequence of input text then outputs or generates text that reflects the training data.

What form would that take for you, the person calling in to the tax center? The tax department told CalMatters this technology will not be used without a call center employee there to review the answer, but a slide in its call for proposals seeking a vendor says any AI solution must “be able to provide responses to incoming voice calls, live chats, and other communications.”

That request for proposals, aimed at creating an AI to help the state with taxes, went out last month. Initial proposals are due this week and the process is scheduled to finish in April. A meeting with potential vendors attracted 100 attendees last month, department spokesperson Tamma Adamek told CalMatters.

The tax advice AI proposal is one of five proofs of concept California has launched to explore how state agencies can use generative AI, says California Department of Technology director and state chief information officer Liana Bailey-Crimmins. Caltrans has two projects to explore if generative AI can reduce traffic congestion and fatal accidents and the state’s Health and Human Services Agency has two trials underway to explore if generative AI can make it easier for people to understand and attain public benefits, and assist in health care facility inspections.

The winning AI tax proposal vendor will get a six-month contract, then state officials will determine if a larger contract is warranted. The project must demonstrate shorter calls and wait times and abandoned calls and vendors must “monitor and report on GenAI solution responses for factual accuracy, coherence, and appropriateness.”

The project is the start of a years-long, iterative AI regulation and adoption process that Gov. Gavin Newsom kicked off last fall. The executive order he issued requires state agencies to explore ways to use generative AI by July.

To limit risks, private companies awarded contracts will train AI models in a “sandbox” hosted on state servers, made to meet information security and monitoring standards set by the technology department. Newsom’s executive order directs the technology department to release the sandbox in March for use by companies awarded contracts.

AI risk evaluation

The state’s Government Operations Agency evaluated the benefits and risks of generative AI in November 2023. The report cautions that generative models can produce convincing but inaccurate results, deliver different answers to the same prompt, and suffer model collapse, when predictions stray away from accurate results. Generative AI also carries the risk of automation bias, when people become overly trusting and reliant on automated decision-making.

Exactly how tax agency call center employees will know to trust answers generated by large language models is unclear.

Adamek, the tax department spokesperson, said they are trained on basic tax and fee programs and, if they encounter a question they are unfamiliar with, they can ask more experienced team members for help. In July the technology department, in conjunction with other state agencies, is scheduled to help train state employees on recognizing wrong or fake text.

The tax department does not consider its planned use of generative AI high risk, Adamek said, because it’s focused on enhancing state business operations and all the data involved is publicly available. She said the tax department will assess risk later in the process. Standards guidelines for state agencies that sign contracts with private companies are due out in the coming weeks.

While the tax department doesn’t consider using generative AI high risk, it’s unclear whether the technology department will agree.

Newsom’s order requires all state agencies to deliver a list of high-risk forms of generative AI it’s using to the Department of Technology within 60 days. Bailey-Crimmins told CalMatters all the agencies under the governor’s authority have said they are not using high risk generative AI.

A new law also requires the technology department to inventory all high-risk forms of AI or automated decision making systems in use by state agencies by or before September.

But outside of government, some are wary of some of California’s AI plans. Among them is Justin Klozcko, the Los Angeles author of Hallucinating Risk, a Consumer Watchdog report about AI patents held by banks and used in financial services and the potential for harm. He notes that documentation from San Francisco-based ChatGPT maker OpenAI warns that AI can pose a high risk when delivering essential services or providing financial advice.

“There’s still a lot we don’t know about generative AI and what we do know is that it makes mistakes and acts in ways that people who study it don’t even fully understand,” Klozcko said. He also questioned the ease of determining whether that information is accurate in the hands of the call center employee who may not be qualified to determine whether text output by a large language model — made to sound convincing — is in fact inaccurate or false.

“I worry that workers in charge of this won’t understand the complexity of this AI,” he said. “They won’t know when they’re led astray.”

Bailey-Crimmins said “we take those risks seriously” and that potential downsides will be taken into consideration when determining the next course of action following the six-month pilot project.

“We want to be excited about benefits, but we also need to make sure that what we’re doing is safeguarding… the public puts a lot of trust in us and we need to make sure that the decisions we’re making (are) not putting that trust in question."

