April 23, 2026 · Human Services · 29,893 words · 16 speakers · 117 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.
Ann Jour financially former members of the
Speaker! All this hearing of the Assembly Committee on Human Services to order. I would like to start today's hearing by welcoming Assembly Member Aarons, who is filling in for Assembly Member Celeste Rodriguez, and Assembly Member Rubio, who is filling in for Assembly Member Jackson. Once we have established quorum, we have 21 measures on the agenda, six of which are consent. Please note that we limit testimony to two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition. Each witness has two minutes to testify. All additional witnesses will be limited to stating their name, organization, and the position on the bill. I also want to note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website. Lastly, I would like to address disruptions during the hearing. Conduct that disrupts or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct this hearing is prohibited. If disruptive behavior occurs today, you will be removed from the hearing room by the Assembly sergeants. We do not yet have a quorum, so we will start as a subcommittee. I believe file item number one, Assembly Jackson, is here.
So you may come up to the desk and present file number one, AB 2083, when you are ready. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to start by thanking the committee and committee staff for assisting us with this. We'll be accepting the committee amendments. Here to present AB 2083, the Marina Valley Parish Child Care Special District, which authorizes the creation of a regional child care special district serving Marina Valley and Paris to coordinate the development and expansion of child care programs and facilities, including options that support families with nontraditional work hours for a term of five years. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Thank you, Assemblymember. Do we have any members of the public who should testify in support of this bill? Please come forward. Seeing none, any members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to the bill or any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, bringing it back to committee. Any questions or comments? Okay, a comment from the vice chair.
So I had my staff work on this and they did reach out to Riverside County and they had mentioned that your office had never reached out to them and they were concerned about it causing an extra fee for the local residents and the community for this. So I'm not going to be able to support it today, but I do thank you.
Absolutely. Appreciate it.
Are any other cons or questions from the committee? If not, I'll invite the author to close.
Respectfully ask for an iVote.
All right. We do not yet have a quorum, so when it is established, we will take it up for a vote. It does enjoy a recommendation of due pass, and I do think it's a creative way to address child care for your locality, and it's for your locals to decide how it's done. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's go on to file item number two, AB 1579 by Assembly Ramos. So you may begin when you're ready.
Thank you. and thank you and your staff for working with our team on this bill. Today, I am presenting AB 1579, which aims to expand the current Children's Crisis Pilot Program to include additional CDSS crisis residential models At its inception the Children Crisis Pilot Program was set to build a comprehensive replicable crisis continuum system for youth within the highest needs And today, that vision still remains. But it's out of reach in so many areas in the state of California for our youth. In practice, not a single agency in the state of California has been able to successfully set up a children's crisis residential program. The inability is not because counties and providers lack commitment, but because the current model is not working. Across the state, CCRPs have proven financially and operationally unsustainable due to staffing requirements and cost structures. As a result, CCRPs have effectively stalled the development of crisis continuums. AB 1579 seeks to remediate these issues by increasing access through flexible, functional, equivalent, clinically appropriate residential options, Expanding the Children's Crisis Pilot Program to include services such as short-term residential treatment programs or psychiatric residential treatment facilities, counties and providers can implement programs that are clinically appropriate and sustainable without compromising safety or quality care. Simply put, this bill is an expansion aimed at ensuring that every child has timely access to the right level of care in the least restrictive settings possible. We are asking for flexibility with purpose, not a compromise on quality. AB 1579 ensures counties can fully utilize available funding and move forward with viable models and build the crisis response systems that our youth need today. And what was envisioned when the state set forth a commitment to fund this pilot program. With me to testify on the bill today is Joan Miller, Deputy Director of Family and Children's Services, and Leticia Galen, Chief Executive Officer of Seneca Family of Agencies.
Thank you very much. Whichever witness wants to go first. You have two minutes each, please.
Good morning, Chair and members. On behalf of the San Francisco County Human Services Administration, Family and Children's Services Division, I am here in strong support of Assembly Bill 1579. The goal of the Children's Crisis Continuum Pilot Program was to increase capacity for crisis care for foster youth and to build a system that is replicable across California. However, the current statutory language limits residential crisis services to a single model, the Children's Crisis Residential Program, which has proven financially and operationally unstable and unsustainable for the eight pilot counties, including San Francisco. Without passage of AB 1579, counties will remain unable to provide a critical component of a true crisis continuum within the pilot, a short-term therapeutic residential option for foster youth in crisis, leading to continued over-reliance on hospitals and emergency departments. AB 1579 provides a practical solution by expanding allowable program types while giving pilot counties the flexibility to implement the approach that best meets the needs of the foster youth for whom they are caring. This flexibility is not a departure from the pilot's vision, it is what makes the vision replicable statewide Importantly this does not lower the standard of care CDSS approval remains required and the bill preserves the accountability structure needed to serve youth with the most complex needs. It also requires any comparable program to demonstrate the capacity to safely stabilize youth in crisis through enhanced staffing, stronger clinical support, and coordinated system involvement. Lastly, San Francisco County, along with most other pilot counties, lost significant implementation time under the existing statutory requirements. AB 1579 also provides the additional time needed to fully utilize our pilot grant funding rather than losing those resources due to delays beyond our control. We strongly support this bill and respectfully ask for your support.
Thank you very much. Next witness, please.
Good morning, Chair Lee. and members of the Human Services Committee. I'm Letitia Galleon, and I serve as CEO of Seneca Family of Agencies. Seneca is a nonprofit agency providing intensive and comprehensive behavioral health, education, and placement services for children and their families across 19 counties in California. Seneca was a proud co-sponsor of the original Children's Crisis Continuum Pilot Program legislation, and we've been partnered with both San Francisco and Monterey counties since the grant awards in 2023. With our partners, Seneca has worked diligently to operationalize every component of the continuum. Despite that, we have not been successful in executing on the vision of the Children's Crisis Residential Program model due to the regulatory challenges. Indeed, there is not a single Children's Crisis Residential Program in the state, even outside of the pilot program. While we await longer-term solutions for that license type, counties are unable to stand up the very services the pilot requires, even as the need for crisis care grows. Yet, there are viable solutions. AB 1579 neither eliminates nor changes the intention of the crisis residential component of the pilot program. Instead, it ensures it can actually be delivered. Providers like Seneca are already providing crisis residential levels of care using the short-term residential treatment program license. AB 1579 preserves accountability of the providers and protection of the youth. The state must still review and approve the program design. The providers must demonstrate that what is built is still highly individualized, offers enhanced staffing ratios, and is functionally equivalent to the crisis residential program the pilot required. Without AB 1579, the pilot program will not fulfill its intent simply because we are letting licensing barriers get in the way of the services available to young people who need them most.
We are committed and ready to actualize what is envisioned, a comprehensive, responsive system of care for youth with the most complex needs. AB 1579 allows us to do just that. Thank you. All right, thank you. Now, do we have members of the public who wish to find support of file number two, AB 1579? Please come to the microphone, name, organization, and your support. Good morning. Adrian Schultz, representing the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, proud co-sponsor and support. Good morning. John Scoglin with the County of Los Angeles in support. Good morning. Brian Bagley, City and County, San Francisco, Family and Children's Services Division, and I strongly support. Good morning Megan Salazar with Just Advocates a proud co and we strongly support Good morning Sylvia Solis here on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the County of Fresno and also here on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco in support. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in proud support. Thank you. All right. Before we go on to opposition, we do have a quorum now. So, Madam Secretary, I'm going to ask you to call the attendance so we can establish a quorum. Lee? Here. Castillo? Here. Calderon? Alapwari? Here. Rubio? Here. Aarons? Here. Tongapah? Here. All right. And thank you to Assembly Aarons and Rubio for subbing in today. Thank you. Now let's move on to opposition to the bill. If there is any primary witness in opposition, please come up to the desk. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Chantel Johnson, and I am the directing advocate at the Youth Law Center, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization that works to transform foster care and juvenile justice systems so that young people and families receive the support they need to thrive. We are respectfully opposing AB 1579. The bill fundamentally departs from the original intent from the Children's Crisis Continuum Pilot Program. That program was designed to fill a gap in care for youth experiencing behavioral health crises with small short-term community-based settings, specifically tailored to stabilize youth and return them to their families' settings as quickly as possible. AB 1579 moves us away from that vision. It allows pilot funding to be used for existing facility types, such as short-term residential treatment programs and potentially psychiatric residential treatment facilities, settings that were never intended to serve as substitutes for crisis residential programs. These facilities are either not designed for acute crisis stabilization or are far more restrictive and institutional than what youth need in a moment of crisis. Critically, the bill removes key safeguards. Children's crisis residential programs are small, serving just four youth at a time with a 10-day maximum stay and a 24-hour mental health care. In contrast, these facilities this bill would allow can be much larger, have no meaningful limits on the length of stay, and may not provide the same level of specialized immediate crisis care. We are deeply concerned that this bill would effectively incentivize greater reliance on large institutional settings, settings that can be disruptive, isolating and in some cases harmful to youth, while diverting resources away from community-based solutions that we just know are more effective. If the challenge is financial viability, and we've met many times with the sponsors, the solution should be to invest in making these crisis programs work, not to lower the standard of care or abandon the original model altogether. For these reasons, we join a coalition of partners from the National Center for Youth Law, Disability Rights California, and the National Health Law Program, who all respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Now, do we have members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill? Please come with the microphone. All right. Seeing none, I'm going to bring it back to committee for questions, comments, or motions. All right. The bill's been moved and seconded. Any questions? If not, I'll invite the author to close. Thank you so much. This is an opportunity to bring some solutions to counties and give them options to get drastically needed resources to our youth that are out in the state of California. I ask for your aye vote. I appreciate the author bringing this bill forward and your commitment to working with youth. I know you'll continue to hear all sides and work on this issue. The Bill has been moved by Assemblyman Tangipa and seconded by El Huari. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on file item number two. File item two, AB 1579. The motion is due pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Castillo? Aye. Castillo, aye. Calderon? El Huari? Aye. El Huari, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Ahrens? Aye. Ahrens, aye. Tongipa? Aye. Tongipa, aye. 6-0. That bill is out. Thank you. We will leave the roll open for EPSA members. Next, we'll do file item number three, AB 1628 by Michelle Rodriguez. Yes. All right. Whenever you're ready. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of California's most vulnerable newborns. One second. You might want to put your mic a little closer to you. And if we can ask the room to hush for a second. All right, go ahead. California's most vulnerable newborns and mothers who need our support. I'm honored to present AB 1628, the Keeping Infants from Danger Act, which extends California's safe surrender window from 72 hours to 30 days, providing mothers with the time and space necessary to make safe, informed decisions during one of the most vulnerable moments of their lives. California has long been a leader in compassion-driven, evidence-based policy, and AB 1628 builds on that. Legacy. No woman should be compelled to make such a life-altering decision while still recovering physically, emotionally, and mentally from childbirth. We understand that postpartum depression, medical complications, and emotional distress do not get resolved within 72 hours. And in fact, for many mothers, the most difficult moments arise days or even weeks after delivery. It's essential that our laws reflect that reality. This is a life-saving measure that meets mothers where they are, offering support instead of limitation and ensuring newborns have the opportunity for safe and secure future. AB 1628, a Women's Caucus Priority Bill, maintains full confidentiality for mothers while strengthening protection for newborns statewide. By updating this law, we reduce the risk of unsafe abandonment and ensure that in moments of crisis, a safe and lawful option is accessible. Joining me today to offer testimony is Obed Franco on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association. Go ahead. Two minutes, please. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Obed Franco here today on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California, testifying in support of AB 1628, the Keeping Infants from Danger Act. We would like to thank the author, the author staff, the chair and committee staff for their work on this important and sensitive issue. California safe surrender law has been in place for over two decades and has created and was created to prevent infant deaths by providing a safe, legal, and confidential option for surrender. This measure builds on that foundation by extending the surrender window to 30 days, recognizing that medical recovery, postpartum conditions, and other challenges do not always occur within the first few days following birth. Fire departments across the state serve as designated safe surrender sites, and personnel are often among the first to receive these infants. These departments understand the responsibility that comes with that role and the importance of maintaining a system that is accessible, confidential, and focused on safety. Providing additional time helps ensure that individuals are able to access this option when it is needed while maintaining the protections that have made the Safe Surrender Program so effective For these reasons we respectfully ask for your aye vote Thank you Thank you Now do we have any members of the public who should testify in support of this bill Please come up to the microphone. Thank you. Dawn Kepke on behalf of the Child Abuse Prevention Center and California Family Resource Association in support. Great. Thank you. Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition to this bill? Any members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to the bill? Seeing I'm bringing it back to the committee for questions or comments. Do you want to? Okay, go ahead, Vice Chair. I just want to thank the author for the bill, and I'm proud to be a co-author of this bill. As a mental health professional, I think it's important to allow more time for new mothers to, you know, get through a certain phase that's a crisis and extend that time to avoid them having regrets later of something. So thank you. Thank you. All right. I'll invite the author to close. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an iVote. All right. Well, thank you, Assembly Rodriguez. I know this is something you were very passionate about and you talked to many of us very early on. So I appreciate you working on the safe surrender sites and extending the timeline. So this does enjoy a, a, a, a recommendation from me and it has been properly moved by Assembly Aaron's and seconded by Assemblyman Castillo. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on file item number three. File item three, AB 1628. The motion is due pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Castillo? Aye. Castillo, aye. Calderon? El-Huari? Aye. El-Huari, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Ahrens? Aye. Ahrens, aye. Tongapaw? Aye. Tongapaw, aye. 6-0, that bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. All right, so we'll now go to phylum number four, AB 1634 Davies. All right, you can begin when you're ready. Thank you, and I just want to say thank you for having the consideration of letting me go. I have a feeling that plane took off, but that was very kind of you. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I rise today to present AB 1634 relating to the Have a Heart, Be a Star, Help Our Kids License Play program. Members, this is a bill that is passed through this committee unanimously twice, and our colleagues in the Senate have passed the same bill through their Human Service Committee twice. We worked diligently with the committee this year to simplify the funding formula, but otherwise the language is largely consistent with prior versions. This bill places emphasis on funding programs aimed at unintentional injury preventions, intending positive and equitable outcomes. Many of the injury categories addressed by the bill, such as vehicular safety, drowning prevention, and gun safety, disapproperately affects low-income and marginalized communities. AB 1634 increases strategic funding for child abuse prevention, childhood injury prevention, and child care by doing two key things. First, it updates the DMV pricing of kids' specialty license plates, which has not been adjusted since 1992 and is far below other specialty plates. Increasing these fees should significantly grow the child health and safety funds. Second AB 1634 allows legacy specialty license plates owners to use the four kids plates symbols to personalize their plates bringing in new revenue to support kids safety programs while also benefiting environmental programs supported by legacy plates But at its core this bill addresses long equity and how kids plates funds are distributed Currently statute does not guarantee that all 58 counties receive their fair share AB 1634 utilizes that existing 58 first five county commissions to help distribute funding for childhood injury preventions and child care providing recruitment and training at the community level at the same time a B 1634 ensures Department of Social Service Child Care Licensing Division and the Department of Public Health Injury Prevention Branch continues receiving funding to carry out their critical work members we also made important structural improvements in response to concerns raised last year Last year's analysis repeatedly referenced funding being tied to counties opting into receiving these funds based on the survey, which created barriers to access. That structure is removed in this bill. Instead, funding distributed to all 58 counties, ensuring every community can benefit. We also addressed concerns about complexity. The previous framework included multiple layers, like the 75%, 17%, and 8 apportioned structures. population thresholds, and participation triggering, which made programs difficult to administer. This bill replaces that with a clearer structure, including defined allocations such as 22.5% to the 58 first five community commissions with straightforward distribution formulas. Equity is no longer conditional. Previously, access depended on whether counties opt in, which risks leaving some communities behind. Now the analyst reflects a system where funds are distributed to all 58 counties, ensuring consistent statewide access. At the same time, the bill preserves accountability. The Department of Public Health continues its oversight role with oversight and accountability reported annually, ensuring programs integrity remains intact. Finally, the bill strengthens the funding model overall. It's not only modernized outdated fees, but also expands participation, generating more total resources to support child safety, injury preventions, and child care. This bill takes a structure that was conditionally complex and uneven, and it makes it automatic, simpler, and statewide. With me today to testify and answer technical questions about the bill is Steve Burrow's state program director of the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health, who also helped craft the original 1992 Kids Plate program. Thank you. All right. Two minutes each witness, please. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. I was on the team working with Jackie Speier when she was sitting in your seats. When we created this program, we created it originally because there was no child care licensing division in California, and we successfully used this funding stream to do that. The problem is over the years, the Department of Motor Vehicles could not raise the price of these to keep more money coming into the program because it's in statute of law. So this bill corrects that. It doesn't take it out of statute law, but it allows for the pricing to go from 1992 levels up to the 2026 levels as other specialty license plates, Yosemite plate, Save the Whales and all that. it will double the amount of money. It also takes advantage of partnering with a very important other specialty plate the legacy plates by allowing them to personalize their plate with the four symbols the heart the star the plus sign and the handprint which you see on the roads You wonder what is that plate Well those are kids plates When Jackie Spear created this program, we had no money in the pot. And people said, well, it's not going to raise enough money to do anything strategically good. We raised over $90 million just by the vehicle owners choosing to buy this plate. So this bill increases the amount of money in the fund by bringing the pricing up from 1992 to 2026, partnering with the Legacy Plates. So that builds our chance to now rebuild and bring in more money for child abuse prevention, childhood safety programs, childhood injury, and also to help recruit new child care providers at the local level, which right now, There's not enough money and there's no attention to that. We use the first five county commissions because they're in all 58 counties and they're made up of people at the local level that understand their communities. And you're probably familiar with the first fives in your districts. And this will allow them to have money to put into swim lessons and safe child sleep suffocation prevention, burn prevention. If I could ask you to wrap up, please. Yeah, so the bill raises more money, creates a much better structure of how we're distributing the money, and also keeping the child care licensing we built with the original program intact and increases the Department of Public Health's ability to do more childhood injury prevention. So we respectfully ask for an I vote. I know this program inside and out, so if you have any technical questions, I can answer them. Thank you. All right. Next witness, please. Two minutes, please. Oh, no. All right. You only had one witness. Okay. All right. Do we have any members of the public who wish to testify in support of the bill? Please come to the microphone. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to the bill? All right, I'll bring it back to the committee. Somebody, El-Hawari. I appreciate the intent. I have a kid's plate myself. I have a heart on mine. I think right now we're in a deficit, and it's just really tough to think about redirecting funds outside of state agencies. I think maybe in the future we could look to that, but I just wanted to share that. That's why I'll be laying off today. All right, any other questions or comments? Can I respond to that? I did not hear a question directed unless, El-Hawari, you have a question you wanted to ask them. So I just want to be fair to other members. Okay. Somebody talking about it. To the author, could you respond to the fees on this? Respond to which? To issues in the deficit or anything when it comes to a financial impact. You know, the thing is, is that right now, this money was only meant to be strategic money to help with child abuse, childhood injury and and child care issues. And by increasing the amount of money, it allows us to keep the licensing program intact. There's going to be more money than they need for administration for their role. and so the extra money we had to figure out okay how do you put this into work at the at the local level community level and so the first five commissions were chosen to utilize the money it's not really going outside and and wasting money this is bringing in money let me give you an example at the local level you give a local community six $50,000, they can help 400 children get swimming lessons for drowning prevention. You give them $50,000, they can help with the local infant sleep suffocation program. So that right now they don't have money to put into that. So it is keeping the administration whole that we built with this program, But at the same time, we're raising more money to go out to help with child safety programs in all 58 counties. Right now, not only 25 of the counties get any of this money. But just very, very quickly into the author there. I believe that there is no impact to the general fund when it comes to the raising of these fees. This is voluntary money. Correct. This is voluntary. But just like all the other specialty license. Vehicle owners choose or don't choose to put a specialty. So the only increase would be on the individual paying for it, not on the deficit that the future projections of the state of California are in. Correct. Anytime you have a specialty license, you're going to be paying for it. Thank you. I move the bill. A question to the author is then is to clarify and build upon that point. Are you changing the appropriation of money that this fund gives to the Department of Social Services in this bill? No. No. Matter of fact, it guarantees that the administrative, there's a bunch of administrative issues that Kids Place has always funded within the Department of Social Services. This bill puts in statute a guarantee for going forward, plus any COLA that the legislature decides to provide for them. So it guarantees that the child care licensing that we help build stays intact. That's one of the important parts of our child care system to keep people's children safe. But if you're 100 families looking for child care in California right now, only 28 of the families are going to find child care. So this puts money into a practical place in all 58 counties to help the communities recruit new providers so that we will have a bigger pool of providers for working parents than we have right now. So, no, it doesn't. Well, reflecting the language that have submitted to me, that is not true because you're halving the appropriation to CDSS. It goes literally half. You're halving the amount that goes from CDSS to other entities. That is in the language. No, the language that we worked out with your staff over several weeks, and there was a lot of good give and take, the amount of money that the Department of Social Services gets, they will get half or more of the new money. You've got to remember the pot right now is this way. Right, but this is the hypothetical. It's going to be this way. Right. I'll allow the author to close before I say it. I want to correct the record is that this is a stipulation that there is the revenue growth, and you're saying in the numerical, in the raw amount of money, this is your argument, that there will be more in general. But the appropriation itself, the formula, you're halving the amount that goes to CESS. No. That is in the language that is in the bill that you submitted. Well, that's the language that we worked out with your staff over weeks and appreciate all the work that they just does. But I just want to clarify. Now, I'm not asking a question. I'm clarifying that this is the bill in print today. So I just want to correct for the record that this is a change in formula. So I just want to correct that. You brought up a very good point. It changes the formula in a bigger pot. It doesn't change the formula in the current situation. Again, I wasn't asking a question, but again, I'm clarifying that you're talking about the raw numerical dollars will change, but the percentage of its allocation has changed as well. So the bill itself you changed the allocation of the percentage All right Are there any other questions or comments from committee members If not I the bill was motioned Yes the bill was moved and seconded I invite the author to close Thank you. I really appreciate that. And with my colleagues, again, this is, this bill is really bringing more income, more revenue to help our children. And one of the biggest things the last few years, which was a good thing that the flavored tobacco ban basically was dropped because we got rid of it. But that was where a lot of funding was going to these groups. And now with us being able to partner with these other groups together, it's going to be bringing in much more revenue. And it's also been going to go to different types of crisis that we can deal with our kids. Right now, we're watching childcare not being supported. We're watching daycare not being supported. A lot of these, again, and probably what closest to my heart is the drowning prevention when, if you're not aware of it, the number one death of children is from infants to five years old. Number one death. The second, the number two death is from six years old to 14. There are so many children and kids out there that don't have the opportunity to have swimming lessons, to be able to save themselves, to know CPR. And this is one of the top things that it does. And we're talking about children's lives and we know what's happening here. So I would ask that you would consider this. Again, this is not costing the taxpayer anything. It would be more revenue because of us partnering together that will come forward, even if you want to give it a one year and see how that works. But to deny right now, when we have a debt, when there's a deficit and they're cutting every program for our kids, this is one that actually would allow the taxpayers on their own to actually help fund. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I thank you. All right. Thank you. Assembly Dave's presenting this bill. This is a bill we've had a lot of back and forth on, on the staff level as well, but the crux of the issue is in the formula. I want to correct the record that there have been very similar bills that have come through here. about license plates and allocations of money. That is true. Many similar, these bills all die in appropriations or held in appropriations, unfortunately. But I do think this is a well-intentioned bill. But the reality is what you are doing is, yes, you're changing the structure, increasing the fee. But it is, at the end of the day, a reallocation. And this is something that has been an issue where we worked out. And it changes, it halves the amount of money that goes to our CDSS, which goes to other programs, and then into private nonprofit organizations, which is the crux of my issue that we have been trying to work out for a while. And so that is why I'm not supporting this bill today. This bill has a no recommendation from me. And also just to carry on some themes, even from this committee, I have heard before we are concerned about funneling money to private organizations. So this came up when we talked about school and parent advocacy organizations and we had all this issue come up. And this is a similar theme that comes up over and over again. So that is why I'm issuing a no recommendation on this bill. Hope that we continue to work on this issue and try to figure a path forward on this issue, but I cannot support this bill today. The bill was moved by Assemblyman Tangipa, seconded by Assemblyman Castillo. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. File Item 4, AB 1634. The motion is due pass to the Assembly Transportation Committee. Lee? No. Lee, no. Castillo? Aye. Castillo, aye. Cauldron? El Juari? Not voting. El Juari, not voting. Rubio? Aarons? Not voting. Aarons, not voting. Tangipa? Aye. Tangipa, aye. Aye. The bill's on call. We'll leave the roll. All right Next is I think Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen with file item number 5 AB 1643 All right, whenever you're ready. Let me get this right here. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, thank you for allowing me to present AB 1643. I would like to thank the chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill. We'll be accepting the committee's amendments. I'd like to begin by clarifying that this bill does not force all parents going through a separation into child support. Instead, it's meant to simplify the process for those parents who voluntarily open a case because they are unable to reach a mutual agreement. AB 1643 helps reduce childhood poverty in California by streamlining the application process for child support services after a court hears and finalizes an order. In the last five years, California's child poverty rate has increased nearly threefold, jumping from 7.5% in 2021 up to 18.6% in 2024. We know that child poverty may have negative effects on children, leading to academic underachievement, causing behavioral problems, and as well as social and emotional issues, which may carry into adulthood. Child support has been one of the most effective anti-poverty programs for children, helping to keep 1.4 million families out of poverty throughout the nation. Unfortunately, California has one of the lowest utilization rates of the program in the country. This bill increases participation in California's child support program by enrolling custodial parents into child support services once a court finalizes a support order unless they opt out. Currently, after a court finalizes a child support order, the custodial parent must go through an additional process requiring them to submit a form to their local child support services officer to register for the program and begin receiving payment. AB 1643 modernizes this process by instead requiring the court to directly transmit the order to the child support services officer to initiate payment unless the custodial parent opts out. Committee amendments clarify the opt-out process by requiring the custodial parent to be notified that they have 10 days to opt-out and by opting out does not affect future participation amongst other provisions. Joining me today is Mike Smitsky, Executive Director of California Child Support Association, and Daylin Fredrickson, Director of Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services, to speak in support of the bill and to answer any technical questions. Thank you. Before we go to your witnesses, just want to clarify your accepting committee amendments. Okay, great. All right. Whoever wants to go first, two minutes each, please. Chair and members, Michael Smiski on behalf of the California Child Support Association, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. CalCSA represents California's 47 local child support agencies serving all 58 counties with a membership of more than 6,000 child support professionals dedicated to improving outcomes for close to 1 million children and families in the Golden State. When cost of living is taken into account, California has among the highest poverty burdens in the nation with nearly 7 million Californians lacking their resources to meet basic needs Child poverty is also alarmingly high At a time when other human service programs are under increasing strain child support remains a critical resource and often compromises a significant portion of household income and creates economic stability for children. Research also shows that formal child support is associated with better educational, behavioral, and social outcomes for children, including stronger reading and math performance. That is why AB 1643 matters. Child support matters. California's child support program remains underutilized. Nationally, the program reaches about one in six children, while in California it reaches only one in nine. With this level of need, we should not be leaving one of our most heavily federally funded support programs underused. AB 1643 is a balanced step to help close that gap by ensuring more children receive the support they deserve while preserving parental choice. Across California, more than 6,000 child support professionals are trained to work directly with families, understand their circumstances, including families that may be experiencing family violence, and respond to their needs on a confidential case-by-case basis. The child support program also provides families with access to a broad range of services, including legal support at low or no direct costs, which can be far more accessible and affordable than trying to navigate similar proceedings outside the program. AB 1643 is a measured practical bill that helps connect more children and families to a critical support system at a time when they need it most. Thank you for the opportunity to share the impacts of the bills, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. Thank you. All right, next witness, please.
Chair, Assembly members, thank you. My name is Dallin Fredrickson. I am the director of the Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services. AB 1643 is urgently needed because California's child support program is one of the most effective anti-poverty tools, yet it remains significantly underutilized. For families at or near the poverty line, child support represents an average of 41% of their income. In Sacramento County alone, in our county, our department is sending more than $11 million home to families every month. This is money. These are dollars that put food on the table, that put gasoline in the car, and that put shoes on children's feet. Research shows that child support reduces child poverty by 5 to 9 percent. Over the past decade, California's child support program has transformed. We have shifted to a holistic family-centered approach, an approach based on right-sized, sustainable orders and supportive problem-solving. For example, nationwide, half of all child support orders are entered by default, meaning one parent did not participate in the process. Years ago, Sacramento County mirrored that same pattern. But by emphasizing engagement of both parents in Sacramento County, we have cut the default rate to 25%. We're committed to working with both parents to make the program sustainable and work for families. Despite all the improvements in the program, the program remains underutilized. Fewer than one million families statewide are utilizing child support services. If California just matched the national average for participation, we would have more than 1.5 million cases in the program. So there's significant underutilization of the program at a time when the program is performing better than ever. Many parents simply don't know our services exist. They assume the court will enforce their order or they feel intimidated about enrolling. Others are discouraged or pressured by the other parent. This is why AB 1643's automatic enrollment feature is so important. It removes the stigma, it reduces intimidation, it ensures parents receiving support by operation of law rather than requiring them to initiate a difficult personal decision. At the same time, the bill preserves an easy opt-out for parents who don't need assistance. AB 1643 strengthens families, reduces poverty, and does so without increasing costs to state or taxpayers. So I urge your support. Thank you very much.
Thank you so much. Now, do we have members of the public who justify and support the bill? Please come up to the microphone at this time. Ignacio Guerrero, director for the Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Services and California Child Support Association board member in support. Natalie Dillon, director of the Calusa Satteryolo Regional Child Support Agency and board member for the California Child Support Association in support. Leanne Peck, director for Solano County Department of Child Support Services and California Child Support Association board president in support. Crystal Quinn's behalf of the California Commission on the status of women and girls in support. Good morning. Sylvia Solisha here on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the County of Solano and also on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the County of San Joaquin. Thank you. Good morning. Josh Gogger on behalf of the Calusa County Board of Supervisors in support. Michelle Rubalcaba on behalf of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors in support. Amy Giselle, a parent receiving support in support of this bill. Abraham Mendoza, director of San Joaquin County Child Support, in support. Patricia Bartlett, director of the Yuba County Department of Child Support Services, in support. We got one more. Chair members, Jael Dentes on behalf of La Meda County in support. Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Please come to the desk if you'd like.
