Senate Human Services Committee

I saw Aaron's here early, but Assemblymember Ramos is up first. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, for adhering to the file order. Appreciate that. Today I'm presenting AB 308, which directs the Department of Developmental Services to conduct a statewide evaluation of the safety training services offered through state regional centers. This bill comes in the wake of the Department of Justice SB 882 Advisory Board report, which aimed to assess law enforcement interactions with individuals who have intellectual or developmental disabilities and mental health conditions. The report made clear that California must move beyond crisis response and invest in prevention and preparedness for the care of our IDD population, as well as cross-coordinating of support services to address their needs. AB 308 aims to further assess the current state of our regional centers by reviewing their safety programs to ensure they appropriately account for communication barriers and sensory sensitivities. In an emergency, preventive services should be accessible to all. These services should include training for the de-escalation of difficult situations and most importantly, ensure law enforcement is not the default responder in a crisis. families must be able to trust that their loved ones are protected from further trauma, hospitalization, or unnecessary involvement with the justice system. With me today is Beth Burt, Executive Director for the Autism Society of the Inland Empire to provide testimony on this important issue.

You have two minutes Okay thank you Good afternoon Chair and Members My name is Beth Burt I am the executive director of the Autism Society I also had the recent privilege of serving on the SB 882 Advisory Council on improving interactions between people with intellectual developmental disabilities and law enforcement Most importantly, I'm a parent. I have a young man with autism and another young man with behavioral health challenges. And they and the thousands of families we serve are why I'm here today. More than one in four individuals that are served by regional centers, over 140,000, are considered to have moderate to severe behavioral challenges. That means they could be aggressive towards themselves, to others, and destroy property. These are not numbers. These are our families. These are our neighbors. These are our friends. Let me share what is at stake. Ryan Gaynor was a 15-year-old boy with autism in my community. During a behavioral health crisis, his family did what they were told to do, call 911. Unfortunately, the situation escalated and he was shot and killed in his front yard. Families across the state are living with this fear every day. Who do I call for help? AB308 can change that. It requires statewide evaluation of safety services and supports so we can understand what exists, where the gaps are and what it will take to build a consistent system of support. This matters because of the thousands of families we serve. This matters because the information had been available. Ryan and his family might have had another choice. We are proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill. I respectfully urge you to I vote on AB 308. Thank you for your time.

Cesar Gonzalez-Garcia with the California-Ru Indian Health Board, and we support the bill.

Veronica Bravo here with State Council on Developmental Disabilities here in support. Thank you.

Okay, excellent. Do we lead opposition witness or anyone wants to comment in opposition? I'll take it back to the members. Any members, any questions, comments? Happy to move the bill at the appropriate time. Okay.

Why don't we go, give us a moment, let's establish a quorum. Becker?

Becker, here.

Here.

Laird? Perez? Weber-Pearson?

Weber-Pearson, here. Okay, we do have a quorum. So with that, I'll invite you to close.

Okay Please call the roll Becker Aye Becker aye Echoboak Aye Echoboak aye Laird? Perez? Weber Pearson?

Weber Pearson, aye. Okay. That is 3-0. We'll keep that on call. Thank you.

Okay. We'll do the consent calendar while we have a quorum here. We have eight bills on the proposed consent calendar. Seven. Hold on. Give us one moment. We have seven bills on the proposed consent calendar. File items 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, and 16. Do I have a motion on the consent calendar? Motion from Dr. Weber Pearson.

Becker?

Becker, aye.

Aye.

