Students urge restoration of CalFood funding, say cuts risk food security and degree progress
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Multiple students and campus leaders told the Assembly subcommittee Wednesday that cuts to CalFood (campus food pantry funding) would harm students’ basic needs and delay graduation. Speakers urged restoring funding to prior levels—testimony noted a previous average of about $62.7 million per year and asked for at least $60 million ongoing.
Dozens of students and campus officials who addressed the Assembly’s Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Wednesday urged lawmakers to restore previous funding levels for campus food‑assistance programs commonly referred to in testimony as CalFood.
Speakers from the University of California, Riverside and other campuses described widespread food insecurity among college students and said deep cuts in the governor’s proposal would undermine students’ ability to remain in school and graduate. "Food security is student success," UC Riverside student Melissa Delgadio said during public comment.
Multiple student speakers and student government representatives asked the Legislature to restore recurring funding at roughly $60 million a year. Several witnesses said CalFood had averaged about $62.7 million per year over recent years and that the governor’s current proposal to significantly reduce that amount would leave campus pantries unable to meet demand. One commenter, representing campus basic‑needs programs, said campuses rely on CalFood dollars to purchase groceries and other essentials and that long lines and high demand show continued need.
Mark Fisher, vice chancellor for administration at UC Berkeley, also testified during the public comment period about campus capital renewal needs and used the term "capital renewal" to describe lifecycle replacements rather than short‑term repairs. He said Berkeley faces about $13 billion in facility modernization costs over two decades and a current campus backlog around $2 billion.
Speakers asked lawmakers to treat basic‑needs funding as essential for student health, retention and equitable access to higher education. Several tied funding restoration to broader student success goals and warned that reduced basic‑needs support could increase time‑to‑degree and long‑run costs to the state.
The subcommittee did not take a vote on funding during the hearing and held the item open; lawmakers asked staff to include basic‑needs funding alongside other higher‑education budget items in future deliberations.