Good morning. Hello, Chair and members. My name is Rebecca Gonzalez, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and a member of the Truth and Justice and Child Support coalition, which represents 30 plus organizations. The Western Center and the coalition have an opposed and less amended position on AB 1643. We want to thank the author and sponsors for offering amendments to the bill. While we appreciate the amendments provide more clarity about the process and ensure more information will be shared with child support obligee parents, unfortunately, the amendments do not entirely resolve our concerns. Our main concern is that the structure of the bill still provides that opting in to child support enforcement services is the default. As revised, the bill will increase parent participation in the registry and provide an opportunity for parents to request services. It is therefore not necessary to deem all registry submissions as applications for enforcement services. Even with the amendments, the bill undermines parent choice. Although services provided by local child support agencies are invaluable to many families. Many parents may prefer to have more informal arrangements in order to preserve family dynamics and not create unnecessary tension, or they may not want their co-parent to be subject to the mandatory enforcement practices used by local child support agencies, which can include wage garnishments and tax refund offsets. Lastly, they might not want to pay the annual service fee which is required We also opine that deeming all child support registry submissions as applications for enforcement services does not comply with federal law which requires a parent to affirmatively apply Lastly, the amendments do not resolve our concerns about parents with sensitive individual circumstances who may not want to disclose them in the portal. We don't believe having a checkbox about domestic violence in an unstaffed portal is effective or safe, and it does not comply with best practices. The best way to address concerns about potential DV or other sensitive issues is to allow parents the choice to opt in so they could do so on their own terms. We appreciate the engagement with the author's office and the sponsors, and we hope to continue these conversations.
Thank you. All right. Thank you. Now, do we have any members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill? Please come to the microphone. Senor Rabancho with N Child Poverty California in opposition unless amended. Koisi Tern on behalf of Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in opposition unless amended. Okay. Now we're going back to the committee for questions, comments. Alright. Bill's a move and seconded. Any questions or comments? Okay. All right. I'll invite the author to close.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chai. I want to thank the opposition for being here as well, too. I think at the end of the day, we look at this. When you've got parents who are going through a separation or divorce, the children are always the one that everybody looks to, right? And many times when there is mediation that goes on and the parents are able to figure that out, that's always the best case and that's always fantastic. In this situation, we're not forcing anybody into child support if they're going through a separation in any ways. We're engaging in the fact of being able to offer more services, making it easily available. As somebody who speaks English as a second language, as somebody who's always afraid of paperwork and going through the whole government process, fortunately now I'm at the point where I can ask the questions. I can fill out the documents and know the pathway. But you've got a lot of families that are fearful of completing extra paperwork, that are fearful when they have to engage in situations such as this. And what we're trying to do is make it more simple. Childhood poverty is a thing. Is this the whole part of the reason why there is childhood poverty? No, but it is a small portion. When there's a single mom, single father that has custody over the kids and they're not receiving that extra income, that plays a role in this child's upbringing. That plays a role in this child's ability to be able to get fed, have a roof over their shoulder, be able to do all those activities that we see other kids be able to do. And that pulls into their adulthood as well. What we're trying to do is make sure that this family, the single parent, has the resources and services that he or she needs to be able to make sure this child or their children have an opportunity to thrive. And so this bill, this is in the right direction. And this is part of the reason why we want to be able to continue to help these families that are going through a situation, which is probably the worst part of their life when they have to go through this with their parents and see their parents go through this with that. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
I want to thank the author of bringing this bill forward and working with our committee to do quite substantive amendments on this one. I think we're getting all in the right direction. I know you continue to engage everyone, all stakeholders in this issue, but ultimately what you trying to do is take the friction out of the child support all the child support systems And so I think it a really good thing We working in the right direction and we collaborative on that And so I hope that I continue to move forward with this issue I do have a do pass as amended recommendation today. And again, I want to thank you for working collaborative with the committee. So the bill was moved by Assembly Talbot, seconded by Assemblyman Cascio. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. File item 5, AB 1643. The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Castillo? Aye. Castillo, aye. Calderon? El-Huari? Aye. El-Huari, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Aarons? Aarons, aye. Tongapah? Aye. Tongapah, aye. 6-0. That bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. All right. Next, we'll go to Assemblymember Salache. You have file number 6, AB-1708. whenever you're ready. Thank you, Mr.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. It's a big week this week. Cal City is in our Sacramento building. representing so many cities throughout California. And, you know, also I miss sitting as a sub, Mr. Chair, on this committee, so I was hoping that it would be a sub for today's meeting.
You set a good precedent for some of the errands.
Right, right.
You know, we can't do an upgrade all the time,
so happy that they were chosen today. With that, again, I'm grateful to you and the committee for the – I'm grateful to you and the committee for the great work on our bill. AB 1708 seeks to improve the existing homeless housing assistance and prevention program known as HAP by ensuring that smaller jurisdictions have the opportunity for more meaningful engagement, strengthening regional collaboration on homeless solutions. Currently, only 14 of the state's 483 cities can access HAP funding directly, and there's no statutory requirement for direct HAP recipients to equitably and meaningfully engage for allocated funds to smaller cities in our region. As a result, many cities, mid-sized cities, lack a clear path and resources, even as they invest significantly in local dollars to address homelessness. After working very closely with stakeholders and the Housing Committee, AB-1708 was amended to address concerns around funding uncertainty to ensure that any changes are not too burdensome. This work and engagement will continue as we move forward. I especially want to thank my local cities of Lakewood, Paramount, and Bellflower in my district for helping us take stakeholder feedback and development amendments. Cities are in front line, ensuring that they bring dollars from their general fund dollars to ensure that our in-house community are dealt with not only in a humane way, but also in a responsible way. I would also like to emphasize that nothing in AB-1708 requires allocation of funding for smaller cities. That measure simply requires the region to do this analysis and consider how we can better support smaller cities willing to do their part of regional solutions. As we continue to advocate to renew an investment in HAP, AB-1708 builds a framework that ensures that it's a future program around that we can more fully integrate smaller cities as active partners in regional coordination and planning. As the state continues to demand meaningful results in addressing homelessness across California, there needs to be a stronger support framework to help smaller cities continue serving their unhoused residents. I am proud to introduce our amazing and wonderful City of Lakewood Mayor Cassandra Chase to my right and City of Moreno Valley Mayor Ulises Cabrera to my left to testify in support We also have Caroline Grinder from the League of California Cities available for any technical questions
Great. Two minutes each, please, and whoever wants to go first.
Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. I am Cassandra Chase, Mayor of the City of Lakewood, and I am honored to speak in strong support of AB-1708, sponsored by the League of California Cities. In Lakewood, homelessness is personal. Our city has committed real resources to this work. $75,000 for two part-time homeless liaisons, nearly half a million dollars, $500,000 annually for shelter beds at the Bell Shelter, and year-round prevention through Project Shepherd, which helps vulnerable residents with food, utilities, and housing stability. We are committed. What we lack is consistent, direct access to state funding that lets us sustain and grow what is working. AB-1708 changes that. It requires regions to engage directly with cities like ours to assess gaps and to identify funding pathways. For smaller cities, this bill creates a clear, transparent process to apply for and access state resources. That mechanism does not currently exist. Homelessness is a regional challenge. The response must include every city. AB-1708 positions us as full partners in that solution. And with additional state support, Lakewood can deepen our work with service providers and ensure our unhoused neighbors receive consistent, meaningful care. The City of Lakewood respectfully asks for your aye vote on AB1708. Thank you.
Thank you. Next one is, please.
Hello, Honorable Chair and members of the committee. My name is Ulysses Cabrera. I'm the mayor of the city of Moreno Valley out in the Inland Empire. and I'm here in support of AB-1708, sponsored by the League of California Cities. In Moreno Valley, we have taken a proactive approach to addressing homelessness, investing significant city resources, and pursuing every available local, state, and federal funding opportunity. From 2019 to 2025, the city invested approximately $1.4 million in our general fund and $500,000 in community foundation funds for homeless services. In addition, we've sustained ongoing services through federal funding allocating about $22 million from 2019 to 2025 from programs such as CDBG, community project request funding, emergency solutions grants, and emergency rental assistance program. Those investments are making a real difference in Moreno Valley. In 2025 alone, the city reported a nearly 30% reduction in our homeless population. We have focused on community-identified solutions, deploying proactive outreach, partnering with local nonprofits, and investing in public safety. The city maintains an internal quality-of-life operations team that conducts twice-weekly outreach in collaboration with the Marina Valley Police Department, the Riverside University Health System, the Salvation Army, and the Path of Life. Additionally, the city convenes a monthly homeless task force that brings together internal departments and key community partners to coordinate outreach, align services, and strengthen collaboration. We have also prioritized long-term solutions through programs like our Homeless to Work program, which is supported by wraparound services through the Homeless Assistance Program. This ongoing partnership with the Salvation Army is crucial to the community and help unhoused individuals overcome barriers to employment and permanent housing. In our recently adopted operating budget, the City Council approved two full-time positions dedicated to leading the city's homeless initiatives. But even with these investments and strong partnerships, There are limits to what cities like ours can do without reliable access to state resources. While programs like HHAP are critical, cities like Moreno Valley do not have a clear pathway to receive those funds. As the legislature considers future investments in the HHAP program, it is important not only to sustain funding, but also to ensure the program is structured to maximize its impact for all jurisdictions, not just the largest ones. For these reasons, the city of Moreno Valley fully supports AB 1708 and respectfully asks for your aye vote.
Great. Thank you so much. And you're up here for technical assistance. Now, do we have members of the public who should testify in support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone. Well, I might need another hour for this part. All right. All right. The comment hour starts now. Here we go. Name and organization, please. Nicole Wardleman on behalf of the city of Santa Cruz in support. Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of the city of Pico Rivera in support. Jonathan Clay on behalf of the city of Encinitas in support. Isha Ayer on behalf of the city of Redwood City, the city of Carlsbad, and the city of Thousand Oaks. Thank you. In support. Juan Muñoz Guevara with the city of Linwood in strong support. Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the city of Santa Monica, city of West Hollywood, and the city of Oroville. All in support. Vanessa Lasseci with the City of Moreno Valley in support. Chair members, Luis Sanchez here on behalf of the City of San Bernardino in support. Thank you. Brian Melahan on behalf of the City of Moreno Valley in support. John Peraza, City of Moreno Valley, full support. Carla Meade, Vice Mayor, City of Bulton in full support. Callie Ramirez, City Councilmember, City of Gilroy, support. Bindu Makamala with the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support. Angel Galache, City of Moreno Valley, in support. Jeremy Bubnick, City of Moreno Valley, support. Michelle Rubelgava on behalf of the City of Chula Vista, in support. Lana Jimenez, City of Moreno Valley, in support. Patrick Foy, City of Redondo Beach, in support. Jack Wurston, City of Ventura, in support. Pablo Beltran, City of Lakewood, in support. Hoyt C. Tern, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization, in support. Thank you. Wow, Moreno Valley, you're rolling in deep today. Senator Jackson would have been proud. Yes, sir. All right, do we have witnesses in opposition? please come up to the desk or microphone, whichever you prefer. When it's the opposition. Okay. Do we, Oh, okay. Yeah. Go for it.
Good morning, Nicole Curry. And on behalf of the office of Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass and respectful opposition.
Thank you All right Do we have any other members of the public who wish to voice our opposition to the bill Any other opposition Okay Seeing none I bring it back to the committee Any questions or comments All right. Any questions, comments? No? All right. Okay. First, the assembly we're talking about, then, Vice Chair Casio.
I just want to thank the author. I think when we're planning some of these smaller municipalities, it needs some help. and so they should be factored in. It's crazy to think that $300,000 is considered small, but it is for California. For a lot of the other states, it's the largest city in that state. So again, just thank the author and I appreciate you bringing the bill.
And I just want to thank the author for the bill. I see the support here and one of my cities in my district, which is 1% of my district, is the city of Grand Terrace. So I'm going to just name Grand Terrace. And, you know, it's a small little part, and I feel they always get overlooked. So thank you. All right. I'll invite the author to close.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think there's no better evidence than Morino Valley and Lakewood as two prime examples of the work they're doing literally in their cities to be a partner with the state, to be a partner with our region. And I think the whole conversation of the spirit of this conversation is how do we bring equity to all cities and specifically those that are doing the groundwork. This week, when I saw the governor, I literally said, we need to ensure that, you know, we bring equity to the cities that are doing the work and we support them and not punish them for doing the work. So I want to just commend all of these throughout California for doing that. And we want to be partners with our big cities as well, because this is a regional problem for all of us to address. And we need to, again, without a doubt, bring that humane perspective around the house community. And as a local mayor myself, this is also a personal commitment to ensure that our small cities get their fair share of support as they combat and deal with this issue directly. And again, bringing that humane perspective. And again, to CalCities, thank you. And thank you all for your support. Looking forward to an aye vote today.
Well, thank you so much, Theoth, for bringing this bill forward. It does have an aye recommendation for me today. And I did, of course, already see this in the Housing Committee, but I didn't voice my comments at the time yet because I wanted to save for this time. I do really appreciate this because I do think as someone that represents the large cities, San Jose, I guess this, and also smaller cities that are not eligible for HHAP, I think it is important that we look at the results first, not just about the large cities. The large cities themselves, yes, do need a lot of support, and we should be supporting those, but homelessness is not exclusive to large cities alone. And I think as you have two great witnesses today talking about the programs you do locally, I mean, those expenditures are percentage-wise quite significant of your budget. And I think HHAP, rightfully so, should be open to competition in that sense. I mean, there's no guarantee that Lakewood will compete better than Los Angeles or San Francisco, but it's still all in there. And I want to point out that, you know, I understand the opposition's concern that this is a very limited pool of money that opens up more subscriptions. So it's become oversubscribed, and that is true. But we also have to fight for the budget because in the current governor's budget, there is no HAP money right now. And many of us in this room are fighting for the HAP money to come back. And I think having the advocacy of our big city mayors and our small city mayors all together of all sizes probably boosts the success of us bringing HAP back. So I think this is a good way to approach the program, but also approach our large fiscal question too. And I think in the future, we'll continue to work on this program so that more cities get the support they need. But, you know, these are I want to acknowledge the opposition's concerns. That is just mathematically true, but doesn't mean that this is not a good idea. So it does enjoy an iReco for me today, and I'm happy to support it. It was moved by Assemblymember Taghiba and seconded by Assemblymember Castillo. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on AB 1708. File item 6 AB 1708 The motion is due pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee Lee Aye Lee aye Castillo Aye Castillo aye Calderon El Not voting El not voting Rubio Aye Rubio aye Ahrens Aye Ahrens aye Tongapa Aye Tongapa aye 5-0. We will leave the roll open, perhaps, to members, so that bill is out. Thank you. Thank you. All right, next we'll go to Assembly Member Sharp-Collins. I understand there's a transit issue, so we're going to let Sharp Collins come up. Hey. Hello. Hey. Hello. How are you? Good. Good to have you back. Yeah. Good to have you back. All right. Whenever you're ready. All right.
Good morning, Chair and members. Today I'm here to present Assembly Bill 2395, a bill that fosters equity throughout the state by increasing access to the state child support debt reduction program. California carries more than $6 billion in government-owned child support debt, much of which is actually exacerbated by the 10% interest rate, which is one of the highest within the nation. People get into these types of debt because the parent paying child support must repay the government assistance their child receives. The result of this government reimbursement comes at the expense of a child that actually loses money, meaning the parents will be losing the money for which they can actually provide. This can be a harmful situation as the child is already eligible for government assistance due to their custodial parents' income. The debt reduction program was created to assist these low-income families who have become paralyzed by their debt situation. However, the program lacks the uniformity as local child support agencies have varying methods of administrating the program. This causes some parents to miss their opportunity to participate in a program that could assist them in providing for their child. My bill will ensure that local child support agencies have readily available program contact information, establishes a clear timeline for processing cases, and allow parents the opportunity to contest agency action. So with me here today to testify in support is Rebecca Gonzalez, policy advocate for Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Coy Saturn from the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, reading a testimony on behalf of Delmont Hampton from Van Nuys, California. Before I turn it over to them as well, please note that we are in ongoing conversations with the California Child Support Association, who are in opposition, and we do believe that we can find some type of middle point as we continue to move forward to work on the bill.