Laird? Perez? Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. All right. That's 3-0 on the consent calendar. We will also hold that open. Okay. Staying with file order, I see Assemblymember Rodriguez. You have file item 2, AB 1049. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Becker and members of the committee. I want to start by thanking the committee for their thoughtful analysis. AB 1049 is a measure that removes a complicated rule called sponsor deeming from the eligibility determination process in the California Food Assistance Program, commonly referred to as CFAP. CFAP is California's state-funded food assistance program for people who are excluded from federal CalFresh benefits because of their immigration status. At a time when federal actions are leaving more immigrant families without access to food assistance, California must make sure its own safety net programs are clear, accessible, and responsive to the needs of our communities. The current rule muddies the understanding of a person's real financial situation. An individual may look like they have access to resources on paper while they are struggling to afford food to feed their family. This rule also adds confusion and fear to the application process. Families may be unsure whether applying for food assistance will affect their sponsor, their immigration status, or their family's safety. AB 1049 addresses this gap by removing sponsor deeming from CFAP. This change allows eligible families to be evaluated based on the resources they actually have, not income they will never see. AB 1049 strengthens California's food safety net by making CFAP easier for families to access and easier for counties to administer. Today, I have with me Ezra Pimentuan from the Alameda County Community Food Bank and Lena Silver from Neighborhood Legal Services Los Angeles to provide testimony. Okay, welcome to both of you. Go ahead, you have two minutes. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Ezra Pimentuan, Senior Policy Advocate at Alameda County Community Food Bank based in Oakland and member of the statewide Food for All Coalition. Most people are aware of the work food banks perform distributing fresh produce and other healthy meals to the community. But equally important is the work we do connecting our neighbors to critical nutrition programs like CalFresh and CFAP the state equivalent to CalFresh for Californians ineligible for the federal SNAP program due to their immigration status The Food Bank has an interest in ensuring that our immigrant neighbors face fewer barriers to accessing the state-funded equivalent to CalFresh, which currently imposes the burdensome sponsor-deeming rule as part of its application process. We urge the committee to advance AB 1049, which would eliminate this rule for CFAP. I would like to read a quote from one of the food bank's outreach associates about their experience guiding clients through the sponsor-deeming process. Quote, There are challenges, especially with advocating with some eligibility workers, about which sponsor-deeming exemption the client meets. It sometimes makes clients withdraw from the application process because of this. There is often a lot of back and forth and hard to sometimes show how they are no longer in contact, for example, with their sponsors. Or the sponsor deeming asks for a lot of paperwork from the sponsor, like bank statements and assets, which can be hard to obtain. Because of its complexity, the sponsor-deeming rule can cause confusion about eligibility during the enrollment process and lead to low-income immigrant families being wrongfully denied benefits that they are perfectly eligible for. At a time when our immigrant neighbors are facing persistent attacks from the federal government, state leaders must do everything they can to streamline access to CFAP for our immigrant neighbors. For these reasons, Alameda County Community Food Bank respectfully urges your aye vote on AB 1049. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Lena Silver, and I'm the Director of Policy and Administrative Advocacy at Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County. Our office regularly encounters green card holders who are going hungry because of sponsor-deeming requirements. California should remove these requirements from CFAP for three reasons. First, it has a chilling effect. Eligibility workers often force sponsored green card holders to provide their sponsors information, which is then remitted to USCIS, even when they are exempt. Applicants are afraid that they or their sponsor will get in trouble with the government, so they withdraw their applications. Second, sponsor deeming rules are complex, and eligibility workers frequently make errors. They fail to screen for the many exemptions based on indigents, being a domestic violence survivor, living with a sponsor, being admitted in the fourth or fifth years, or having sufficient work quarters. Third, AB 1049 will reduce administrative burdens in the face of unprecedented workloads due to HR1. A worker simply must check whether an applicant has their green card for fewer than five years and then skip these complex assessments. Eliminating sponsor deeming would have helped our client, Mr. L, a 70-year-old monolingual Mandarin speaker. He has no income and he struggles with diabetes. He had his green card for one year when he applied for CalFresh. His sponsors are an acquaintance no longer in the U.S. and his son who was unhoused. His application was denied because he could not provide sufficient information about his sponsors. The county worker failed to assess him for the indigence exception, which is a very common error. He was left hungry, but if AB 1049 had been in place, he would have been eligible for expedited benefits. At a time when immigrant access to basic needs is more precarious than ever before, this is a simple change that will prevent hunger in California. Thank you. Thank you. And now we'll look to others that want to add on in support. Chair, Senator Dean Grafilo with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of Los Angeles County in support of AB 1049. Yesenia Rebancho with End Child Poverty California in strong support. Cal Westlok with the California Community Foundation in support. Simran Carr with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Anayeli Martin with the California Food Assistance Program, proud co-sponsors and also here on behalf of Chirla and California Pan Ethnic Health Network in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Kathy Mossberg on behalf of the California Association of Food Banks in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jonathan Muñoz on behalf of First Five Los Angeles in strong support and we thank the author for our leadership. Koyse Tern with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in strong support. Jackie Mendelson with Nourish California, proud co-sponsor of this bill in strong support and also on behalf of the California Food and Farming Network in support. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a lead opposition witness or anyone wants to weigh in an opposition? I would, Mr. Chair, thank you. Vice Chair. So, you know, I have a hard time sometimes trying to balance between so much administrative requirements and walking through those loopholes along with responsible accountability as far as ensuring that people don't take advantage of the system. You know, in light of the many reports that we've had in regards to fraudulent efforts by nefarious folks out, you know, we're always going to have folks that have ill intent and abuse of the system that is so incredibly generous that we have both at the state and the federal level in the past. One of the biggest concerns that we've had in the past that we were trying to, in my opinion, try to assess and try to address is folks taking advantage of our systems. When it comes to food assistance, we have an incredibly generous system where there's so many levels of people and organizations coming in trying to address hunger in our state. I appreciate Senator Hurtado's effort, you know, once again, creating another layer of trying to have everybody come in under one umbrella so that people can have access to everything that's currently available, because there's so many angles that we're trying to address hunger, so many levels. I'm a little not a little I'm actually hesitant to support anything that takes away some accountability as far as trying to show that you do have a need or that there is a need though I appreciate the example and my heart breaks for that gentleman that went without because he didn't have the right paperwork to be able to I feel for that for situations like that but had the county done its job as far as assessing and and and right rightly placing him where he needed to be would he had been able to get the help that he needed so that is the question that has so it was it more of an enforcement and the failure of the county to be able to enforce and do its job right that we failed him Because otherwise he should have had the help that he needed. Yes? Mic is off. There we go. Yeah, in this particular situation, yes. This is a complex rule that is hard to address in two minutes, which is kind of why we're here, but one of the primary exemptions that are often assessed too late is the indigence exception, which basically if your current income is less than 130 percent of the federal power line, which is most people apply for this benefit, the sponsor deeming process shouldn't move forward and there's no need to contact the sponsor. But there are so many eligibility rules in CFAP and in CalFresh, and this is again one of the more complex ones and the order of operation is very confusing. So we do often see that the problem is that the county worker process or the difficulty of this rule. That being said, it's almost always that we're seeing this happen. I've been doing this for 11 years now and it's very rare that a sponsor deeming assessment, once it gets for office, we look through it that sponsor deeming should actually apply. Just kind of like this is due the least harm to prevent hunger, knowing that many, many people are eligible for these exceptions. Also, I'll point out it's only for the first three years of admission under the current law. Then this rule drops away in years four and five, and then it comes back with federal eligibility after five years of admission because of something called the five-year bar, which thanks to CFAP we don't have in those first five years. So the administrative burden is very high. It's common that people are eligible for the exemption but are inappropriately assessed. And then if it's not that, though, it's the chilling effect of it being asked on the application of often county workers asking for information about the sponsor before they're assessing for exemptions. Yeah, I think, and then, you know, speaking to questions of fraud, like I said, I've been doing this for 11 years, and the biggest threat, the fraud threat to our safety net is still EBT theft. It's external nefarious actors that are threatening and taking millions from our state every month, honestly. It's extremely rare that we see fraud accusations that are based in that actual intent and not in actually these very complex rules that are difficult for people to understand and navigate in terms of reporting. And that's on the administrative side, right? Yeah, it's the whole ecosystem, but yes, that would be on the administrative side too and the barriers people have to reporting at this point. So I'm going to make just one comment because I, like I said, I, in general, I have a really hard time trying to balance the accountability part of it with the administrative, which usually when we talk about government systems, they're incredibly burdensome, incredibly burdensome. Having said that question, and as far as the administrative part of it, as a tool, and I know we're probably going to see this more as we're having conversations and programs that are being impacted by error, per se, or fraud on that end. But would it be helpful to use and have AI tools to help assist on the administrative side to help navigate the rules that we currently have in order to protect the system but still be able to be efficient and effective in the work that they do moving forward especially when we talk about protecting a system I don know that I could speak to that so broadly I think there's always a role for using technology to advance our access to benefits system, whether that be to reduce administrative burden, to help us with our error rate. That is a huge threat. So I'll kind of leave that there. But in terms of sponsor deeming, I don't know if it could really be applied there. This is about forcing someone who is likely exempt to contact their sponsor, to send their information to USCIS. People often don't understand the difference between USCIS, which just is immigration application processing and immigration enforcement, ICE and DHS, that we see workers taking liberties and telling people, are you sure you want to apply for this benefit? because I'm going to send your sponsor's information to USAS, and you and your sponsor are going to get in trouble, and you could get deported. We've heard these stories. There's a lot of conflation. We're trying to remove any fear about immigration enforcement and benefit access, which then has ripple effects in the community in terms of rumors people hear. If you're a green card holder, don't apply for benefits. You and your sponsor will get in trouble, regardless of your sponsor's current capacity to support you or to be even in contact with you oftentimes. So it's just so confounding. And I'll say, too, in terms of any folks trying to take advantage, historically, we have huge underutilization of public benefits in immigrant communities. There are so many reasons for that. But sponsor deeming is a major one. Misconceptions about it, conflation of it with the public charge rule and with privacy and safety in using public benefits and how that can interact with immigration enforcement. So reducing one more barrier for people who need food to live is why this bill is being brought today. Okay. I see no other comments. I want to thank you for the bill. We'll be supporting it today. As you note in the analysis, the sponsorship is not a federal requirement to access CFAP. And I do think it was a little streamlining. I also appreciate the specific example. That's always very helpful. We have a specific example. Even this one case just lets us sort of understand the implications much better. So we'll be supporting the bill today. Would you like to close? Yes. I just want to thank the senator for her comments and Ms. Silver for responding. I think even the exchange kind of elevates how unnecessary and confusing this rule is and why it's a barrier for so many families in need of assistance. Also, I think just I want to recognize as an assembly member who grew up facing food insecurity and represents a community that has many mixed status family members and has had the most ICE actions last year than any other place, that when people go hungry, they're not trying to go through administrative barriers to get food to game any sort of system. They're trying to feed their children. And I think it's so important, especially in the climate right now, when perhaps there are food banks that are accessible to some communities. In places like my community, getting in line that wraps around the block when there's a fear that someone might take you is not an option. And so ensuring that we're removing barriers where we can and not adding to the administrative burden that people have to do while they're truly evaluating eligibility is what this is about. 