|
Amended
IN
Senate
January 05, 2026 |
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE—
2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Senate Bill
No. 430
| Introduced by Senator Cabaldon |
February 18, 2025 |
An act to add Chapter 5.7 (commencing with Section 51020) to Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code, relating to state government. automated decision systems.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 430, as amended, Cabaldon.
State government: efficiency of public sector workers. Local agencies: automated decision systems.
Existing law establishes the Government Operations Agency (GovOps), and establishes within the agency the Department of Technology. Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency. Existing law defines, for these purposes, an “automated decision system” as, among other things, a computational process that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decisionmaking and materially impacts natural persons.
Existing law authorizes local agencies, including cities and counties, to
provide welfare, employment, and other public social services. Existing law also authorizes the legislative body of any county or city, pursuant to specified procedures, to adopt ordinances that, among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, open space, and other purposes.
This bill would impose certain restrictions on the use of an automated decision system by a local agency to confer supportive services, permits, or licenses, as specified. Among those restrictions, the bill would include a prohibition on using an output from the system as the sole basis for an adverse eligibility or benefit determination affecting a natural person, except as specified. The bill would require the local agency to verify the accuracy of the system’s outputs and to promote nondiscrimination in its use, as specified. The bill would require the local agency’s governing board to provide audits or other quality control
review of the outputs, as specified, to assure acceptable accuracy.
This bill would authorize GovOps to develop, adopt, and make publicly available guidance for a local agency’s use of automated decision systems. The bill would require GovOps to notify the Joint Legislative Budget Committee before issuing the guidance. The bill would require GovOps to provide technical assistance to local agencies upon request. The bill would define terms for purposes of its provisions and would make related findings and declarations.
Existing law establishes the Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy (Little Hoover Commission) to promote economy, efficiency, and improved service in the transaction of the public business in the various departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the executive branch of state government, and in making the operation of all state departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, and all expenditures of public funds, more directly responsive to the wishes of the people as expressed by their elected representatives.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would lessen the time, effort, money, and programmatic expertise of local public sector workers in compliance with state reporting and permit processing, as specified.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) California’s residents and businesses increasingly conduct transactions at unprecedented speeds, with private sector services such as loan approvals, insurance applications, and consumer purchases now processed in minutes or seconds through automated systems. Government services have not kept pace with these technological advances, creating a disconnect between public
expectations and the reality of government service delivery.
(b) Delays in processing CalFresh applications, approving MediCal benefits, and granting local building permits impose significant hardships on California residents. Families experiencing food insecurity may wait weeks for CalFresh benefits while basic needs go unmet; prospective students face prolonged uncertainty about their educational futures during critical decisionmaking periods; and housing development and business expansion are delayed by permitting backlogs that exacerbate California’s housing crisis and impede economic growth.
(c) Automatic decisionmaking systems, when properly designed with appropriate safeguards, transparency measures, and human oversight mechanisms, have the potential to dramatically reduce processing times for routine governmental decisions while maintaining accuracy and fairness. These
systems can enable local government agencies to redirect limited staff resources from repetitive administrative tasks to complex cases requiring human judgment and to providing enhanced customer service.
(d) The deployment of automated decisionmaking technology in government services must be accompanied by robust protections to ensure equity, prevent algorithmic bias, protect individual privacy, and preserve meaningful human review and appeal rights. The benefits of speed and efficiency must not come at the expense of due process, equal protection, or the fundamental principle that government remains accountable to the people it serves.
(e) Authorizing local government agencies to utilize automatic decisionmaking systems for CalFresh benefits, CSU admissions, and building permits, subject to appropriate standards and oversight, will modernize California’s public service
infrastructure, reduce administrative burdens on both government and residents, and ensure that government responsiveness reflects the technological capabilities and expectations of the twenty-first century.
(f) California has enacted CEQA exemptions for qualifying housing projects and Housing Accountability Act “shot clock” requirements mandating timely permit decisions. Automatic decisionmaking systems provide local agencies the technological means to meet these expedited timelines while ensuring consistent application of objective development standards.
SEC. 2.
Chapter 5.7 (commencing with Section 51020) is added to Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code, to read:CHAPTER 5.7. Automated Decision Systems
51020.
For purposes of this chapter, the definitions in Section 1798.140 of the Civil Code apply, unless otherwise specified in this chapter, and the following definitions apply:(a) “Artificial intelligence” means an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.