Companies that create and manufacture personal delivery devices, those cute bots you see on public sidewalks, have been working on growth plans for years.

Cities, on whose public sidewalks the delivery bots travel, are only now catching up to regulating them and charging the companies fees.

That's what's happening in Glendale, where, City Councilman Dan Brotman says, “[The delivery bots] just appeared out of nowhere. The company that operates [them] never reached out and talked to us."

He and other council members, he said, want to know if the delivery devices make it harder for Glendale residents using wheelchairs to use public sidewalks.

“I also am curious who is getting the financial benefit from these,” he said.

Glendale’s City Council asked city staff last month to draft two proposals, one with regulations and fees and the other pausing the operation of delivery bots while the council studies their impact. Brotman said staff may deliver those proposals to him and his colleagues in the months to come.

The two largest cities in LA County, at two different stages

The City of Los Angeles approved rules for personal delivery devices a few years ago, including flat permit fees. The City Council has since asked staff in the Department of Transportation to revaluate those rules and make suggestions.

One idea being considered — charging companies for every bot trip instead of the flat fee.

A delivery robot sits next to the bike path by the beach

(

Courtesy Coco

)

L.A. City Councilwoman Eunisses Hernandez successfully introduced the motion last year to have the regulations revisited. 

“[The companies are] starting to put movie ads or show ads, and if they're generating revenue off that, we want to know what that looks like but also be able to have a fee for them,” Hernandez said.

That report should be presented to the City Council later this year, she said. 

She’s also keen to hear from the public about their views on delivery bots. 

Companies that make the devices argue they’re providing an essential delivery service to residents while cutting down on the number of vehicles on the road making the deliveries.

“We currently pay fees in Los Angeles, Chicago and West Hollywood as part of their permit programs and are open to similar models in other cities,” said Vignesh Ram, vice president of policy at Serve Robotics, by email.

Starship Technologies' delivery robot exits the elevator in the company's office.

(

Meg Kelly

/

NPR

)

The company is now operating in Long Beach; Ram says it notified the city before beginning to operate there.

A City of Long Beach spokesperson told LAist its business licensing, planning and public works teams are currently working on recommendations for regulations. Those should be presented to the City Council early this summer.

The story first appeared on The LA Local.

When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from. 

“When you know the difference between East LA and Boyle Heights … they appreciate that on a really fundamental level,” Melero, director of field education at CSULA’s School of Social Work, said. “You feel a sense of safety and being seen when the person reflects what you look like, has a foundational understanding of where you come from.” 

Now, a $48 million grant to California State University, Los Angeles, will open new opportunities for students to serve the communities they come from. The funding will expand the university’s social work and counseling programs, training 1,000 new students to support youth mental health in Eastside communities and other underserved areas of Los Angeles.

What will the funding do?

The five-year investment by the Ballmer Group — the largest grant in the university’s history — will significantly grow Cal State LA’s Master of Social Work program. 

Its one-year MSW program will double in size, the two‑year program will increase by 50%, and the School-Based Family Counseling program will also double. The bulk of the funding will support scholarships, new faculty and the expansion of clinical placements.

Cal State LA already partners with organizations across the Eastside, including El Centro De Ayuda, AltaMed, Survivor Justice Center and schools across LAUSD. The new funding will allow more students to work directly with these groups, serving families who often lack access to care. 

“This speaks to the amazing work our social work and counseling programs are doing within our schools and with LA’s agencies serving youth and families,” said CSULA President Berenecea Johnson Eanes in a statement to Boyle Heights Beat. “With more clinical placements and greater numbers of master’s alumni, we will make real strides in meeting a critical shortage of qualified social workers and counselors.”

In addition to CSULA, CSU Dominguez Hills received $29 million to expand mental health resources in South LA and UCLA will use part of its $33 million grant to develop a minor in youth behavioral health. The three universities have received a total of $110 million. 

When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from.

(

Courtesy CSULA

)

Why representation matters

For Melero, who was born and raised in East LA, the expansion is personal. 

Melero spent 17 years of her professional career as a social worker in her own community and the surrounding areas. She witnessed firsthand how much her patients appreciated it when she spoke to them in Spanish or told them where she grew up. 