1049 ensures that eligible immigrant families are not blocked from food assistance With that I just want to recognize and thank how many sponsors and supporters we have of this bill You heard from some of them today and I respectfully ask for your aye vote Okay, thank you. Please call the roll. Oh, do we have a motion? Do we have a motion? A motion from Dr. Weber? File Item 2, AB 1049, motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Etobo? Laird? No. Oh, Etobo, no. Laird? Perez? Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Okay, that is 2-1. We will leave that bill on call. Thank you. Okay, I have to step out for a moment. I'm going to give this over to our Vice Chair. We will continue for now to proceed in a file order unless someone would like to. We have a couple members who have been waiting patiently. But next up in file order would be Assemblymember Jackson for AB 1201. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Ms. Vice Chair, committee members. I will be as quick as possible to avert the side eye from my colleagues. I... Too late. Okay, no problem. I'm pleased to present AB 1201, which narrows the scope of when a parent's past violent felony conviction can be used to deny them family reunification services. Currently, a parent who was previously convicted of any violent felony, even one with no connection to their child or family, can have reunification services denied to them. AB 1201 ensures that this disqualification only applies when it's actually relevant, when the violent felony was committed against a child or against someone with whom the parent shared a child at the time of the offense. With me today to testify in support is Fidel Chagoya with All of Us or None and Amanda Kirshner with the County Welfare Directors Association of California. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Fidel Chagua, and I'm currently an organizer and project manager with Riverside All of Us or None at Starting Over, Inc. Starting Over, Inc. is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping formerly incarcerated individuals secure housing, employment, and expunging their criminal records. I hold a certificate of rehabilitation and a master's degree in clinical mental health counseling from the University of Redlands. I am speaking to you today because I am a formerly incarcerated parent who lost my rights as a parent. My daughter, Zoe, my first child was born in 2016 when I was 39 years old. By then, I had been out of prison for six years and off parole for four. I had worked tirelessly to create a stable life, securing steady employment, stable housing, and reliable transportation. During childbirth, Zoe's mother tested positive for opiates because of Tylenol-Wakodine that was prescribed by a dentist and having previously lost parental rights to her other children. This triggered the involvement of San Bernardino County's Children and Family Service who looked at my past criminal record and said I should not have an opportunity to even reunify with my child due to Welfare Institution Code Section 361.5B12, the bypass provision. My parental rights were terminated, and in 2019, Zoe was adopted out with 119 other children in San Bernardino County, even though my prior criminal history had no bearing on whether I would be a good parent or not. If this change in law proposed by AB 1201 existed at the time of my case, I would have an opportunity of getting reunification services with my daughter. I am here for you to consider making sure that many parents like me who have felonies unrelated to their ability to be a parent, and in many cases have paid their debt to society a fair chance of getting their children back. For these reasons, I express my support for AB 1201. Thank you, Chair and members. Welcome, ma'am. Good afternoon, Amanda Kirshner. On behalf of County Welfare Directors Association, we are proudly here in support on this bill. First, I want to say that we are sincerely thankful to the author, the staff, and the sponsors for working with us over the past year to reach an agreement on this language. It was a long process, and this is a culmination of work that I'm just very proud of and how we've gotten here. When a family enters the child welfare system, our mandate is the safety of the child, but our goal is reunification with the family. Our goal sometimes does not align with the penal code that defines the violent felonies and the bypass provisions. In order for parents to reunify, they have to complete counseling, substance use treatment, housing supports, parenting classes, among many other things. But unfortunately, our WIC code and our definition of violent felonies often provide that those families get very little chance in order to do so. This bill importantly limits and narrows this to allow for violent felonies to not be a prohibition unless they have been against a child or a parent or a guardian where there is a child who was shared. Importantly, what we want to make sure is that this change is narrow but important to ensure that parents who have a violent felony in their past but who have not harmed a child can participate in our reunification services. It also makes sure that when the children are brought into our child welfare system, they are not immediately reunified with the parents. They still have to receive the services and they have to be deemed placement back to the parents by the dependency court. So this isn't an immediate reunification. They still have to go through their case plan and have approval. We feel like AB 1201 furthers the work that we are doing to ensure child safety, and for those reasons, we ask for your support. Thank you so much. We'll now continue with any witnesses in support here in room 2200. Sorry, I'm in two committees at the time, so I'm kind of trying to facilitate where I'm at right now. So we'll continue with any witnesses in support of AB 1201 here in room 2200. Thank you. Jay Vasquez on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Justice. Strong support. Thank you. And just as a reminder, it's your name, your position, and the organization that you're with. Policy Director Thank you of the Family Reunification Equity and Empowerment Project, in strong support. Dr. Wendy Blanco with Peace of War Violence, in strong support. And Quirk Policy Attorney on behalf of Children's Law Center of California, in support. Julia Hannigan, Policy Director with Dependency Legal Services, in support. Kristen Power Alliance for Children's Rights, in support. Thank you so much. We're not continuing with any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 1201 here in room 2200. Seeing none, we'll continue with any witnesses from the public in opposition. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais for any comments or questions. None? Okay. So thank you for bringing this bill forward. I appreciate your testimony. But I do have some questions. It's hard. It's hard to balance that of accountability and having grace on issues that have to do with children. I actually appreciate the fact that the county was incredibly involved in trying to mitigate this bill with some of the concerns for the children because it is the goal of trying to reunite the children with their parents. I do have some concerns as far as dealing with the felonies, especially with the violent felonies. Could you, for the record, explain if there are any exceptions to the felonies, especially the violent felonies when it comes to this particular bill? And just to be clear, I think the biggest concern that I have is not necessarily that the parent may harm the child per se, especially when it comes to the amendment that you had, that you made sure that it was limited to filing felony conviction situation involving that it wasn't against the child or an individual who shared the child with the parent or guardian at the time of the crime. is an improvement, but my concern is more about, say, if the parent was involved in human trafficking or drug trafficking. It's the element around it and the folks around that, those