AB 1066 directs the California Department of Social Services to award grants to qualified organizations to provide immigration-related services — including assistance with DACA applications/renewals, naturalization and appeals, a range of immigration remedies (U- and T-visas, VAWA petitions, asylum, etc.), and legal training or technical assistance. Grants are subject to available funding and to the qualifications set out in Section 13304.
The bill tightly frames how funds may be used: it bars use of grant money to provide legal services to individuals convicted of, or appealing convictions for, violent felonies or serious felonies (with an intake exception and an exception where records are inaccurate); it caps advance payments at 40%; requires extensive reporting to the Legislature during budget hearings; and includes a $20 million appropriation line for fiscal 2017–18 and a Controller payment mechanism tied to DSS notifications. Those rules shape which organizations can participate, which clients can receive funded representation, and how the state will oversee the program.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes DSS to award grants for DACA assistance, naturalization and appeals, immigration remedies and benefits, and for legal training/technical assistance, subject to funding. It prohibits using grant funds to provide legal services to people convicted of violent or serious felonies (intake still permitted), limits advances to 40% per award, and mandates detailed budget‑hearing reporting.
Who It Affects
Community-based immigration legal providers, legal aid clinics, and nonprofit organizations that qualify under Section 13304; immigration attorneys and trainers funded under the grants; DACA-eligible individuals, naturalization applicants, and other immigrants seeking remedies or benefits; and the Department of Social Services and State Controller for administration and payments.
Why It Matters
The bill would make California an active funder of immigration legal services and capacity building while imposing explicit criminal-history exclusions and operational constraints that determine who receives funded representation. The appropriation, advance-cap, and reporting requirements create concrete administrative and fiscal obligations for state agencies and grantees.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1066 sets up a state grant program, administered by the Department of Social Services, to fund immigration-related legal help and organizational capacity building. Grant recipients must meet the qualification rules in Section 13304; awards are conditioned on available funding either in the statute that adds the section or via the annual Budget Act, so the program operates only to the extent the Legislature or prior statutory language provides money.
The bill enumerates what services grants may cover. Those include direct assistance for people residing (or formerly residing) in California with initial or renewal DACA requests, help obtaining other immigration remedies and benefits, help with naturalization and appeals arising from naturalization, and legal training and technical assistance to strengthen provider capacity.
The statute defines “services to assist” broadly to include outreach, workshops, document review, FOIA requests, and screening; it lists immigration remedies and benefits (U-visas, T-visas, SIJS, VAWA, advanced parole, EADs, Green Card renewals, etc.) as examples.AB 1066 draws a clear eligibility line on criminal history: grant funds may not be used to provide legal services to anyone convicted of, or currently appealing a conviction for, a violent felony under Penal Code section 667.5(c) or a serious felony under Penal Code section 1192.7(c). The bill still requires providers to offer intake services regardless of criminal history, and it allows services where a person’s criminal record is shown to be inaccurate.
Practically, that creates a need for grantees to screen or verify criminal records and to document eligibility determinations.On finance and oversight, the bill limits advances to grantees to no more than 40 percent of an awarded grant, requires DSS to report a long list of implementation and performance metrics to the Legislature during budget hearings (timelines, awarded organizations and amounts by service type, numbers of applicants and clients served, languages and regions served, ethnic communities reached, and remaining barriers), and contains an appropriation clause for $20 million to DSS for the 2017–18 fiscal year coupled with a Controller-payment mechanism that authorizes payments to existing contracted entities upon DSS written notification. The statute also cites 8 U.S.C. §1621(d) to confirm that the services may be provided to undocumented persons.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute bars using grant funds to provide legal services to individuals convicted of, or currently appealing convictions for, violent felonies (Penal Code §667.5(c)) or serious felonies (Penal Code §1192.7(c)), while explicitly allowing client intake regardless of criminal history.
Grant funds may cover DACA application and renewal assistance, a broad array of immigration remedies (U- and T-visas, SIJS, VAWA self‑petitions, cancellation of removal, asylum, etc.), naturalization and appeals, plus legal training and technical assistance for providers.
No more than 40 percent of a grant award may be advanced to any organization; the remainder must be paid under standard reimbursement or milestone rules set by DSS.
DSS must update the Legislature during budget hearings with detailed metrics including timelines, grantees and amounts by service type, applications and amounts requested, number of clients served, languages, regions, and ethnic communities served, and identified barriers to service delivery.
The text includes a $20,000,000 appropriation to DSS for the 2017–18 fiscal year for immigration services and authorizes the Controller to pay existing contracted entities upon written notification from DSS of amounts, contractors, and timing.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Grant authority and funding condition
This subsection gives the Department of Social Services authority to provide grants but ties that authority to the availability of funding either in the statute that adds the section or in the annual Budget Act. That makes the program conditional on legislative appropriation and allows the Legislature to control program scale and timing through the budget process. Organizations must also meet the qualification requirements in Section 13304 to compete for or receive awards.
Permitted services: DACA, remedies, naturalization, training
Subdivision (b) enumerates the kinds of services grants may finance: assistance with DACA initial and renewal requests, help pursuing other immigration remedies and benefits, naturalization application and appeals work, and legal training and technical assistance. The list is broad and expressly includes capacity-building activities intended to strengthen competent legal representation in underserved communities, so funds may flow both to direct client services and to organizational development.