“You don’t have to explain yourself, you don’t have to explain what it’s like, you know, to grow up here,” she said. 

Now as director of field education, she helps place students in organizations, clinics and schools across the region, many of them serving the neighborhood they call home. 

Barriers to access

The need for more mental health workers comes at a time when many Eastside families are facing more barriers to care.

Stigma around mental health combined with fear tied to immigration raids have discouraged some people from seeking services, Melero said.

At the same time, financial challenges are making it harder for students to enter the profession. 

In January, the U.S. Department of Education updated its definition of a “professional degree” and excluded social work, which will affect graduate students’ eligibility for federal student loans, creating a significant financial barrier, according to the Council on Social Work Education.

Students hope to give back

For students like Silvia Perez, 41, financial assistance would be a great help.

The Cal State LA undergraduate student is pursuing her master’s degree after she graduates in May, all while raising two teenagers and a 23-year-old. Perez has been paying for her education by selling shoes and perfume outside of her home in East LA. 

Her decision to pursue a career in social work came after seeing her sister navigate the Department of Children and Family Services system with her children and witnessing how young people in her community struggled with substance abuse and homelessness. 

After graduating, Perez hopes to work in East LA to help the people she encounters every day. She believes that level of understanding can create trust with an already vulnerable population.

“I would like to help the people in my community first…I live the daily life that everyone else in my community faces,” she said.

For more information on CSULA’s MSW programs, click here.

Editor’s Note: The LA Local also receives support from the Ballmer Group.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

California scored a legal victory Monday that for now, undermines the Trump administration’s efforts to drastically cut funding for homeless housing.

Changes that would have diverted huge chunks of federal funds away from permanent housing and funneled them instead into temporary shelters and sober living programs will remain suspended after the Trump administration dropped its appeal of an earlier court loss. While the broader case is still being litigated, the new development could provide some reassurance to California counties waiting for the federal funds.

“We continue to fight for Californians and the rule of law, and we continue to win,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a news release. “People experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness need the federal government’s continued support — not a rollback of assistance.”

In November, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development attempted to change the way it doles out money for homeless services via its Continuum of Care program. It decreed that jurisdictions applying for a piece of about $4 billion in federal homelessness funds can’t spend more than 30% of that money on permanent housing — a move that would result in a significant cut to the type of long-term housing that can resolve someone’s homelessness.

Last year, California communities spent about 90% of their federal Continuum of Care funds on permanent housing.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration quickly joined 19 other states and the District of Columbia in suing to stop the Trump administration’s changes. In December, a federal judge in Rhode Island temporarily blocked the changes and ordered HUD to process funding applications under the original rules. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, leaving local governments and homeless service providers unsure of what they would be awarded funding for, and when.

The federal government on Monday dropped its appeal. While the rest of the lawsuit will move forward, and could take months to resolve, counties should be able to access permanent housing funds in the meantime.

Instead of prioritizing permanent housing, as has been the rule in the past, the Trump administration wants to focus more on shelters that get people off the streets quickly and temporarily, and on programs that require residents to be sober. HUD also attempted to ban the use of federal homelessness funds for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients, and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.

A HUD spokesperson said the agency stood by its funding reforms.

“HUD remains committed to reforming the failed ‘Housing First’ approach and restoring the Continuum of Care program to its core objectives; reducing homelessness and promoting self-sufficiency for all vulnerable Americans, ensuring taxpayer dollars are directed towards those goals,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

HUD experienced another legal setback last month when a federal judge in Rhode Island shot down the agency’s attempt to upend another, smaller, source of federal homelessness funding. At issue in that case was a program called the Continuum of Care Builds grant, which funds the construction of new homeless housing. HUD last year made grantees reapply under a very different set of criteria, which seemed to disqualify organizations that support trans clients, use “harm reduction” to prevent drug overdose deaths or operate in a “sanctuary city.”

About $75 million in federal funds had been frozen as that case moved forward.

In March, the court found HUD violated the law through its “slapdash imposition of political whims.”

“This ruling is a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs,” Ann Oliva, chief executive of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, which filed the lawsuit, wrote in a statement. “Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.