components that, in my mind, I'm afraid that it would expose the child to those elements that would not be conducive to their well-being. It's more of the environment, not necessarily that you would be directly impacting the child. Do you have any thoughts on those concerns First let me first state Madam Chair that this is a complicated issue because we dealing with humans which just means it's messy. And it's also important to recognize that this was a two-year bill because we wanted to get to a place where we can make sure that we address as many concerns as possible. And I wanna thank the counties and the advocates for working together to find a place forward. What I think is the most important to recognize is, number one, these are people who serve their time to society. But then also to making sure that right now all we're really doing is eliminating the automatic decision-making that's going on So that when a person creates a violent felony, by law, the judge doesn't even have any say in the matter. They automatically are denied any reunification services. So we're getting the automatic part out and letting the judge make their own decision case by case. to even give them an opportunity to go through the process of reunification. And I think that's the most important part. And so if a judge says, we are now looking at you, we're investigating what you've done since you've paid your debt to society, if a judge still deems that this person should not be able to go through a reunification process, then the judge can make that decision. But even if they do, the witnesses have described all the things that they have to go through before they even have the ability to reunify. So this is just about giving families the support that they need to get in a position where they can reunify. And if they are still not, after going through all of that, the judge can still say yes or no. we do not believe it is okay for you to be reunified with your child. Okay. So there's a lot of steps and a lot of observation, a lot of following along the way to ensure that they are displaying all the things that are necessary to provide a safe and nurturing household so that a child can continue to be on a pathway to thrive. Do we know within the conversations that the judge has in evaluating whether or not a person is safe to be reunited with their child? Do they take in consideration the environment, the crime, and where they're going to live that's around? because that's one of the biggest, when I started public safety, it was one of the biggest concerns that I had was the question of whether or not someone who was released should be placed in their home, in their neighborhood, or placed somewhere else. And I always had the debate as to, okay, if they go home, then they have that family, you hope that they would have that family support. but you still have the nefarious environment in which they got caught. I'll ask CWA to talk about those and any home inspections that may happen and those type of things. Absolutely. So typically in our process what happens when a child is removed because of a safety concern We have hearings to get jurisdiction over the child They placed with a foster family Sometimes that kin as we talked about a lot in this committee, sometimes is one of our typical resource families. And then the parents start their process of services and reunification based on the case plan that's assigned to them. What typically happens is you have visitation that is started at the beginning, and so that can be supervised or unsupervised. And so to your concern that when they are reunifying and meeting with the children and there might be other elements going on in the home or safety concerns around of that, what our social workers do is they mitigate that during the visitation. And so if a parent is deemed to be no danger whatsoever, maybe they have unsupervised visitation. They might have what we would call observed visitation, where they need to have someone in the home, but they don't have to have someone right there next to them the entire time. Or they could have supervised visitation, which oftentimes begins at one of our county facilities. It's only for a couple of hours every month, and a social worker is always there. So when supervised visitation is happening at that highest level, the child is not interacting with that parent anywhere outside of sort of county control. We have different ways of mitigating and stepping that down. Sometimes we may have supervised visitation after a few months where it could be in the home, but they're being supervised by the resource family or the relative who is in charge of the child as they're a caretaker. But a lot of times what we start at, if there's any question of safety or concern, is that highest level of supervised visitation. And so we mitigate from there on down. To your concern about sort of any other sort of safety concerns around parents and previous activities, what we do also is we require parents to go through any number of different counseling services. So depending on what it was, you know, and it's based off of what the current fear or safety risk is. So if it's substance abuse, we require testing. We require attending counseling classes. if there's issues around safety because of physical violence, maybe it's anger management and domestic violence classes, right? So what we do is we try and build around a safety net as much as possible between visitation, supervision, and also counseling services to help parents realize mistakes have been made and how we can move them out of that. I think what can be frustrating, especially here in this situation particularly, was that at the very beginning they were just deemed unsafe because of this previous felony and were never given an opportunity to go through any of that process. And so it doesn't matter what their felony was, how long ago it was, if they've completely rehabilitated. We just look at it and say you have a violent felony as defined by the penal code, which lists out all the different violent felonies, and you meet one so you don't get reunification services and are bypassed. And we find that that can lead to some really unfortunate results where an otherwise safe parent will lose rights to their child. Have there been any case examples of where this has failed in the past? Can you be more specific? Which part has failed? Oh, sorry. In the sense that a parent was reunited in these sort of, and I know you're trying to change the system right now, so I'm assuming we haven't had any parents with felonies that have actually moved forward. I just I would hate to be in support of a piece of legislation that would have failures and a child is harmed. And the reason being is that just right now we had very broad discussions with regards to the parole process and what has happened in releasing folks that are still having ideation of hurting children in their place. But the folks that are in the parole system, you know, assessing these, these folks are looking at the system and the protocols, the framework that is used to evaluate. So I'm just I'm a little hesitant only because it failed on that end. And we could have a process and a framework right now that is followed to ensure that parents have, you know, that fit the criteria are reunited and then something happens to the child. That's where I'm a little nervous on something like this. But I do, I get that. Are there any felonies that are exempt from qualifying for this evaluation for parents? So the only felonies that apply are the ones that are specifically listed in the penal code as violent felonies. So I don't have that list in front of me, but it includes the things that you would suspect, like murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault. There's also some white-collar crimes on there so that they get the strike. I believe embezzlement is included. but broadly that list is a remnant of the three-strike