(b) “Automated decision system” means a computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to
assist or replace human discretionary decisionmaking and materially impacts natural persons. “Automated decision system” does not include a spam email filter, firewall, antivirus software, identity and access management tools, calculator, database, dataset, or other compilation of data.
(c) “Legally protected information” means information that a person is prohibited from disclosing under federal or state law, including provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege, or that would result in a violation of a legal duty of confidentiality.
(d) “Local agency” means a city, including a charter city, a county, a city and county, or a special district, including a transit agency or a utilities district.
(e) “Personally identifiable information” means an individual’s residential address, telephone number, social
security number, driver’s license number, state identification card number, passport number, license plate number, vehicle registration information for a motor vehicle owned or leased by the individual, and information regarding an individual’s precise geolocation, as defined in Section 1798.140 of the Civil Code.
(f) “Protected health information” has the same meaning as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(g) “Supportive services” means services, benefits, or assistance, whether provided in cash or in kind, that a local agency provides, including, but not limited to, social services, linkages to programs administered by the federal Social Security Administration, vocational and education-related services, and employment assistance.
51021.
If a local agency uses an automated decision system to confer supportive services, including eligibility services, benefits, and assistance, permits, or licenses for which the recipient applies or would have otherwise had to apply, not including competitive determinations, the local agency shall comply with all of the following:(a) The local agency may use an automated decision system to inform its decisionmaking process. The local agency shall not substitute the outputs of an automated decision system for human judgment.
(b) When an automated decision system is used to assist in a decisionmaking process, the system shall be only one of the factors a user considers in reaching a decision. The
local agency may use an automated decision system to ascertain whether a supportive services application or submission meets minimum eligibility thresholds as predetermined by the local agency.
(c) The local agency shall not use an output from an automated decision system as the sole basis for an adverse eligibility or benefit determination affecting a natural person, except as expressly authorized by federal or state law.
(d) The local agency shall require that any output of an automated decision system that suggests noneligibility or other adverse action be reviewed by a human before any adverse action is taken.
(e) A local agency’s user shall not represent work generated solely by an automated decision system as the user’s own original work.
(f) When
the use of an automated decision system is material to a decision, the local agency shall provide a means, consistent with applicable law, to document or disclose that the system was used in the decisionmaking process. The public shall be offered an opportunity to opt-out of an automated decision system for supportive services determinations, if possible.
(g) The local agency shall verify the accuracy of an automated decision system’s outputs, and shall promote nondiscrimination in its use of an automated decision system, by doing all of the following:
(1) Ensure content, recommendations, or other outputs generated by an automated decision system that may materially affect eligibility or benefit levels are reviewed and verified by an employee of the local agency, or by another authorized person, for accuracy before being relied upon.
(2) Monitor and periodically evaluate the use of automated decision systems to reduce the risk that outputs contain or perpetuate bias, including bias based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, disability, medical condition, genetic information, immigration or citizenship status, or any other characteristic protected by federal or state law.
(3) Require that an application or submission contain all required fields, attachments, or information in the required format.
(h) The local agency shall safeguard personal information, protected health information, or other legally protected information by prohibiting a user of the automated decisions system from inputting, uploading, or otherwise disclosing the information to a
automated decision system, except where necessary for supportive services administration or delivery, as authorized by law and subject to appropriate safeguards. For third-party systems, a local agency shall employ safeguards that may include access controls and appropriate security standards.
(i) The local agency’s governing board shall provide for an initial and subsequent periodic audits or other quality control review of the outputs of the automated decision system, or a statistically valid represented sample thereof to assure acceptable accuracy.
51022.
The Government Operations Agency, in collaboration with any other state agencies the agency deems appropriate, may develop, adopt, and make publicly available guidance for a local agency’s use of automated decision systems consistent with this chapter. Before issuing the guidance, the agency shall notify the Joint Legislative Budget Committee of its decision to issue guidance.51023.
The Government Operations Agency may provide technical assistance to local agencies to comply with this chapter.(a)It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would lessen the time, effort, money, and programmatic expertise of local public sector workers in compliance with state reporting and permit processing.
(b)It is the intent of the Legislature that the legislation described in subdivision (a) would do both of the following:
(1)Emphasize systematic, rather than one-off, burden-reduction initiatives, using machine learning tools to capture and analyze data, and to deploy methods of nonlinear processing of nondiscretionary permits.
(2)Require workers and end-users to
participate fully in technological deployment to support responsible and effective implementation.