And I appreciate that acknowledgement. All right, two minutes to each witness, please.
Good morning, Rebecca Gonzalez. Once again, we're the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We are co-sponsor of this bill under the umbrella of the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition. This bill creates enforceable statewide standards to ensure the existing debt reduction program and child support truly helps low-income parents who qualify based on their income and assets to settle their government-owned debt. For over 40 years, California has required parents who receive CalWORKs to repay those benefits by intercepting their child support. Families receiving CalWORKs generally only receive $100 for one child or $200 for two or more children of their monthly child support. while the government keeps the rest. When non-custodial parents cannot afford to pay this debt as was mentioned California adds a 10 interest rate and low parents are billion They owe billion in government debt Past studies show that 95 of this government debt is uncollectible and the bulk of the state-owned arrears are owed by parents with extremely low incomes. In many of the cases, the children are now adults and the parents are in their 50s and 60s. This bill improves the existing program by ensuring statewide uniformity and improving access and removing barriers by requiring publicly available statewide standards that could be enforced through the department's existing complaint resolution process, report requirements to evaluate the uniformity and effectiveness, require all local child support agencies to post the application to the program on their website, have a designated phone number or email and send a notice to parents who are potentially eligible, require applications to be acted upon within set time periods, and requiring repayment options be provided to applicants based on statewide eligibility and repayment standards. Lifting the burden of government-owned child support debt from parents has shown to reduce employment barriers, improve housing status and credit scores, and more importantly, improve parent-child and co-parenting relationships. This bill is a common-sense improvement of existing program, which creates uniformity so parents are able to benefit from the program equally, regardless of what county they live in. For these reasons, we ask for your support of this bill.
Thank you. All right. Thank you, Arun.
Our next witness, please. Hi, Chair and Committee members. Koi Se Tern, legislative advocate for the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. We're also co-sponsors of AB 2395. And I'm reading DeMont Hampton's testimony. Good afternoon, Honorable Committee members. My name is DeMont Hampton, and I live in Van Nuys. My child support obligations began in 1995, and over time, because I could not pay the full amount, my child support arrears just ballooned. My debt just got so high that I felt like I was stuck in a hole. My children are in their 30s, and I had over $100,000 in child support arrears, most of it interest. Also, all of my arrears were assigned to the government and not owed to my children. Over the last decade, I have been on a fixed income. Every month, child support garnered $50 for my Social Security. It was important to me to address my child support arrears because they held me back from growing in life. I could not move forward while I had such a big debt. Over the years, I talked to child support workers and family law facilitators about my arrears, but no one ever told me about the debt reduction program. It wasn't until I went to neighborhood legal services that an attorney told me about the program. At first, I couldn't even get a copy of the application. When I asked my child support caseworker about it, she told me that in order to apply, LA Child Support had to first audit my account, which could take up to a year. After the audit was complete, Child Support sent me a copy of the application. I returned the application and it took three more months to receive a response. When my application was approved, they told me that I had to make a payment within 30 days. They would not show me a copy of the debt relief agreement until I made the payment. Luckily, I was able to make the payment and sign the agreement, and today all of my child support debt has been resolved. AB 2395 will help other people like me resolve old and burdensome government owed debt, child support debt. It will make sure people know about the debt reduction program. It will make sure there are clear rules to follow to and apply and qualify. And it will make sure that people do not have to wait for months and months to get the relief they qualify for and move forward in their lives. Yeah.
All right. Thank you. Now do we have any members of the public who wish to find support of the bill? please come with the microphone. Yes, I'm here with Antal Poverty, California. We're sponsors of the bill as well and strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition to this bill? Please come up to the... Yep. Please come up to the desk or microphone, whichever you prefer. All right. Two minutes each, please. And whoever wants to start, you can get started. Chair members, Michael Smitsky on behalf of the California Child Support Association. First and foremost, I want to thank the author and the sponsors for their willingness to come to the table. CalCSA and our professionals are committed to getting the COPE program correct, and we look forward to future conversations. Just, I think, two things for the committee during discussion. The Department of Child Support Services is working on a debt management program that encompasses uncollectible debt and COPE. It includes COPE because that is actually a decision that is broader than what was required under the legislative mandate. So they are working on that, and we would like the opportunity to have some more of that data as we proceed in that. And I appreciate the consideration of extended implementation dates to reflect some of that data. I also want to ask the committee to keep in mind the families on the other side of these cases. So while the bill focuses on state owed arrears, changes in the space do not occur in a vacuum. Many parents who are raising children without consistent support are already making impossible choices to cover rent, food, transportation, utilities, and school needs. In many cases, they go into debt to provide for their children, and the creditors that they rely on are far less forgiving than the child support program. For that reason, policy in this area must be balanced carefully so that efforts to address obligor hardship do not unintentionally disregard the hardship of parents and families who have been waiting for support. Here today we have Amy who is a parent receiving support and a mom and she will add some comments as well. Thank you Good morning. Thank you. My name is Amy. I'm here representing myself as a mother. I am speaking out in opposition to AB 2395 This bill is written entirely from the perspective of the obligor I did want to share that any compromise of arrears is a direct financial hardship for the family receiving support With full pass-through now in place, arrears go directly to the parent raising the child, even when they're adults. When you make it easier to compromise debt, you are not helping families. You are asking them to take yet another financial loss after years of being under-supported. The arrears affected by this bill typically come from years of noncompliance, and by the time we get to debt compromise, many of these children are adults. Unfortunately, there's a fundamental misunderstanding that child support debt loses its purpose once children turn 18. In the world of parenting, that couldn't be farther from the truth. When the support didn't show up for years, I didn't get a 75% discount on my bills. I didn't get a compromise on my rent or on any other things that I needed to do to support my children. As the primary parent for two children that live with me, including one adult and one minor, Consistent support, including arrears, raised my income to help me qualify to finally buy my first home. Our home provides the stability we need for a successful future. It also allows my eldest the option to live at home while they continue establishing themselves as a responsible adult. Collection on arrears is the long-term recovery for the years I spent carrying the financial burden alone. This bill, to enhance the ease of applying and qualifying for a compromise, threatens collection on arrears that would be paid directly to the family. This bill also proposes to make optional Also proposes to make it optional for debtors to be compliant with their current obligation Even on past due arrears By making compliance optional for a debt compromise AB 2395 sends a message You are actively creating a hardship for families and signaling to obligors that they can ignore their current duties while fishing for a discount on their past ones. I spent years dealing with a parent who ignored every agreement or order until a real consequence was on the line. This bill rewards that disengagement. It punishes the proactive parent by handing yet another free pass to one who chooses to ignore their financial responsibility for years. AB 2395 is a legislated hardship for families. With the implementation of pass-through, arrears now go directly home to families, including myself. As written, this bill is a direct hit to the financial integrity of the household and overlooks the receiving parent's perspective entirely. The debtor had years to be proactive, is now asking for a fresh start at the expense of the hardship and the stability of the family. If I could ask you to wrap up, please. Thank you. Receiving parents and their children shouldn't have to face further financial hardship today because the other parent chose not to be present for decades. I urge the committee to reject this bill, prioritizing the parent who did the work, carried the burden, and continues to support their children into adulthood must be the number one priority. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. Now, do we have any members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill? Please come to the microphone. Ignacio Guerrero, Director for the Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Services and California Child Support Association board member. In opposition, unless amended. Leanne Peck, California Child Support Association Board President, opposed unless amended. Dallin Fredrickson, Director of the Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services, opposed unless amended. Thank you. Now we'll bring back to the committee members for questions or comments. Senator Rubio? Yes, I do have a question about the areas. I was unaware that it does go back to the family. Is that correct? So, okay. So let me just be clear that for this bill, do you want to do it? Yeah, if I can address that. So people who are formally on CalWORKs, recently they are passing those through if they could collect that debt. But not for people who are currently on CalWORKs. If you're currently on CalWORKs, only $100 goes to the family for one kid, $200 goes to the family for two kids, and the rest becomes owed to the government. So over time, people have had a lot of debt. Only recently did they start right-sizing child support orders. So it really is based on what people could pay. So over the years, this debt has just grown and grown and grown. Yeah, no, I'm not asking about the debt. I'm asking about the arrears. So formerly. So formerly, yes. So formerly and currently, I want to make sure that we're not excusing to the witness's point, that by excusing it, now we're taking some of those arrears from the family members. And, you know, I agree with, you know, trying to help people, but if it's hurting to the point that the mom was making is, you know, hurting her after she did everything possible to make sure that she raised her children. And then now, you know, that money is not going to her or to her kids, if you don't mind. So the debt reduction program already exists. It exists right now, and they try to help, you know, they try to figure out how people could get a handle on their debt maybe pay a portion of it and you know make it so that you know that there could be hopefully some contribution This bill really just puts uniform standards on it because our counties operate it differently and we don't want people to have a different experience depending on what county they live in. And so as you heard about DeMont Hampton, he was going through this existing program. It took a very long time for him to figure out a settlement to his debt. he did eventually. So we just want this existing program to work better. May I ask? And we're talking about very low income. Well, let me ask the opposition. Yeah. Part of the advantages of how the program is currently established is it does allow flexibility with a case-by-case basis. Part of child support that I think is nuanced, you know, across our cases is that a lot of times we have the flexibility to approach things on an individualistic case by case basis. And I think that's critically important to understanding the fundamentals of each family dynamic as they come across. So I think in principle on some of the concepts of standardization, we would be in favor. There's just ones that we'd like to work on behind the scenes about making sure it ensures that there's a local flavor and context to each one of these cases. Okay. So, so again, the concern for me is, you know, understanding what our witness is saying is if that is going to be taken away, and I understand the 100, 200 doesn't matter really because that money is owed to them. And it is really unfair that if there's money going to be taken away, I'm substituting today, by the way, just to be clear. But I am interested though in not putting more of a burden on the parent that has done the right thing because we all know that unfortunately we have those people that are not paying child support and then all of a sudden we're going to come and rescue them you know years and years uh you know years afterwards while the the the money should have rightfully still have gotten to the kids even if they're in their 30s that money belonged to them um so i don't want to put extra burden on folks but if if you're saying that um and i trust assembly member sharp collins that this can be worked out so that there is no unintended consequence, if you will, of taking money from those parents that are taking care of the kids? Do you think that that can be worked out? Yes. I believe we can work with the author and the sponsors to come to an agreement. Okay. We're very close here. It's just like a matter of time to get the amendments in, but I do think we're very close. We're often two sides of the same coin. Yeah, and that's why I'm asking because I'm not used to seeing both. I'm like, wait, what's happening here? We would like to work together to do what's in the best interest of the family, whether they're together or separated. And in this case, we understand the parents receiving support have a fundamental concern. But we also, at the same time, we don't want to put obligors in a position where they can never escape out of that circumstance. So we're very, very mindful of that. And the child support program increasingly has become more family centric and is approaching cases in that way. We spend more time per case now than we did five years ago by a significant margin. And thank you. And I appreciate that, though. But again, always my concern because I've seen so many cases where the parent is not receiving the child support or they'll send $100 and it's like, oh, you know, and the parent is supposed to be grateful for that small amount of money. kids eat every day and not just once in a while And again my concern is to make sure that some of these cases as well are not just all of a sudden being bailed out because they were responsible to their children or to their families prior to this hardship. Right. If I can say one last thing. Absolutely. Absolutely. So just to make it clear that parents who are currently on CalWORKs, It is the practice or the policy of the state that they only get $100 if it's one kid or $200 if it's two kids, and the rest goes back to the government to pay back for benefits. So that's the way the program runs in California right now. I think both of us, the CalCSA and Western Center, would love to see full pass-through. That is our ultimate goal, that all child support goes directly to the families. But if there's no pass-through, though, and it's being sent back to the government, is that going to decrease the pot of money that's available for CalWORKs? Because now we're not receiving the... I guess I don't think families should pay for CalWORKs. I think families who are owed child support should get their child support. We agree with that. Right. But then they are on CalWORKs, right? And we are in a tough budget situation, and we're cutting CalWORKs. So which is, yeah, that's why we're not doing full pass through this year, but we'll come back. I think we'll both come back, actually. Well, I just want to make sure that, you know, I hear you and I want to make sure that parents are not put in that situation because of, you know, we're trying to. And I understand the hardships, but parents that support the kids go through hardships as well. So thank you. Thank you. All right. Okay. Thank you. Do you have any questions or comments from committee members or motions from members? All right. I will ask the author to close then. Thank you for the robust conversation, Assemblymember. I really do appreciate that. I would also like to acknowledge to my witness that I do hear you as well. And we will continue to work at this so that way we can't move forward. So with that, you know, Assembly Bill 2395 is about making sure that government works for the people to make their lives just a bit easier. And I'm saying that again because I wanted you to know that we're going to continue to work together to get this right, to make sure that families can have exactly what they need to have. So thank you, chair members, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I want to thank the author for working on this important issue, and you heard a lot of good, robust conversations today that I do have a lot of faith that working through the different committees, too, that you're going to continue to work together to try to find a solution out there. So I do appreciate the questions raised today on this issue. I do have an aye recommendation. The bill was moved by Assembly Ahrens and seconded by Assembly Ahuari. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on this bill. File item 15, AB 2395. The motion is due passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Castillo? Not voting. Castillo, not voting. Calderon? El-Huari? Aye. El-Huari, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Ahrens? Aye. Ahrens, aye. Tongapah? Not voting. Tongapah, not voting. 