conversation and does not necessarily match one-to-one with what you might broadly consider a violent felony. Okay, so there's not – okay. I think that's probably my last question is probably on that end. Okay. Any other comments, questions? Dr. Weber? No. Okay. Okay, we have a motion by Senator Weber. Would you like to close, Dr. Jackson? You know, one of the first things you're trained in as a social worker is understanding that at the end of the day, whenever possible, the best place for a child to be is with their family and a support system. and if you can't do that, you want to put them with a relative. And the more a child is away from their family, that also creates harm. And so whenever possible, we want to try to put as many supports around a family as possible to ensure that that home becomes, again, the best place for a child to be. And again, we're only talking about the opportunity to be reunified with their child. And right now, there is absolutely no opportunity at all. And yes, we have examples when someone is not 100% rehabilitated, and then they continue to maybe do harm to others. But we also have numerous examples when people actually are rehabilitated and they are ready to provide a loving and nurturing environment for their child. So we just don't want to close the door and create a cookie-cutter approach for everyone, but understand that this will be done circumstance by circumstance, achievement by achievement, but also mistake by mistake, so that we can make sure that as many people, many children are unified with their families as possible So with that we believe that every child should have an opportunity to do so and respectfully ask for your aye vote Thank you, Dr. Jackson. We're on call. We're on call? Okay. We don't have a quorum. I thought we did establish a quorum. We can still vote. Yeah. No, that's all right. We did establish a quorum, so we're going to go ahead and take a vote call, and then we'll leave it open for our absent members. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. File Item 3, AB 1201. Motion is due pass to Judiciary Committee. Becker, Echobo. Not voting. Laird, Perez, Weber-Pearson. Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Okay, we'll put that on call. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Dr. Jackson. We have Rubio. Okay. So we'll continue with file item number 7, AB 2429 with Assemblymember Rubio. Oh, sorry. Did not see you there. Okay. Okay. All right. So we have, so Assemblymember Solace will be, will be, presenting his bill in lieu of Assemblymember Rubio. Thank you, Assemblymember Rubio, for the courtesy. Assemblymember Colosa? No, Solace. A little different. Yes. Give me one second. You are file item number 17. Thank you, Madam Chair. File item number 17, AB 2379 by Assemblymember Solace. Please proceed when you're ready, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, thank you to my amazing seatmate for letting me present first. We have a lot of child care providers that need to get to work after as well. So with that, thank you to the chair and to committee members for the opportunity to present AB 2379, Protecting Family Child Care Providers' Constitutional Rights. I am grateful for the chair and the committee staff for their hard work and thoughtful analysis on the bill. Child care homes are essential to California's child care system, especially for working class and immigrant families. AB 2379 ensures license and license exempt family child care providers are informed of their constitutional rights when confronted by immigration enforcement. The bill requires the Department of Social Services to notify providers of their Fourth Amendment protections and to coordinate accessible multilingual training. The training will ensure providers understand the rights regarding searches, seizures, arrests, and detentions of their homes. By enduring these providers' constitutional rights, the bill helps keep child care's doors open and safe from intimidation, misinformation, and lawful searches, or arrests by law enforcement, including federal immigration authorities. AB 2379 builds an existing sensitive location protections by ensuring family child care providers have the information and tools they need to provide themselves and the children of their care. This bill is a Latino caucus priority. It's co-sponsored by the Child Care Providers United SCIU California United Domestic Workers and ASME Local 3930. I'm joined today by child care provider Wendy Moran, who will also have Edgar Guerra from SAU California available for any technical questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. And we will continue with our witnesses. Please proceed when you're ready. Ms. Moral. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Wendy Moran, and I'm a child care provider and proud member of Local 99. For 17 years, I care for children and families in the South Central Los Angeles. My child care program is more than a business It a safe trusted space where children learn grow and feel safe Today, many providers and families are living with fear and uncertainty. Because family child care programs operate in our house, it's critical that providers understand their rights and responsibilities so we can protect ourselves, their children, and our care, and families who depend on us. AB 2379 will ensure that family child care providers across California have access to consistent statewide know-your-rights trainings regarding of where they live or what language they speak. This training will help providers stay informed, prepared, and focus on what matters the most, keeping children safe. I respectfully ask for you to support AB 2379, every family child care provider that serves access to information and tools that need to serve children and families with confidence. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your testimony, ma'am. Just here for any technical questions. Okay. Thank you, Senator. Perfect. So now we're going to continue with any witnesses in support of AB 2379 here in room 2200. Madam Chair, members, Kathy Van Austin, American Association of University Women of California in support. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair, members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in strong support. Thank you. Hello, I'm Daryl Augustine. I'm a family child care provider for 18 years in Santa Clara County. And I am asking you to stand with us in voting yes on AB 2379. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. Charlotte Neal from Sacramento, family child care provider for 28 years. And I'm asking you to stand in support with us for AB 1981. Sorry. I'm so sorry. 2379. We got you, we got you. Hi, good afternoon, Mr. Chair. My name is Sam Sam Khalif and I'm a CCPU member of Child Care Provider and I'm from San Diego County. I have been child care in care in more than 15 years and I'm here to support AB 2379 and asking you to stand with us on voting yes on 2379. Please. Thank you, ma'am. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of UNI DOS US. Appreciate the author and in support. Thank you. My name is Manju and I'm a child care provider with CCPU. I have been doing child care almost 25 years. I am requesting you to please vote for yes, AB2379. Thank you. key in a pollo del ABC 20 70 no I a family family talker provider from Orange County I have been serving children and families for more than 25 years I am here today to strong support of AB 2379. And I respectfully ask you for your yes for this bill. Thank you. Yes. I'm Aurora Reyes, a family child care educator from Los Angeles County. I'm asking that you guys support Bill AB 2379. And I support it too. Chair, Senator Dean Grafilo with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support of AB 2379. Thank you. Maiva Reneau, VP of Advocacy and Policy with Cadengo in support of AB 2379. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jonathan Munoz, on behalf of First Life Los Angeles, in strong support of the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Yesenia Rabancho with End Child Poverty in California in support. Thank you. Thank you so much. I will not continue with any witnesses in opposition, any main opposition witnesses for AB 2379 here in 20. Sorry, I haven't done this in a while. My mouth is trying to get accustomed again. Do you have any witnesses in opposition? See, not anyone from the general public that would like to speak in opposition to this bill. Great. We'll bring it back to the dais. Any comments, questions? We have a motion by Senator Dr. Weber. I just want to say that I'm extremely grateful for this. I am a huge advocate for constitutional literacy. I've carried a bill, died in committee, couldn't move forward. I think it's incredibly important to understand what our Constitution states, both the U.S. and the state constitution. And in this case, I'm grateful that you're, I think, you know, as members who are working in just working, you should know your rights on protection. I do want to give a great shout out to my district attorney in the county of San Bernardino, Jason Anderson, who actually did a seminar, has been doing seminars on constitutional rights for students, for minors, and how to react, what their rights are when they are stopped by a police officer, what to do, what not to do, what the rights are. and I think it's incredibly brilliant, and he did this on his own. And I thought, what a great idea to empower our youth with awareness of their constitutional rights. So I'm in absolute full support of constitutional literacy. Thank you so much for moving this or introducing this bill. Would you like to close? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to present this bill. I think our child care providers feel the need to have this reinforcement of knowing the rights. So I think your words are exactly what the bill is. So with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you very, very much. And well, our chair is back. So I'm going to transfer up the so Madam Secretary, please call the roll. File item 17 AB 2379. Motion is due pass to Public Safety Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echelbog? Aye. Echelbog, aye. Aye. Laird? Perez, Weber Pearson, Aye. Weber Pearson, Aye. Okay, that vote is 3-0. We'll keep it on call. Thank you. Assemblymember And thank you to our vice chair for filling in while I was out. And we'll next up. I see a assembly where Blancarou is still waiting. Thank you for waiting very patiently. And you have one bill on consent, and you're here to present AB 2429. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 2429 today. AB 2429 strengthens California Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation, or ECMHC, programmed by removing barriers that can limit participation while maintaining the integrity of this proven evidence-based model. ECMHC supports children's social-emotional development by pairing trained mental health consultants with educators to create healthier classroom environments and address challenges before they escalate. It is one of the most effective tools for supporting young children, strengthening educator capacity, and reducing preschool expulsion. However, feedback from providers and consultants across the state indicate that some of these requirements are creating barriers and disincentivizing programs from implementing this model. These requirements can create unnecessary administrative burdens, limit flexibility, and ultimately discourage programs from participating. AB 2429 makes two targeted changes. First, it makes administration of the ACE screening tool optional rather than required if for every child in a classroom receiving consultation services. services. This preserves access to the tool for programs that choose to use it while providing flexibility for those that do not have the capacity to administer it universally. Second, it reduces the required number of classroom observations from two per year to one per year, allowing consultants and educators to determine together what level of observation is most appropriate for their setting. These changes reduce unnecessary administrative burdens and and allow consultants to focus their time where it matters the most, supporting children, educators, and families. Most importantly, AB 2429 reinforces the core principles of effective consultation that support should be responsive, relationship-based, and tailored to the unique needs of each classroom. With me today to testify, I have Maeva Renaud, VP of Advocacy and Policy at Kedango, and Celeste Farmer, Director of Mental Health at Cadango. Thank you. Okay. Thank you both. You have two minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. I'm Maeva Renaud, and I'm with Cadango. And as a child care and preschool program, we are very proud to sponsor AB 2429 and ask for your iVote because this critical piece of legislation is about strengthening access to early childhood mental health consultation for California State Preschool, general child care, and family child care home education networks. Research tells us that a child's brain develops rapidly from zero to five. Exposure to trauma, chronic stress, or unaddressed behavioral issues during this period can have lifelong consequences, Affecting their ability to learn from relationships and thrive. Early childhood mental health consultation gives the adults that support these children the tools they need to create an optimal environment for children to grow Previous legislation established an adjustment factor for programs to utilize funding to implement early childhood mental health consultation in their programs with associated requirements to adhere to its quality. At CADANGO, we have a robust early childhood mental health consultation program, including my director of mental health here with me today. We have two clinical supervisors, 17 consultants who divide their time amongst our 53 California State Preschool Programs and general child care sites and our FETCH-IN networks. Now, our priorities are formed, our policy priorities are informed by critical feedback from our ECE workforce and our families. And so the changes that we are proposing is deeply rooted in what we have heard from them and what Assemblymember Rubio shared. And so making ACEs screener optional and reducing required observation from two per year to one per year are directly informed from the feedback that we had from our staff, as well as 36 other providers across the state. So with these changes, more state preschool, general child care, and family child care home education network providers will be able to utilize the adjustment factor to implement early childhood consultation services. Great. Thank you. We'll move on to the next. Oh, wonderful. Good afternoon, Chair and Esteve members. I'm Celeste Farmer, the Director of Mental Health at Cadango. I've been a licensed marriage and family therapist in California since 2015. I have experience both as a mental health consultant providing in early learning settings as well as a supervisor and leader and now director. In my experience, increasing providers' ability to utilize mental health consultation has a huge potential to make a difference in lives of so many children and families. From my experience, early childhood mental health consultation builds adults' confidence and competence to meet social-emotional needs of children, manage behaviors, and create a positive social-emotional climate program-wide. In order to have this impact, what I have found is most critical to have in place is attunement to the individualized needs of programs, teachers, and children. The changes in AB 2429 support high-quality early childhood mental health consultation by supporting that attunement and individualized focus and allowing consultants who work with many classrooms, teachers, directors, and face time constraints to have more flexibility in the