Criminal‑history restrictions and intake exception
This provision prohibits the use of grant funds to provide legal services to individuals convicted of, or appealing convictions for, violent felonies (PC §667.5(c)) or serious felonies (PC §1192.7(c)). The restriction explicitly covers expenditures meant to obstruct or interfere with federal enforcement, including litigation or administrative measures intended to shield individuals from federal deportation. The statute carves out two narrow exceptions: client intake activities are allowed regardless of criminal history, and services remain eligible where the criminal record is proven inaccurate. That combination forces grantees to implement screening and record‑verification protocols while still providing initial triage.
Key definitions that shape program scope
Subdivision (c) supplies operational definitions: DACA references DHS guidelines; “services to assist” is defined to include outreach, workshops, document review, FOIA requests, and screening; “legal training and technical assistance” covers capacity-building for competent legal services; and both “immigration remedies” and “immigration benefits” are given illustrative lists (U- and T-visas, SIJS, VAWA petitions, asylum, advanced parole, EADs, Green Card renewals, etc.). These definitions broaden permitted activity and reduce ambiguity about eligible uses.
Advance payment cap and reporting to the Legislature
Subdivision (d) caps advances to grantees at 40 percent of their award, which limits upfront cash flow and pushes recipients toward reimbursement-based accounting. Subdivision (e) requires DSS to report to the Legislature in budget hearings on implementation details—timelines, awarded organizations and aggregate amounts by service, applications and amounts requested, clients served, services and languages provided, regions and ethnic communities served, and remaining barriers. The combined effect is greater financial control by the state and a demanding data-collection obligation for grantees and the administering agency.
Federal‑law alignment, appropriation, and Controller payment mechanics
Subdivision (f) cites 8 U.S.C. §1621(d) to make explicit that the statute authorizes services for undocumented persons. Subdivision (g) contains a $20 million appropriation to DSS for the 2017–18 fiscal year for immigration services for existing contractors, and subdivision (h) authorizes the Controller to make payments to existing contracted entities upon receipt of written notification from DSS identifying amounts, contractors, and timing. Those provisions create a specific fiscal commitment and a payment flow that bypasses additional approvals once DSS provides notification, but the vintage of the appropriation year and the focus on existing entities raise questions about program expansion and competitive award processes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- DACA-eligible individuals and current DACA recipients in California: they gain state-funded help with initial applications and renewals, reducing cost and administrative barriers to maintaining deferred action.
- Naturalization applicants and people seeking immigration remedies (U-, T-visas, VAWA petitions, asylum seekers): they receive access to funded assistance and outreach that can improve case quality and completion rates.
- Community-based legal organizations and legal aid clinics that qualify under Section 13304: they can obtain grants for direct services and for legal training/technical assistance to expand capacity and serve underserved areas.
- Immigrant communities with limited English proficiency: the statute’s reporting focus on languages and ethnic communities creates incentives (and likely funding) for multilingual and culturally competent services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Grant applicants and grantee organizations: they must implement criminal‑history screening, data collection for the granular legislative reports, and financial controls to comply with the 40% advance cap, increasing administrative overhead.
- Individuals convicted of violent or serious felonies (or currently appealing such convictions): they are effectively excluded from receiving grant-funded legal representation, though they can receive intake, which reduces access to subsidized advocacy.
- Department of Social Services and state administrators: DSS must manage qualifications, grants, reporting, Controller notifications, and potential disputes over eligibility and payments, stretching administrative capacity.
- State budget and taxpayers: the statute includes a $20 million appropriation and contemplates ongoing funding subject to the Budget Act, creating a potential fiscal commitment and competing priorities in future budgets.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding access to immigration relief and maintaining public‑safety exclusions and tight fiscal control: the bill uses state funds to broaden legal help and capacity building for immigrants while simultaneously excluding people with certain felony convictions and imposing strict reporting, payment, and advance limits—forcing administrators and providers to balance access, compliance, and risk with no clean way to satisfy all priorities.
AB 1066 mixes broad support for immigration services with administratively strict controls that create practical tensions. The ban on using funds for legal services to people with violent or serious felony convictions forces grantees to verify criminal records and make eligibility determinations that can be legally and operationally fraught; yet the intake exception and the inaccuracy carve-out create patchy rules that will require clear policy guidance and record-keeping standards from DSS.
Collecting the detailed reporting elements the bill requires (languages, ethnic communities, regions, number of clients, types of services) will increase grantee burden and raise privacy and client-trust issues, especially where providers must gather sensitive criminal-history or immigration status information.
The statutory language also contains drafting oddities with real consequences. The $20 million appropriation is tied to the 2017–18 fiscal year and payments are limited to “existing entities under contract,” which suggests the statute may be intended to fund previously contracted providers rather than establish a new competitive grant program.
That creates ambiguity about whether and how new organizations may enter the program, whether the appropriation is a carryforward, and how ongoing funding would be handled in subsequent budget cycles. Finally, the bill’s invocation of 8 U.S.C. §1621(d) aligns the program with federal limits on benefits to noncitizens, but federal policy changes or enforcement priorities could alter the practical reach of state-funded services.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.