4-0. That bill's out, and we'll leave the roll open for OPSA members. Thank you. All right, next we're going to go Assembly Member Shaivo, and then I see Assembly Patterson is here with us. So it'll be Shaivo, then Patterson. Thank you. Thank you. to be authoring AB 1914 this year, which will require local governments to include child care in their planning efforts. I want to start by accepting the committee amendments. Thank you. And just say, you know, affordable access to child care supports a healthy child's development. My first job actually out of college was working for a Head Start program, a tribal Head Start program. And there was a lot of new brain research coming out at the time talking about how important early childhood education and support is on a lifetime of development. And so we want to make sure that parents can go to work and school and help businesses in our economy thrive and have a safe place for their kids. But millions of American families are struggling to find just affordable, reliable, quality child care that they can depend on. And although California has made significant investments in child care in the recent years, the supply-demand gap persists. One in seven children who are eligible for services actually receive those services. This means that 1.8 million children who are eligible are not receiving child care services. Without access to child care support, a single mother of an infant who is a school-age child in California will spend 61% of their income on child care. As the cost of living continues to rise and threats to cut funding from federal government programs continue, we are faced with additional barriers to affordable child care. That's why it's increasingly important to examine child care accessibility and as communities plan for growth and infrastructure needs. To address the state's child care crisis, all levels of government must be involved in prioritizing planning for their communities and child care needs. Instead of relying solely on ad hoc solutions to address child care accessibility, AB 1914 is a promising strategy to promote greater consistency and consideration for child care in earlier stages of local planning while preserving local discretion. Requiring local governments to develop a child care plan is crucial. It supports economic development by enabling workforce participation. It attracts families and talent. It promotes healthier, family-friendly communities. and it aligns land use with community needs, ensuring that equitable access and reducing traffic, integrating child care facilities near homes, jobs, and transportation. As we saw from the fires in Los Angeles, it's also really critical that we include child care in disaster planning and resilience strategies to ensure that children are cared for before, during, and after disasters. so they have access to safe healthy learning environments Today I have with me Shelly Mazur Vice President for ECE Advisory and State Policy at the Low Income Investment Fund and Sacramento City Councilman and Chair of the Sacramento County Head Start Board, Eric Guerra. Thank you very much. Two minutes to each of your witnesses, please. Good morning, Chair Lee, committee members and staff. I am Dr. Shelly Mazur. I'm the Vice president of advisory and state policy at the low income investment fund. LIF is a national CDFI with the vision that everyone live in a community of equity, opportunity, and wellbeing. We seek to achieve this vision by investing in affordable housing and childcare facilities, as we recognize that both are essential community infrastructure. Both make it possible for local communities to maintain economic diversity and stability for families. We are pleased to sponsor AB 1914 to ensure cities and counties recognize the role that child care facilities play in communities and that to promote access to care, cities and counties need to plan. We're grateful to Assemblymember Schiavo for authoring this bill, to the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls for being a co-sponsor, and to staff for working with us to make some clarifications. As a former city council member myself, I'm committed to helping build communities by building the supply of child care. We believe that like housing, child care supply building requires planning and that cities and counties can support that through including child care in their general plans or by creating a separate child care plan. Along with the rest of the country, California is facing a child care crisis exacerbated by the lack of facilities, workforce shortages, and inadequate funding. We have a multifaceted problem that requires multifaceted solutions. AB 1914 offers one by engaging cities and counties and further planning for the needs of their community by planning for child care. My own city, Redwood City, has included child care in their general plan since 2010, as the city continued to plan for growth in both housing and its economic base. This legislation would not require jurisdictions to build child care, rather to work with the community to plan for and support child care facilities and programs. Across the state, we are seeking ways to increase the supply of child care through work with cities. Planning for child care is one piece of a complicated puzzle, and we ask for your support. Thank you, Chair and members. Eric Guerra, Councilman for the City of Sacramento and Chair of the Sacramento County SETA Head Start. Child care functions are a core public infrastructure that enables workforce participation, economic stability, and healthy child development. This legislation presents a necessary policy response for California's persistent child care shortage. And across California, families face significant barriers when attempting to secure reliable and affordable child care. Many regions lack sufficient license providers, forcing parents to join long wait lists, reduce work hours, and leave the workforce entirely. As a legislative staffer here, I faced those two-year-long wait lists when we were having our first child as well here. That's why the city of Sacramento and every city should have in their guiding document a general plan, in the general plan, the conditions of child care. In the city of Sacramento, we've included it in multiple areas, under workforce development, from cradle to career, understanding that it's also an important part of our economic development. The second also a new development in commercial corridors and ensuring that when we growing as a city we planning for the needs that families will live in communities and will inevitably need childcare near transit options as well And also the requirement that multifamily housing developments have as part of one of their consideration factors the need to respond to child care. And also our land use section, when we require public and neighborhood serving uses, we require the consideration of pharmacies and grocery stores. We should also be including childcare. Childcare, it needs work as a region. Here, people live in West Sacramento, but they live in the city. As a parent, you look for childcare close to home or close to work. This is why every city should have it in their general plan. AB 1914 addresses the structural gap in the state, and we urge your aye vote to make sure that every family and every parent has the ability for accessible, affordable childcare. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much for testimony. Now, do we have members of the public who should testify in support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone. Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support. Crystal Quinn's behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, practical sponsor of the bill. Melanie Dotson, CEO, Executive Director, Four Seas of Sonoma County, in support. Deneen Micheletti, CEO of Thriving Families, California, in support. All right. Any other members of Palakushitesai in support of the bill? Pamela Campos, San Jose City Councilmember, in support of the bill. All right. Do you have any members? Do you have any opposition to this bill? Any members of the public who should speak in opposition to the bill, please come up to the microphone. So now we'll bring it back to the committee for questions, comments. Assemblymember Ahrens, do you have? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the the assembly member for bringing this bill forward. I think it's so critical that we address child care and these issues and want to thank our San Jose Councilmember, Pamela Campos, who's been working with me on raising this issue much more forcefully, especially in our Silicon Valley, where we feel the affordability crisis and the child care crisis, I would argue, more acutely than other areas, given our high cost of living. in our region. And I would love to be considered to be a co-author if you'll have me. Thank you so much for bringing this forward. Thank you. All right. I said, what did you talk about? Okay, go for it. Yeah, I just want to thank the author. I'm in respectful opposition to it. And mainly it's because I just believe it paints with a really broad brush. And I believe the city council member has stated if a local city in a local jurisdiction wants to implement it into their general plan, they have the ability to do so right now. I've been meeting with a lot of cities and other local municipalities where we have similar bills like this that require whether it's farm worker housing or different types of housing. And now the cities are getting pushback from when they submit their general plan. They're saying, the state is telling us to put this type of housing in, but we have zero farm workers. and yet now it's non-compliant. And that's the same thing where I see that there are other cities that, again, if they can consider it, they should be able to do so right now. And what I'm hearing quite a bit is a lot of cities and other local municipalities and jurisdictions are potentially going to file a lawsuit against the state of California and taking the route of unfunded mandates And I just believe that this puts another one While I understand the need when it comes to child care I think we should provide funding from the state incentivizing and looking at it to allow these other local municipalities to do so and adopt that style instead of just telling everybody from the statewide, like, you will implement this into your plan if it really doesn't fit the regional needs. And so And that's just the way I think about it, since I represent such a large, diverse area. We've got to give some of the cities a little bit more freedom to make the right decisions for them. So thank you. All right. If there's no more questions or comments, I'll let the author close. Thank you so much. I think, you know, last I checked, there's kids in every community who might need child care. But I think, you know, this does have a lot of flexibility. And I understand your concerns that you're raising, but this has a lot of flexibility. It can either be in the general plan or a separate plan that can be identified as a child care plan. But, you know, what we're finding is that it's just not happening. Communities are not choosing to do it, except for one great community over here that we found in the whole state. Okay, good, good. A couple more. A couple. Um, but, uh, but we, you know, as was discussed at our last, um, hearing assembly member, Stephanie talked about how she pushed for childcare to be in a development that was happening in San Francisco. And the only reason that that happened was because Catherine Stephanie thought it was a good idea and pushed for it, but it was not part of a larger plan. It was not part of a larger discussion. And I think that we just have to be really intentional about this. This was something that cost people more than their mortgage, child care. And people make huge life decisions based on whether or not they can afford child care. You know, in my own case, my ex-husband, he was transitioning jobs and we chose at that time for him not to work because it was it was too expensive to pay for child care and better for him to just go back to school and take care of our little one. And, you know, and that sets families back. It gets to an affordability issue for all of us. And so this is just asking for a conversation to happen, for there be thoughtfulness and intentionality about it to see what is the need. And it leaves freedom for every community to decide what makes sense for them, but really make sure that there is actually a discussion, that people are brought together to talk about what the needs are and that there's a plan behind it. So respectfully request an aye vote and thank you. All right. Thank you. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill. I know you took a lot of amendments and did a lot of conversations in the previous committee to work on this point where now there's minimal or no opposition to it formally. And I do really want to commend you for this, even though it has been quite difficult policy-wise or politically-wise. I don't think it's a difficult policy. I do think as our cities grow and California grows, it is necessary and vital to plan for human infrastructure growth, just like we plan, of course, for housing. for healthcare and fire and all these things. The human infrastructure of taking care of our kids is so important. And it really ensures, and I hope this will be a bipartisan kind of push, is that California is pro-family and pro-child because we are not intentional about being pro-children, pro-family. That belies everything else on housing growth or population growth if you're not supporting families. That's fundamental to it. And that's why I think this bill is so important that it makes cities, as you said, be intentional about planning not just for new people in general to come in, but also what is the human infrastructure to support them, not just the jobs and not just the home part, but also like what happens to their children, right? Because I think too much of that is seen too starkly in terms of jobs and housing imbalances or something like that. So I'd really do like this bill. I would like to be as a joint author with you and to help you get this all the way through to the end because it is a novel but very much needed approach. And we are looking for a motion and a second on this one. Approval. Second. All right. The bill is moved by Assembly Aarons and seconded by Assembly Al-Hawari. This enjoys a aye recommendation. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on this bill. File item 8, AB 1914. The motion is due pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Castillo? Not voting. Castillo, not voting. Calderon? Al-Hawari? Aye. Al-Hawari, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Aarons? Aye. Aarons, aye. Tongapaw? Aye. It's okay. Tongva, no. Tongva, no. Four to one, we'll leave that roll open for absent members. Thank you. But that bill is out. All right, next we will go to Assemblymember Patterson's final item number 10, AB 2171. AB 2171. All right, whenever you're ready. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, and for sticking around on a Thursday now afternoon. Appreciate it. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2171, which is a bold but very important bill. Unlike other bills that share a similar goal, this bill creates a narrow exemption within both the CalFresh program and California Food Assistance Program to prevent the use of these funds for sweetened beverages and candy. Given the opposition from a number of industry groups, including many people I respect, it might have been easier for me to walk away and be done with it. But I would say that very few things are more important to me than our health, and especially individuals more likely to have negative health outcomes. We talk a lot about this in Health Committee, actually, something that I had an opportunity to learn about myself, which is social determinants of health. Some things pointed out by some opponents or in the analysis are that there are other reasons individuals qualifying for SNAP have worse health outcomes. When it comes to dirty air, we don't say, hey, you know, let's sit idly by. When it comes to lack of access to water, we don't sit back and say, hey, you know what, let's not address this. when it comes to redlining, lack of quality schools. We don't sit back, we act. And this is an issue where we need to act. Obesity is the leading cause of preventable death. A 2014 study by the Mayo Clinic found that SNAP participants have a lower dietary quality than income-eligible non-participant counterparts. In other words, people that qualify for SNAP but are not on SNAP actually have a better diet. And just the following year, actually 74% of CalFresh recipients themselves say they support removing sugary drinks from the program. A 2026 study just this year by the American Journal of Preventative Medicine found that policies just like this, quote, reduce health disparities between income groups while reducing health care costs. And in 2020 they said SNAP restrictions would substantially decrease obesity and diabetes A systemic review of seven studies showed that all seven confirmed that removing sweetened beverages from SNAP would lower its consumption and six of those studies showed a significant decrease California has been pioneering some of the most forward-thinking policies to increase healthy foods in our communities, and we've done that in a bipartisan manner. Why? Because we all recognize that unhealthy foods have extremely negative impacts on not only the health of individuals, but society in general. During COVID, California started offering free breakfasts and lunches to every student. Why? Because it might be the only meal kids eat. Two years ago, we banned toxic artificial dyes, and just last year, we banned ultra-processed foods in school lunches. In both cases, I was one of the first Republican co-authors of those measures because unhealthy foods have an impact on so many things. The legislature has been very clear. We need to strengthen our food supply and ensure that children in particular have healthy options. California's work in this area has been bipartisan and landmark, with members on both sides of the aisle supporting bringing more access to high-quality, nutrient-dense foods. The foods covered by the spill are sweetened beverages and candy, which have little nutritional value and negative health impacts. I'd like to close by saying, you know, I mean, just on a personal story, and I understand, you know, when I was growing up, there was a time where at the time we called them food stamps. And I was on those, you know, my family was on those growing up. And so I understand about the discrimination that can occur as a result of using these products and how some people look at it. It's a critical program, but let's not continue to feed individuals these sugary beverages with that program. With me in support, I have Timothy Madden on behalf of the California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology and Ryan Spencer from CPMA. Thank you, Chair and members. Tim Madden, representing the California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology in support of AB 2171. Our support for limiting sugary drinks and candy in food assistance programs is rooted in the preventive medicine model. Using public policy is a tool to lower the risk of chronic heart conditions before they require medical intervention. There is little debate on the impact of sugary drinks and candy on a person's cardiovascular health. Regular consumption of sugary beverages and candy is strongly linked to stroke, heart attack, heart failure, as well as irregular heart rhythm, not to mention diabetes and other conditions. For children, limiting sugary drinks and candy early can prevent the development of long dietary habits that lead to early onset heart disease. Over the years, speaking with cardiologists, they share seemingly daily conversations with patients facing significant cardiovascular challenges. After having a heart attack or facing a major heart procedure or even just seeing their cardiovascular health slowly worsen, they ask what they can do to improve their health. As the discussion centers on eating habits, sugary beverages, and candy, consumption is commonly a major contributor to their condition. It's the habit that is leading patients to these cardiovascular challenges. If patients can create better eating habits, the long-term benefits are undisputable. ab 2171 is an opportunity to help create better habits that will lead to a longer healthier life we urge your aye vote all right next witness please thank you mr chair ryan spencer on behalf of the california podiatric medical association cpma in support of ab 2171 podiatrists have a direct and often urgent perspective on diet diseases They treat the downstream consequences of poor nutrition every day particularly in patients with diabetes High sugar consumption contributes to poor glycemic control, which significantly increases the risk of neuropathy, chronic wounds, infection, and ultimately lower extremity amputations. These are not abstract outcomes. They are life-altering and, in many cases, preventable. From a clinical standpoint, foot health is inseparable from metabolic health. Elevated blood glucose impairs circulation, delays wound healing, and reduces body's ability to fight infection, conditions that disproportionately manifest in the lower extremities. As a result, dietary patterns, especially excessive sugar intake, directly influence whether a patient maintains mobility or progressives towards disability. We believe AB 2171 will help address many of these downstream health issues and prevent subsidizing products known to undermine health and drive chronic disease. In doing so, this bill supports healthier choices, reduces long-term health care costs, and helps prevent the very complications podiatrists are working to treat. For these reasons, CPA is proud to support AB 2171 and ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Now do we have members of the public who should testify in support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone in support of the bill. Okay. Do we have primary witnesses in opposition? Please come up to the desk. All right, two minutes each, please. Whoever wants to start first can go first. Good morning. Is this on? Okay. Okay. Good morning, chair members. Whitney Francis with Western Center on Law and Poverty. While we support the author's goal of improving health outcomes, we do not believe AB 2171 will help our state achieve that goal. The SNAP program, known in California as CalFresh, is our state's most important anti-hunger program serving over 5 million Californians. Data shows that being enrolled in CalFresh improves health outcomes and reduces health care costs for low-income people. This is because the program is already addressing the top barriers to healthy eating, affordability, and access to nutritious foods. Research shows that policing the food choices of low-income consumers does not improve dietary outcomes, meaning this bill will fail to achieve its intended goal. It will also make CalFresh less effective at reducing food insecurity while creating stigma, confusion, and shame amongst recipients for simply being poor. Looking at other states that have already passed these SNAP food restrictions, the implementation has proven to be complex and costly. This is administrative time and money that we should continue to prioritize for the critical HR1 implementation to minimize the harmful impacts of the administrative cost shift and time limits that we know will result in millions of Californians losing CalFresh benefits and going hungry. Furthermore, AB 2171 directly conflicts with the existing state law, which reflects California's commitment to recipient dignity and equal treatment of those using CalFresh by stipulating that the State Department of Social Services shall maximize all available food choices for CalFresh recipients. Beyond the legal conflict with state law, implementing this bill would require CDSS to apply for a food restriction waiver from the USDA. There's currently a five-state lawsuit that was filed against the USDA this March, challenging the Trump administration's authority to approve these waivers. In fact, the USDA has consistently refused to approve SNAP food restriction waivers under all previous Republican and Democratic administrations due to their questionable effectiveness feasibility and legality AB 2171 would put California in the position of pursuing a waiver that has been rejected by every previous administration and is currently being litigated in federal court. For these reasons and more, a broad coalition of CAFRA stakeholders oppose this bill, and we respectfully urge your no vote on AB 2171. Okay, thank you. Next witness, please. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Guadalupe Lopez, an independent grocer. For over 30 years, I have provided families with access to quality and affordable food. I stand in opposition AB 2171. This proposal is a benefit restriction bill, not a nutrition education bill. If we want healthier communities, we must start early by teaching children that food is nourishment. Education creates a lasting change. We can teach our kids that a snack can be an apple, a carrot, or a banana, not just chips or candy. Product definitions are too bland for a retail operation. A drink is prohibited if five grams or more of sugar is added, but allows drinks that have over 50% use with far more sugar. It creates real challenges for grocery store. Our checkout systems do not identify levels of fruit or levels of sugar. They simply scan product categories. There is no clear definition of candy. This will lead to confusion, delay, and customer disputes every single day. Business will face costly system updates, training, compliance, and even losing our license. But the main question, will this improve health? From my experience, the answer is no. What works is education and incentive programs. My store implemented the first incentive program in Santa Clara County, Double Up Food Bucks, now part of the GASNIP Fruit and Veggie Program. I have seen firsthand how it works. The SNAP matching dollars encourage families to buy more fruits and vegetables. Today, families can receive up to $60 a month in matching funds. It may not seem like a match, but for struggling families, it can mean the difference between food on the table or going to bed hungry. This program improves health and straighten local economies. If we truly want better outcomes, we must invest in education and expand incentive programs, not impose restrictions that create a stigma and confusion. Lasting change doesn't come from limiting choices. I respectfully urge you to reconsider AB 2171. Thank you. Thank you. And welcome to the Capitol, Lufi. All right. Members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill, please come up to the microphone. I'm Josh Wright with the California Association of Food Banks in strong opposition, also giving Me Too's for Courage California, Grace Social and Medical Services, Ceres Community Project, Saturated in His Love, the Cannes Manufacturers Institute, and the Public Interest Law Project. Yesenia Rubancho with N Child Poverty in California in opposition. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jason Bryan on behalf of the National Confectioners Association, we're in opposition. Thank you. Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network in opposition. Thank you. Amanda Kirchner on behalf of County Welfare Directors Association in opposition. Thank you, Chair and members. Elmer Lizardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in opposition. Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association, also in opposition. Thank you. Koyse Tern with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization, people should not be dictated aided like the Communist Soviet Union in strong opposition. Good morning or afternoon. Sherry McHugh representing the American Beverage Association in opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon. Taylor Truffle on behalf of the California Grocers in opposition. Marisol Ivarra representing Consumer Brands Association in opposition. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jackie Anas, we have the California Fuels Convenience Alliance. Respectfully opposed. Good afternoon. Elise Landon with Dairy Institute of California. with an opposed and less amended position to narrow the definition of candy. Mr. Chair, members, Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California in opposition. Thank you. All right. First, did I see someone with Rubio had a comment? Anyone else? Thank you. Yes. No, and I appreciate the intent with the sugary drinks, but people in positions like that, obviously, diabetes is an epidemic, and I, again, understand that. But I was a teacher for a long time and kids are mean. They make fun of others. And I think that on top of the fact that I don't think this will change many minds, I think that the mental health of young kids is also at stake when they're getting bullied or being pointed out. You said you were on assistance. those kids point out that they're poor, if you will, or getting shamed because of their situation. And I, you know, I see how it could play out with the kids, but also the definition is also, I understand the candy and sugary drinks, but there's cakes and cereals have high content of sugar as well. You know, are we going to say, you know, this kind of cereal and not that kind cereal. We have some juices, and I know there's a definition in here about what kind of juices, but some of them are natural. It's not added sugar, but a lot of orange juice is higher in content of sugar. So I just think that this approach is not going to deter, although you said some of the data. I don't see how that's going to prevent people from eating those types of foods when you have others available. Trust me, I am a snacker myself. And sometimes I wonder when my diabetes is going to set in because I am terrible at when I eat those foods. And even though So I don't, anyway, I just don't think that this is going to deter people from, you know, being or actually encourage people to be healthy, which I think that's the intent of this is, you know, what would, you know, I know that there's an amount of SNAP that encourages more fruits and vegetables. Those are the types of programs that we should be investing in and which will help our Central Valley folks and the farmers by encouraging more fruits and vegetables to be eaten as opposed to trying to deter them by doing this. We've had many, many iterations. I can't say that word anymore. But versions of this, you know, trying to put taxes on sugary drinks as well, that has come a few times and has failed. It's hard for me, coming from a lower-income community, that, you know, people are telling, you know, just because they're poor, telling us what we should and shouldn't eat. So with that, I don't think I can support the bill. Thank you I hope you don get diabetes by the way Do I I hope you don get diabetes by so either Me too but have you been to my office I have been Yes. Clean that up. Right, right, right. And people quite enjoy coming to my office because of the amount of sugary snacks I have. So thank you. Thank you. Similar to Takipa? That was just surprising to me. Yeah. But I do know that you work out quite a bit. I don't, actually. Oh. That's my problem, because I don't. I remember in freshman orientation, there were a lot of situations. Did you want to comment on the bill and not on Assemblyman Rubio? No. When I said when orientation came, I said that. It's happy, Ruby. You don't have to. Ruby, you don't have to. Let's let someone ask questions. Well, I also hear all the concerns as well. I did just want to ask to the author, how much does the average person on CalFresh spend on the foods that AB 2171 seeks to limit? It's interesting you say that because we were actually looking into that information a little bit. Not so much that, but how much of the revenue that you're bringing in is from Snap. So I actually had an opportunity to ask one of my restaurant owners about this, actually, because initially our bill prohibited using it at restaurants. But actually one of the places that you'd see these being used is at restaurants, but 6% at a particular fast food restaurant was from Snap Benefits. But, you know, one thing I want to mention on that is that it's interesting that you can buy from a fast food restaurant, which I'm not necessarily – I exempted them, you know, in my amendments. But you can't buy a hot, fresh, prepared meal at a grocery store, which I think has – whether it's Costco or whether it's a small – in Napa, we had the Mexican grocery stores that they would also have freshly prepared tacos and things like that. And I think that's a problem. There's a lot of problems with how this is implemented statewide, by the way. But I don't know the exact answer to your question. I just happened to ask one of our restaurant owners what percentage of their revenue was from that. Yeah, and I know you and I have talked about health is wealth, and a lot of that starts with the fuel that you put in as well. I know that numerous organizations, too, and a lot that have come to speak to me as well, they've talked about just the lack of a clear definition on what they see as their reason to oppose this bill. Have any of the organizations offered, whether it's specific amendments or ways we can provide clarity? And it's something that I ask personally because I grew up on SNAP, EBT, pretty much my entire life. And I've shared with everybody before I could take bus 93 to Palm in Hillsdale. And that's where the WIC Center is. And I remember grabbing all of the services that I needed when I was growing up in North Highland. And so I do believe that we need to figure out a way to make sure that a lot of low-income families also have health and nutrition as a vital resource. Because if we can prevent it at a young age and help people there, I think that is something that we can definitely work on. So, again, back to the question. Has there been a clear definition or others that have tried to help you Yeah You know the one concrete suggestion other than just wanting the bill to go away was from McDonald franchise owners And that's a good point. So we included that or we excluded prepared amendments to take out restaurants for that reason. So obviously we're willing to work with anybody that has an interest in that. And that's, for me, a big portion is I think with a large coalition, you know, that we could figure out something that especially working with the medical groups where we could definitely get to a point where we are promoting and living by the code that health is wealth and helping people there. So thank you. Any other questions or comments from committee members? I kind of want to hear it, though, but just kidding, joking. Some of the errands? Yeah. You can comment or not. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Well, I just think it's important to just recognize, I think this is a really important issue, and I really do want to echo and see. I know that your heart is in the right place, and I would love to continue working with you on these issues, actually. Perhaps we can work on something together in a bipartisan fashion next year because, frankly, this doesn't get enough attention, hunger, and helping on these poverty issues, especially when it comes to lack of food for our impoverished Californians. it doesn't get enough bipartisan attention. I grew up on food stamps when they were yellow and blue and green and booklets. And I remember not wanting to stand in the free and reduced lunch line at school. And many of us would rather go hungry than face the stigma. And I do worry about a lot of these implementation issues that are echoed by the opposition. So I won't be able to be supportive of this due to a lot of the stigma factors and the underlying factors really of that really caused the, you know, individuals to not eat healthy, including food deserts, education, lack of access issues. But I'd love to work with you on this issue further. But I would also just remiss to say that we need more bipartisan support on the federal level to not cut CalFresh, to not cut vital hunger assistance programs in the state of California. That's that's dramatically affecting your constituents and mine. So if we can work together on the state level to actually find ways to address these issues, not only in the state of California, but to really push back against the draconian cuts that are hurting, really hurting and possibly killing individuals from not being able to access food in the future budgets. I would love to work with you on that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Can I make another comment? If sorry, no, not this time. It's only if authors ask for questions. Sorry. Seeing no other comments, I'm going to invite the author to close. Great. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate the opportunity to bring this bill today And because I thought the conversation is really important one to have on on this topic And I think honestly just talk about some of the complexities that a couple of my colleagues talked about in implementation and sort of like the discrimination we were talking about and things like that. I mean, those are important issues that I think do need to be addressed as we're moving this forward. We didn't have a lot of help on this bill, by the way, as a side note. And I don't really blame anybody on that. there's lots of thousands of bills and I didn't necessarily ask for a ton of help. But I wanted to talk about this issue because I don't really think it's acceptable to say, hey, look, we should just accept that some people are going to have unhealthy foods and things like that. I mean, there are 22 states. It's not like we're an outlier in considering this. There's 22 states to have some type of restriction on this. And we also shouldn't accept that the federal government over multiple administrations has turned this down. I mean, California has done many things that federal government has said, no, this is, we don't want to do this, but we do it anyways. And then usually litigation comes as a result, right? And some of those I don't agree on. But I do want to say I am definitely interested in working on this topic in the long run. I think there are a lot of programs. I think we could offer actually a lot more healthy foods by, like I was talking about, the warm, fresh, prepared foods at grocery stores. These are the types of things that we should be discussing as we move forward with this. But it is something I'm committed to. You always hear when you're going through these bills that there's some kind of alternative. I read the analysis. It's a very good, thorough, detailed analysis on a lot of things that have historic wrongs in maybe these programs, right? But that's not what I'm talking about here. And we do have to figure out at the end of the day how we get people healthier foods. And I'm happy to work with my Democratic colleagues when our constituents are, we have signed on to multiple resolutions asking the federal government to not make certain cuts, especially to the most vulnerable people. We have signed on to those resolutions and we continue to do so. And I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, hey, you know, I've talked with some chairs and some committees about this, especially on budget, like give us a call. We, you know, we might be able to call some people, you know, to help with some of these things to make sure our constituents aren't disproportionately impacted on these critical programs. I believe in a safety net. So anyways, Mr. Chair, I just want to wrap up by saying, you know, I wasn't, people are going to be mad behind me right now, but I'm not going to request a motion on this bill if that's okay with you. All right. Well, I appreciate you bringing this bill for discussion today. I do trust in your attention that you, and I appreciate your attention of trying to make California healthy again. So I really appreciate you trying these efforts and, you know, looking at other states, but the fact is the USDA is going to be taken to, sorry, several other states are taking the federal government to court right now. There's a lot of inconsistent definitions and the application of this is very fraught in many ways. You know, I also have some qualms about excluding restaurants when you don't apply the same standards to grocery stores too. It's not a consistent standard when we try to create more consistent universal standards, but it is a worthwhile conversation to talk about how we incentivize more healthy foods. And that's something that I work on a lot in the human services budget. So I look forward to you voting yes on the budget as well in human services. So I look forward to you supporting those things. Wait, you want a Republican to vote yes on the human services budget? That's what I heard. You said I heard you vote for these programs and support them all the time. So I look forward to you voting yes on the budget. But we do a lot of important work to incentivize healthy meals and healthy eating habits. So I appreciate the opportunity and appreciate you having not requesting a motion today as well. If that is your prerogative. So thanks for presenting and thanks for having all our witnesses in opposition support come. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. All right. Next, we'll go to file item 11, AB 2258, Avila Farias. Thank you. Oh, okay. Thank you, Chair and members. I would like to start off that I will increase my workouts and try a little better and my healthy eating habits and relax a little bit more. So thank you for the educational and the previous one. So thank you, Chair and members. I'm here to present AB 2258, which addresses California's child care affordability crisis by redirecting underused and underutilized funds to the alternative payment program. California has made significant public investment in subsidizing child care and early learning programs, including the expansion of nearly 200,000 new slots. However, about 1.8 million income-eligible children across the state do not have subsidized child care. Too often, funds that have already been appropriated to serve families go unspent, while eligible families remain on ever-growing wait lists. Gaps in child care access results in a workforce that cannot fully participate, businesses that cannot operate at a full capacity, and an economy that falls short to its potential. Alternate payment program contracts serve as the primary delivery system for voucher-based child care and uniquely are positioned to rapidly enroll families, support parental choices, and deploy available child care funding efficiently. AB 2258 targets the gap between funding and subsidized child care by requiring the Department of Social Services to identify unspent funds across child care programs and redirect those funds to the APP contractors for immediate use. Child care is essential workforce infrastructure. When families cannot access child care, parents are unable to work, employers face instability, and the broader economy is impacted. AB 2258 is practical, fiscally responsible step that maximizes existing resources, strengthens the workforce, and supports California's economic health. By ensuring that every available dollar is used to serve families, AB 2258 moves California closer to be more responsive, efficient, and equitable child care system for all. Testifying with me today is Deanne Michela, CEO of the Thriving Families of California Foundation. Good afternoon, everyone. Deanne Micheletty CEO of Thriving Families California representing a statewide network of community organizations lifting up the needs of families in all 58 counties in support of AB 2258 I just want to call out and give thanks to the staff who drafted the analysis. Great job, great background on how we got to here. Very lengthy, so it was great to get refreshed on all that. At a time when more than 1.8 million income-eligible children in California still lack access to subsidized care, we must be focused on one clear goal, serving as many families as possible with the resources already approved by this legislature. AB 2258 is a practical solutions-oriented bill that does exactly that. This bill addresses the core challenge in our system, that valuable public dollars already appropriated are not always moving as quickly or as efficiently as families do. In fact, this issue is so significant that at this very moment, the Senate Budget Committee is hearing this issue and asking important questions of the administration about why these appropriated funds are going unspent. That tells us something critical. This is not about commitment. It is about ensuring that approved resources are reaching families in a timely and effective way. Too often we see a disconnect. Families are waiting for care. You've heard that throughout the day. Providers have capacity, and legislatively approved funds remain unspent due to administrative barriers and delays. That should not be acceptable, especially given the level of unmet need in our state. AB 2258 focuses on timely use of available funds, ensuring that dollars directed where they are needed most to immediately serve children and working families. And to be clear, this bill does not create a new funding stream, and it does not establish long-term reserve or endowment accounts. It is about maximizing the impact of existing legislative investments. For the community-based organizations we represent, this matters deeply. These organizations are ready to serve but are too often constrained by a system that moves too slowly, lacks transparency and does not always allow resources to be deployed in a real way. At the end of the day, this is about more than a process. It is about a parent being able to go to work, a child having a safe, stable place to learn and grow, and an economy that depends on both. AB 2258 helps ensure that every dollar working is intended to serve children and families. On behalf of TFC, thank you, and we ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Now do we have members of the public who should testify in support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone. Melanie Dodson, CEO, Executive Director of 4C Sonoma County, 2,000 kids on our wait list in Sonoma. We support. Great. Now do we have any opposition to the bill? Please come forward. Any members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill? Please come up to the microphone. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee for questions, comments, motions. All right, I'll invite the author to close then. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you for bringing this bill forward, and thank you sincerely for working with the committee on the amendments and everything on this bill. The bill has been moved by Assemblymember Tonkipa and has been seconded by Assemblymember Ahrens. Madam Secretary please call the roll File item 11 AB 2258 The motion is due pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Castillo? Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye. Elwhari? Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Aarons? Aye. Aarons, aye. Tongapah? Aye. Tongapah, aye. Five to zero. That bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for wraps and members. All right. Next we will go to file number 12, AB 2309 by Assemblymember Baines. All right, Dr. Baines, whenever you're ready. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, Chair Lee and the Human Services Committee for hearing Assembly Bill 2309. Last year, the Trump administration abruptly cut off federal funding to CalFresh. EBT stopped working. Food banks ran out of supplies as lines stretched around the block and parents skipped meals so their children could eat. Some states handled this crisis better than ours and better than others. bright red Louisiana the poorest state in the United States with the total state budget of just 12 billion dollars well they stepped up they treated the crisis like the emergency it was and found 150 million dollars to ensure no SNAP recipient lost one penny of their November food aid. In true blue California, we have a state budget 30 times larger than Louisiana's. We have 5.5 million Californians who depend on CalFresh, including 2 million children. One in five residents in my district rely on this program simply to have enough food to survive. So with all this need, and all of these resources, what did California do? We put a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound. We sent out press releases instead of EBT. We told everyone how much we cared while doing the least we could. Frankly, we should be embarrassed that a state led by a governor who has been described as a vocal white supremacist fed their residents while we let our families go hungry. We can't ask our poorest residents to pay the price when politicians fight. AB 2309 is a promise we will do better next time because with Trump and the White House, I do fear there will be a next time. The bill requires the Department of Social Services to continue funding CalFresh when federal funding lapses during a government shutdown, and it continuously appropriates the necessary resources from the general fund to cover those expenses. Once federal funding is restored, it also requires the department to seek reimbursement of our expenses from the federal government. For a mother pinching pennies to feed her kids or a senior who eats nothing but top ramen until their benefits reload each month, it is about It is up to us to make sure they don't go hungry. We failed them once. Let's not fail them again. Respectfully asked for an aye vote, but with me, prior to that, with me in Sapporo, I'm proud to be joined by Bindu Mukamala the policy manager for the National Association of Social Workers California chapter All right Two minutes please Good afternoon Chair and members My name is Bindu Mukamala and I serve as the Policy Manager for the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter representing more than 9,000 professional social workers across California. And I'm here today in strong support of AB 2309. Social workers serve in health care and behavioral health settings, schools, housing programs, child welfare, community organizations, and even the justice system. They work every day with families, older adults, children, and vulnerable communities trying to remain stable through difficult circumstances. Programs like CalFresh are not just benefits. They are a lifeline, and they are the first line of defense against hunger for about 5.47 million Californians. Nearly two-thirds of participants are in families with children, and more than one-third live in households with older adults or people with disabilities. Federal changes are already putting that support at risk as nearly 400,000 refugees, asylees, trafficking survivors could lose access alongside with veterans, former foster youth, older adults, caretakers, and people experiencing homelessness. When nutrition benefits are cut or delayed, families are forced into impossible choices. Money that's meant for rent, utilities, transportation, and child care is redirected to food, a basic need every household should already be able to meet. Parents already struggling to make ends meet may take on extra jobs, leaving children with less stability at home and greater challenges at school, while older adults may have to ration food or medication. For households already on the edge, missed meals can translate and quickly become missed bills, eviction, homelessness, and worsening behavioral health crises. When families lose access to CalFresh, we see increased reliance on already overburdened food banks, worsening health outcomes, and deeper economic instability. AB 2309 ensures Californians can continue CalFresh benefits because hunger does not pause when the federal government does. This bill is about stability, dignity, and prevention, ensuring families receive the benefits they deserve. We respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 2309. Thank you. Thank you. Now do we have members of the public who wish to express their support for this bill? Please come to the microphone. Good afternoon, Chair Members. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support. Good afternoon, Chair Members. Tony Anderson, the Association of Regional Center Agencies in support. Good afternoon, Jalen Woodard with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Afternoon. Kat Brackman with the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you. Thank you. Now, do we have any opposition to this bill? Any members of the public wish to express their opposition to the bill, please come to the microphone. So, you know, we'll bring it back to the committee members. Okay. So, we're talking about. Yeah, you know, I thank the author for bringing this bill. I do find it interesting, especially on the comments made, that potentially a governor is a white supremacist. But I think we could find out very easily if he is, if the Southern Poverty Law Center supports him. So, but with that, I do believe that the changes to H.R. 1 really do put things on the states. and what I see when other states like Louisiana and like other ones are actually able to implement $150 million to take care of the Louisiana residents. I think that's exactly where we're supposed to go. I think states are looking at what we can do to make sure that we can feed our community better. And I think that this takes a necessary step in removing where I believe is the right thing to do is removing Washington from taking on everything and putting it on our local jurisdictions. And when you see a state like California that has a budget of over $300 billion, it's up to the state to prioritize. And I think food security is an area that could be a really good area that we get that ball rolling. And so I know what social benefits have done for people here. I think California could do a whole lot better where we could prioritize taking care of our needs. And I think this actually really just lays the groundwork for that. So thank you. And I respectfully move the bill. Any other questions, comments, members? If not, I will do it. Okay. No. Okay. All right. I'll invite the author to close. I respectfully ask for your eye vote. All right. Thank you. Thank you for bringing the bill forward as well. You know, when we did have, I want to clarify, when we did have the federal government shutdown, which was unprecedented in its length and severity of impacting not just California families, but families in Louisiana, Texas, New Hampshire, everywhere across the nation, people really were struggling to get by and they didn't know when the government would resume their operations. Right. But I do think California, in the time that we had and we anticipated something like this would happen when we were out of session, we fast-tracked the money to the food banks. Many grocers and retailers themselves offered free food, even at the threat from the federal government saying if you offer free food to CalFresh recipients, you will maybe fine or will punish you. And so many Californians did really step up. I think it is important to examine what is California's role in this. But I do want to note that while there are many proposals right now in the human services budget, which I obviously invite everyone to vote for the human services budget when it's done, is thinking about what is California's supplementary role. Because in my view, all that money that the federal government was not giving us, which let's say the shutdown is around a month, it was a billion dollars worth of just CalFresh, CalFresh benefits that were not coming to us. Those were a billion dollars of California taxpayer dollars that just were in the federal account. So asking Californians to double dip sometimes is challenging, but we always come up and meet the standards. But at the first and foremost is that is legal money that should be ours because it is California money, just put in the federal account. So even though, yes, we have a large budget, Californians also pay the most. So we pay the most into other buckets, and that's a federal bucket that should be returned to us. So I have an eye recommendation on this bill today. The bill was moved by somebody who's talking about, but can I get a second for it? Second. Seconded by Assemblymember Aaron's. and I have an aye recommendation bill. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on AB 2309. File item 12, AB 2309. The motion is due pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Castillo? Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye. El-Huari? Rubio? Aarons? Aye. Aarons, aye. Tongapaw? Aye. Tongapaw, aye. That bill is out. All right, next we will go to file item 13, AB 2314 by Assemblyman Rogers. Alright, whenever you're ready, Assemblyman Rogers. Thanks so much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon members We here to present AB 2314 California has made significant investments in child care We heard a number of the bills really reference this and we understand what a crisis it is Currently only 16 of eligible children are enrolled in publicly funded child care programs through CBSS What AB 2314 does is it ensures that every dollar appropriated is used efficiently by creating a clear and timely process for transferring funds where they are most needed and requiring transparency and written responses from CDSS. This bill strengthens the fiscal oversight to prevent resources from sitting idle and ensuring funding decisions reflect real-time demand. AB 2314 also protects families from unnecessary disenrollment, contractor transfers, sibling separation, promoting stability and continuity of care. By improving access to reliable child care, AB 2314 supports working parents, strengthens providers and boosts California's economy. As all of you know, I have an almost two-year-old. I think we spent almost $30,000 on child care last year in an area that is already very difficult to afford to live. This bill has the support of multiple child care organizations. With me are two of our champions. We have Adanae Mack, who is the CEO of Child Action. We have one of my favorite people in the world, Melanie Dodson from Four Seas Sonoma County. And then I also want to thank Thriving Families for working with us on the bill. They will not be presenting, but they're here for technical assistance if folks have technical questions. So I'll turn it over to the two of you. Thank you. Two minutes each, please. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Melanie Dodson. I'm the Executive Director of 4C's Sonoma County. Since 1972, 4C's has worked to ensure that every child in Sonoma County has access to the care and early education they need to thrive. Every day, we sit with families who are working, seeking stability, and trying to do right by their children. Our role is to help them navigate a system that too often is more complex than it needs to be. One of the greatest challenges we encounter is not a lack of commitment or effort, but a system that is misaligned with how families actually live their lives. Voucher-based child care programs are structured around 24-month eligibility and 24-month contracts for agencies. This is a thoughtful and important policy design that promotes stability and continuity of care for children. However, the way these contracts are administered today does not fully recognize the realities on the ground. Families do not enter the system neatly at the start of a fiscal year. They come to us every day throughout the year, often in moments of urgency, and utilization is based on a family's need. As a result, enrollment happens on a rolling basis. Families are at different points in their eligibility. care shifts due to work, housing, life changes in their children's ages. Yet agencies are required to manage funding within rigid fiscal structures that do not align with the reality or take into consideration the ever-changing landscapes. This misalignment is not theoretical. It is happening right now in Sonoma County. In September of 2025, the current fiscal year, our agency identified that we were projected to run out of funding under our contract. As a community-based nonprofit, we made the responsible decision to stabilize services for families that were already enrolled. But the consequences were profound. We have not enrolled a single new family since the fall. The now over 2,000 children on our wait list, many working families have been unable to access care. Our staff are forced to turn families away. At the same time, other agencies serving Sonoma County have available funds. Those funds could have been shifted to cover the shortfall and serve families immediately. but the system did not allow this to happen in a reasonable timeline or seamlessly in our community and agency It an untenable position Where families remain unserved our agency is constrained while other available Sonoma County funds sit unused This is not a funding problem. It's a systems problem. AB 2314 is a critical step towards correcting this misalignment. This bill recognizes that child care voucher programs are not static. They are living systems that respond to families in real time. Contracts must be administered in a way that reflects rolling enrollment. The system must allow for timely flexibility. By aligning policy with practice, AB 2314 allows agencies like ours to enroll families as their need, ensure continuity of care, reduce unnecessary administrative burden, and maximize every available public dollar to serve families. Most importantly, ensures that situations like the one in Sonoma County, where families are turned away while funds are allocated to Sonoma County, remain unspent, does not continue to happen. At 4C Sonoma County, we're proud to be part of this system that lifts up families and supports our local workforce. We have expertise and have built capacity to deliver the expanded services requested of us from the legislature and the governor. But right now, the system is asking us to make possible choices. AB2314 helps shift the focus where it belongs from navigating bureaucracy to lifting up families. We respectfully urge your support. Our next witness, please. Two minutes. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Adanay Mack. I am the CEO of Child Action right here in Sacramento County. I want to thank Assemblymember Rogers for your leadership on this bill. We believe it's really important. This month, Child Action turns 50 years old. We've served Sacramento community for this lengthy time, reaching out to families who need us. Today, we currently reach over 34,000 children, parents, and child care providers annually. Our role is simple. We help families access so parents can go to work because quality child care impacts everything in every industry throughout our entire county and our region. Earlier this year, we faced the potential to disenroll over 1,000 children and families who are eligible for our program. They were receiving care, but due to some structural issues, they were at risk for their continuity of care. They were going to lose it. It showed that even when everyone is working in good faith, our team, our providers, our staff, a system can create instability. The core issue is how this system operates. It can leave funds unspent while families remain on a waiting list. We have a waiting list of over 5,000 children and families. and in some cases disrupt continuity of care. In this instance, this is not about a lack of funding. The legislature has made an important investment about our child care and investing in it. This is about ensuring that those dollars reach the families when they're needed, and that's a problem with our system. We believe that AB 2314 improves alignment, protects continuity of care, and increases transparency. When families lose care, parents don't work, and that impacts our economy. We respectfully ask for your support for AB 2314. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Do we have any members of the public who wish to find support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone. Hi, Danine Micheletti, CEO of Thriving Families California Foundation, in support. Hi, Maya Labroudet, CFO for 4C Sonoma County. Strongly support. Hello I Christina Iftiger I am standing in representation for the California Child Care Coordinators Association representing all 58 local child care planning councils and we stand in support and thank the author for the amendments recently made Thank you. Now, do we have any opposition to this bill? Any members of the public who should testify in opposition to this bill, please come forward. Seeing none, I'm bringing it back to the dais for motions or comments, questions. I'll invite the author to close. Great. Thanks so much. I just want to thank committee staff for working with us on the language. Again, thank thriving families for working with us on the language. And I do want to also thank CDSS. When we were having these issues a couple of months ago, the department was very responsive in trying to help find a solution forward. It wasn't for lack of will. From their part, it was the process. And so we are proud to be able to come forward now with a bill to help fix that process and make it easier to engage with our locals who are trying to do the right thing, trying to make sure that parents can go to work and try to make sure our kids are taken care of. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much for bringing this bill forward and working with us. I have an aye recommendation. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on this bill. File item 13, AB 2314. The motion is due passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Castillo? Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye. El-Huari? Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Ahrens? Aye. Ahrens, aye. Tongapah? Tongapah, aye. Thank you. That bill's out. Five to zero. Assembly Mayor Ahrens, we're going to go into the Patrick Ahrens show in a second over here so you can get situated. But can I get a motion for file item number one? there wasn't a motion at the time for that one? Okay. File item number one, AB 2083, Assemblymember Jackson. That bill was moved by Assemblymember Calderon and seconded by Assemblymember Rubio. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on file item number one. File item one, AB 2083. The motion is due pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Castillo? Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye. El Huari? Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Aaron? Aye. Aaron, aye. Tongapah? No. Tongapah, no. And could I ask that a member move the consent calendar? That bill, file item number one, is out four to one. The consent calendar is moved by Assemblymember Tongapah, seconded by Assemblymember Rubio. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on the consent calendar. Bills on the consent calendar. File item seven, AB 1899 Colosa. File item 9, AB1983 Rubio. File item 14, AB2333 Pellerin. File item 16, AB2535 Gallagher. File item 19, AB2766 Ahrens. File item 21, AB2769 Ahrens. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Castillo? Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye. El-Huari? Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Aarons? Aye. Aarons, aye. Tongapaw? Aye. Tongapaw, aye. All right. That's two Aarons bills out from the consent calendar, just so you know. All right. So, Assemblymember Aarons, which bill did you want to start with? 2765. File item 18? Okay. If you want to start with file item 18, AB 2765. I'm sorry, 2764 we're going to start with. Okay, file item 17, 2764. I mean, you did very conveniently introduce all your bills sequentially, so it makes it easier for your numbers. Well, I know you'll support all of them, Mr. Chair. All right. This will be file item number 17. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Under current state law, youth are eligible for extended foster care if they meet one of five participation conditions established by AB 12. However, certain counties, caseworkers and judges have created requirements for participation in extended foster care programs, which exceed those in state law, including requiring 32 hours a week of our work or school or volunteer hours beyond legal standards. This bill would address this inconsistency, establishing that eligibility for extended foster care may not be denied or terminated due to education or employment requirements that exceed those specified in state law. I understand the importance of maintaining our social support systems for foster youth into adulthood. By ensuring that county eligibility requirements for extended foster care programs remain consistent with statewide standards, this bill will reduce confusion and prevent vulnerable individuals from losing access to housing for dubious reasons. With me today is David Channer, CEO of Better Way, and Zan Santiago from the California Youth Connection. All right, two minutes each, please. Thank you, Chair and members. My name is David Channer, president and CEO of A Better Way. We're a Bay Area organization that, among other things, provides transitional housing services. I'm also a member of the California Alliance, where I work alongside many other agencies that provide the same services. And I am board president at the moment for the California Youth Connection, where in all of these capacities, I see again and again youth who work tremendously hard to get through barriers just to reach 19. And then extended foster care becomes a key bridge to their futures. and we are proud co-sponsors of this bill along with CYC. The youth who are willing at the end of an already long journey to go through hoops and fight to get the extended foster care benefits do so because they know the risks of not having them. They understand that people who leave foster care before the age of 19 face much higher rates of homelessness and that staying in foster care with the extended foster care program can decrease, sorry, that if they stay in it, reduces their risk of homelessness by up to 80%. So they know that this is something that they really are worth, that they're willing to fight for. At the same time, they have faced tremendous barriers by this time, and they don't need extra ones on top of the already prudent state requirements for this program. So this isn't new law. It's making sure that existing laws and existing benefits are accessible and are within reach so that these youth can secure their futures. On behalf of A Better Way, I respectfully request an aye vote, and thank you all very much. All right, thank you. Next witness, please. Hey, everyone. My name is Zan Santiago, and I'm a member of California Youth Connection in the Orange and San Bernardino chapters. I was in extended foster care, and I believe AB 2764 is important because of how many youth who rely on programs like THP, SILP, and other extended foster care services. Right now, there's too many barriers to accessing these programs. Requirements vary by county. We often have to wait for social worker approval, and there's additional rules that aren't even in state law. These obstacles make it difficult for young people to fully engage in programs that are meant to support them. Another major issue is long wait lists. Youth can spend months waiting with no clear timeline for when help will become available. That kind of delay matters. When young people are ready for housing instability, they shouldn't be waiting months or be denied support because of where they from This issue is even more challenging for youth with disabilities or additional needs The more requirements that exist the harder it becomes for them to qualify remain in these programs The youth who need the most support often face the greatest barriers, which doesn't make any sense. If AB 2764 is passed, it creates statewide eligibility standards, expand access to housing, programs across counties, and help protect young adults from homelessness. and assures that where you come from doesn't determine whether you receive the support you need. All right, thank you. Now, do we have members of the public who wish to express their support for the bill? Please come into the microphone. Adrienne Shilton, representing the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, proud co-sponsor and support. Thank you. Yes, and you're a bunch of within child poverty, California, in support. Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support. Good afternoon, Chair members. Tiffany Fan on behalf of the California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, or CalCASA, in support. Thank you. Valerie Kane from John Burton Advocates for Youth, proud co-sponsor as well, and strong support. Jen Rexroad with California Alliance of Caregivers in support. Thank you. Do we have any opposition to this bill? Nope. Do you have any members of the public who wish to come testify in opposition to the bill? All right. Seeing numbering back to committee, the bill was moved by Assemblyman Rubio. Any questions or comments? Okay. I'll invite the author to close. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. It has an aye recommendation for me, and it was moved by Assemblyman Rubio, seconded by Assemblyman Calderon. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on AB 2764. File item 17, AB 2764. The motion is due pass. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Castillo. Calderon. Aye. Calderon, aye. El-Huari. Rubio. Aye. Rubio, aye. Aarons. Aye. Aarons, aye. Tongapah. Not voting. Tongapah, not voting. That bill has four votes, and it is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. All right, Fallen 18, AB 2765. Go ahead when you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. HR1, the big ugly bill, will do nothing but put hundreds of thousands of our most vulnerable coworkers, neighbors, and friends at more risk of hunger and poverty. AB 2765 directs the California State Department of Social Services to seek a waiver for the able-bodied adult without dependent three-month time limit and changes to the special needs allowance formula multiplier from $10 per person per month to $15 per person per month while expanding eligibility. As someone who has faced food and hunger insecurity as a young adult and as a child, it is imperative that we must do all that we can to protect and shield our youth from the inhumane challenges of hunger that are harshly imposed by H.R. 1. With me today in testimony is Corrina Ortiz, an individual who has lived experience as a foster youth from Los Angeles, and Tiffany Whiten, Senior Governmental Associate at SEIU California State Council. All right, two minutes, please. Good morning. My name is Corrina Ortiz. I'm a former foster youth from the Los Angeles County here today to speak on support of AB 2765. as a former foster youth who has aged out of the system and had to learn how to survive on my own at a young age while still trying to stay in school and build a better future for myself I want to speak painfully about what it means to age out of foster care right now We are expected to become fully independent overnight, finding housing, secure jobs, stay in school and build a future. Without the safety net most young people rely on, no family to fall back, no room for error. And even under those conditions, we as foster youth still push forward. but now we're being set up to fail. Under H.R. 1's work requirements, foster youth risk losing food assistance after three months. Let me be clear. Many of us will not be able to meet these requirements, not because we aren't trying, but because the system we're coming out of has not given us the right stability or resources to do so. So what will happen then? What were we supposed to go out of food runs out? Hunger doesn't have a time limit, neither should food assistance, especially with a lack of support. AB 2765 will help ensure that California uses every available tool to protect foster youth from these cuts by maximizing expectations, seeking federal waivers and increasing the statewide special needs allowance per month. California has a responsibility to lead and not abandon foster youth. I respectfully urge you to support AB 2765 so that no young person leaving foster care like myself is forced to go hungry because of policies that fail to recognize our reality. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right, next one is two minutes, please. Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California. Proud co-sponsors of the bill. Really, our intent here is to protect those 14 to 18 in our foster youth and respectfully ask for your aye vote here to answer any technical questions you may have. Awesome. Thank you. Now, do we have members of the public who wish to express their support for the bill? Please come up to the microphone. Yes, Senor Robancho with End Child Poverty in California. Proud sponsors, also including California Association of Food Banks in support. Adrienne Shelton representing the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support. Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in strong support. Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. Sorry we didn't have a chance to get our letter in but want to register our support now. Thank you. David Channer CEO with a better way to support. Jen Rexrode California Alliance of caregivers in support. Thank you. Now, do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Any members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill? Please come forward. Seeing and hearing none, we'll bring you back to the committee. The bill was moved and seconded, but any questions or comments? Somebody else? Okay. I just want to thank the witness for sharing your story as a foster youth. It's really powerful that you're here to advocate on behalf of not only yourself, but so many others in this situation. Thank you for just continuing to make sure that your voice is heard and that we get to really center the folks who are going to be most impacted in this work that we're doing. And especially to the author, who's a former foster youth himself, and all the work that he's doing. I love just to be able to support. And if I'm not already, I'd love to be a co-author on the bill. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And I hear a co-authored request from Assembly Rubio too. Someone in Tonkipah? Well, again, I understand the intent from the author and you and I sympathize and we just look at things differently. But the main thing for me is, especially when I look at the definition of able-bodied working adults, I mean, the minimum requirement, and especially on the 20 hours per week, is either paid employment, volunteer work job training education workfare or a combination of any of the above And well again I grown up on benefits and I understand a lot of the stories out there I ran away from home when I was 14 years old And, you know, for me, it's where we've got to make sure that we don't perpetuate poverty. As I've grown up and I was caught myself in the social safety net with all the benefits that I was on, But a lot of it seems like we are creating a social safety hammock, and it may not apply to individual cases, but it does apply in the whole. And I remember when I was asking a year ago before H.R. 1 and the big, beautiful bill, do we measure how many people come off of social benefits? And what was given to me was no. So if we're not even measuring, if we're successfully pulling people out of poverty, how do we know what we're doing right now is working? And while I understand that HR1 is making some large-scale changes, adding something as simple as for an able-bodied, non-dependent adult, a minimum of 20 hours in whether it's paid employment, volunteer, job training, education, workfare, or any combination of it, I don't think that that's a hard thing to ask for. Um, and, you know, for me, I, I'm in opposition to this bill and, and it's just from understanding, you know, we've got to figure out and measure something that pulls people out of abject poverty and not perpetuates poverty. And so, well, I think the author, and I understand the intent respectfully in opposition of this. All right. Any other questions, comments, remembers? Seeing none, I'll let the author, oh, uh, similar to Calderon. Go for it.
Yes. I just want to thank you for bringing this bill forward, and I'd love to be added as a co-author.
Thank you. All right. Assembly Aarons, you may close.
Thank you, colleagues and members. You know, I can think of nothing more important in my time in the legislature than to spend fighting and advocating for hunger and homelessness in our foster youth. Because of this H.R. 1, the big ugly bill, approximately 610,000 CalFresh beneficiaries will be subject to these onerous work requirements. These are veterans. These are people experiencing homelessness that are being attacked by the federal government. This is not a policy debate. This is cruel. This is not measuring data or keeping people in poverty. This is reckless behavior by the federal government, and I will consider it my life's work to defend against anyone who is being attacked for being poor. and I'm very proud to author these set of foster bills to protect as many people as we can from the fascist regime. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Aaron, for authoring this bill as well. I agree that while there needs to be more focus on metric success from the big BS bill, we definitely know what the metrics of failure are. There are quantifiable amounts of people who are going to be disqualified, who are, like you said, veterans and different categories of folks, But also we've seen from other states have adopted this that is all deliberately to basically kill people by a thousand cuts of paperwork as well. And those eliminate people from the program altogether. And just because they're not on a social safety net doesn't mean they're successful economically. So I appreciate you bringing this bill, and I appreciate Karina for coming all the way here, sharing your testimony and your story. And I have an eye recommendation on this bill. The bill was moved by Assemblymember Rubio, seconded by Assemblymember El-Hawari. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Thank you. I'm 18 AB 2765. The motion is due passed to the assembly appropriations committee. Lee.
Aye.
Lee.
Aye.
Castillo. Calderon.
Aye.
Calderon.
Aye.
Elhwari.
Aye.
Elhwari.
Aye.
Rubio.
Aye.
Rubio.
Aye.
Arons.
Aye.
Arons.
Aye.
Tongapa.
Tongapa.
No. Four to one.
That bill is out. All right. Assembly Arons. We are on the last bill of the hearing. Oh, sorry. That bill was five to one, that bill is out. And we are on the last bill of the hearing and the last bill of the Patrick Aaron Show. File number 20, AB 2767, and you may begin.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, for your patience. Thank you to the committee staff for their hard work on this bill. There's no committee staff that works harder than this committee staff in the legislature. And we can tell by the committee analysis how much heart and care that you bring. I'm happy to accept the committee amendments, and you have my commitment to continue to work on the finer details of this bill. AB 2767 clarifies when family finding activities can begin in the timeline of a foster care case. Current law states that family finding must occur within 30 days of removal of a child from their home. However, there are different legal interpretations if family finding can begin pre-removal of a child. Different legal interpretations introduce disparities and inequities in care. Disparities in uniting foster kids with kin or family is not just a timeline or equity issue. It also delays the start of lifelong positive relationships with adults and role models for our state's foster youth. Being someone who is in the foster care system, it is clear to me that we must ensure kids who are removed from their homes are supported as early as possible with kin-first care. with me today. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Linnea Nelson. I'm a foster
adoptive parent in Oakland and the senior directing attorney for the quality parenting initiative of the Youth Law Center, proud sponsor of AB 2767. Children belong in families. When they cannot safely remain with their relatives I sorry when they cannot safely remain with their parents relatives and kin who already know and love them are almost always the best alternative AB 2767 is about making sure we don wait too long to find those people Too often, family finding happens late after a child has experienced multiple moves or after they end up in temporary shelters when they first come into care. AB 2767 addresses that gap by reinforcing something we know works. Family finding must begin as early as possible so there a plan once the child enters the system. The bill also addresses equity. Right now, whether family finding happens early or at all can depend on the county where a child lives. AB 2767 creates consistent expectations across counties so every child has the same opportunity to stay connected to family. We want to thank Assemblymember Ahrens for championing this issue and the committee for assisting with language to clarify the bill's intent and to address privacy issues. I respectfully I would respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.
Thank you. Now do we have any members of the public who should testify in support of the bill? Please come to the microphone.
Jen Rexrode with California Alliance of Caregivers in support.
Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill? Sayana, I'm bringing it back to committee for questions, comments, or motions. Assemblymember El-Huari.
Thank you. Thank you again to the author for just your thoughtful legislation around foster care. I'm a foster mom, and I'm so proud to be able to be a foster mother, but I also recognize the importance of having had my daughter be able to find family. And I think what the system really failed at was trying to figure out other ways of being able to place her. It has to push and push and push. And ultimately, she was already in her late teens. But I think it just really makes a difference to be able to have standards that really ensure that young people who are removed are able to find and stay with their families. So thank you.
Thank you. All right. I'll invite the author to close.
Respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Thank you so much for bringing the bill forward, and thank you for working with my committee staff. They are indeed the hardest working committee staff in the building. I'm not biased whatsoever. So thank you for that And this has an eye recommendation from me Madam Secretary please call the roll File item 20 AB 2767 The motion is due pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee
Lee?
Aye.
Lee, aye. Castillo? Calderon?
Calderon, aye.
El Juari?
Aye.
El Juari, aye. Rubio? Aarons?
Aye.
Aarons, aye. Tongapaw?
Aye.
Tongapaw, aye.
Five to zero. That bill is out. All right, so members, we will go back to members that have missed file items, but that was the last item on the agenda today. I want to thank the members for participating. And thank you so much for seconding so many bills today, making so many motions. I look forward to you making a motion on the budget, too.
It would be great.
It would be great. Supporting the budget. Madam Secretary, please call the roll for the consent calendar.
On the consent calendar, current vote is 5-0. El-Hwari?
Aye.
El-Hwari, aye.
Final vote on the consent calendar, 6-0. All right. Madam Secretary, if we can go through the agenda today to get the absent members.
Final item 1, AB 2083. The current vote is 4-1. El-Hwari?
Aye.
Elwhari, aye. Final vote, 5-1. File item 2, AB 1579. Current vote is 6-0. Calderon?
Aye.
Calderon, aye. Final vote, 7-0. File item 3, AB 1628. Current vote is 6-0. Calderon?
Aye.
Calderon, aye. Final vote, 7-0. File item 4, AB 1634. The current vote is 2 to 1. Calderon?
Not voting.
Calderon not voting. Rubio. Final vote, 2 to 1. File item 5, AB 1643. I'm sorry, 1643. The current vote is 6 to 0. Calderon?
Aye.
Calderon aye. Final vote, 7 to 0. File item 6 AB1608 Current vote is 5 Calderon Aye Calderon aye Final vote 6 File item 8 AB1914 Current vote is 4 Calderon Aye Calderon aye Final vote, 5-1. File item 10, AB2171 was testimony only. File item 11, AB2258. Current vote is 5-0. Elhwari?
Aye.
Elhwari, aye. Final vote, 6-0. File item 12, AB2309, current vote is 4-0. El Huari? Aye. El Huari, aye. Rubio? Final vote, 5-0. File item 13, AB2314, current vote is 5-0. Castillo? El Huari? Aye. El Huari, aye. Final vote, 6-0. File item 15, AB 2395. Current vote is 4-0. Calderon? Aye.
Calderon, aye. Final vote, 5-0.
File item 17, AB 2764. Current vote is 4-0. El-Hwari? Aye. El-Hwari, aye. Final vote, 5-0.
File item 18, final vote, 5-1.
File item 20, AB 2767. Current vote is 5-0. Castillo, Rubio, final vote 5-0.
That concludes today's business on the Assembly Human Services Committee. This committee is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.