activities they implement for each classroom based on expressed needs of that group of children, teachers, and families. Additionally, by making the Adverse Childhood Experience a Screener optional, consultants can choose when it makes sense to utilize that tool based on the parent bandwidth, whether the screener is already conducted in other settings, such as pediatric visits, and how conducive it is in given situations to build a strength-based, positive relationship with parents. This is a critical piece of legislation that will strengthen access to early childhood mental health consultation services in California, state preschool, general child care, and family child care home education networks. Thank you so much for your time. I strongly urge you to vote aye on AB 2429 for healthy teachers and children and families. Okay. Thank you both. anyone else would like to add on in support of this bill do we have any opposition any opposition or anyone's opposition see none we'll take it back to the committee any comments no I will for my own part just thank you I know we have a large new canangle that opening up in my district So thanks for the work of your whole team but also the 36 other partners that are on this. And as you mentioned, that are supportive here. So it seems like an important kind of comment. Since practical measure, I will be supporting it here today. Would you like to close? Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay. And I've heard you have two bills on consent, not one bill on consent. So two bills on consent. This is your third bill. Please call the roll. I'll do the motion. Okay. Move motion from Dr. Weber Pearson. File item 7, AB 2429. Motion is due passed to Education Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echobo, Laird, Perez, Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. All right, that's 2 to 0. We'll stay on call. Thank you. Thank you both. All right, let's get back to the file order. Dr. Sharp-Collins is here. Thank you. You have AB 1755. Go ahead when ready. Thank you. All right. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 1755, which is a Women's Caucus priority. This bill is one that aims to eliminate the 100-hour work penalty, which is an outdated policy from the 1950s. Today, if a family works over 100 hours within a month, they are automatically disqualified from receiving CalWORKs. This rule is rooted in false and harmful ideas that low-income families should be able to survive on a part-time work. That logic was wrong then, and it is definitely still wrong now, especially when we live inside a state with one of the highest costs of living within the nation. California is one of the only four states that is still truly enforcing this regressive rule alongside Kentucky, Mississippi, and also South Dakota. Beyond being an unjust rule, this policy is honestly physically short-sighted. When families lose CalWORKs assistance abruptly, they are more likely to face housing instability, rely on emergency services, and also cycle through more costly systems such as homelessness services, child welfare, and also crisis health care. Those interventions cost the state far more than providing stable and modest support up front through CalWORKs. At a time when families are struggling with rising rents, child care costs, and economic uncertainty, we should not be enforcing policies that deepen poverty and increase long-term public costs. So with me to help testify in regards to this particular bill, I have Rebecca Gonzalez, which is a policy advocate for Westminster on Law and Poverty, but also I have Amanda Kirchner, Director of the Legislative Advocacy for the County Warfare Directors Association. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Shep Collins. Thank you both. You each have two minutes. Great. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Rebecca Gonzalez, and I'm a policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We are a co-sponsor of AB 1755 as part of the Reimagined CalWORKS Coalition, which also includes SCIU, County Welfare Directors Association, End Child Poverty, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Parent Voices, and the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence. It's time we stop punishing CalWORKs working families. This bill would strike current law which provides that a primary wage earning parent in a two family must work less than 100 hours per month for the family to be eligible for CalWORKs even if they otherwise are needy and income for CalWORKs The 100-hour rule policy assumes that working an average of 25 hours a week can generate enough income for a parent to provide for their family and further assumes the family's income is above the eligibility threshold in CalWORKs, known as the minimum basic standard of adequate care. This old welfare rule, known as the work penalty, was adopted after the welfare reform era of the 1990s. It was based on assumptions about sufficiency of income from hours worked, which can be incorrect, and which have served no good purpose but to punish hardworking families, discourage work, and harm children who are poor. As stated by the author, California is an outlier by still having this policy. It is inhumane to subject impoverished families to this bureaucratic rule when good government dictates that we treat them fairly, give them the services and supports they need, and judge them based on facts about their economic sufficiency. More importantly, policies like these put families at risk of homelessness. It is for these reasons the Western Center on Law and Poverty is pleased to co-sponsor this bill, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Excellent. Thank you. Go ahead. Good evening, Amanda Kirchhoff on behalf of County Welfare Directors Association. We are here in support on AB 1755. It's a common sense change that's going to help us reduce administrative work for counties and our clients. Our CalWORKs clients already must meet income eligibility requirements, regardless of how many hours they work each month. Often our clients are in low-paying jobs and often rely on seasonal or gig work to supplement as well, which means that their monthly hours can vary widely. AB 1755 eliminates the requirements that CalWORKs families work less than 100 hours a month, but it does not in any way impact the overall income requirements, and it makes sure that we can continue to have maintained program integrity. It reduces administrative burden for our clients and for our county eligibility, and so we are dry vote. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, others in support? Do you have others in support? Please approach the mic. Melina Manictis on behalf of the Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunalakis in support. Okay, great. Hi, Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California, in support. Koi Se Tern with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, proud sponsors and strong support. Dean Ruffiel with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support of SB 1755. Yes, Senior Robancho with End Child Poverty California. Proud co-sponsors in support. Okay, thank you all. Any opposition? Opposition comments? No? We'll take it back to the committee. We have a motion from Dr. Robert Pearson. I just want to thank you for the bill. We want people to be working, right? We don't want to penalize people for working. We don't want to, and because we already have the income eligibility, I agree that we do not need this 100-hour rule. Thank you for bringing it up. You're welcome. And with that motion, we'd like to close first. I just want to remind everyone that this is, again, a Women's Caucus priority, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay. Please call the roll. File Item 8, AB 1755, motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echopo? Laird? Perez? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Thank you. Okay, two to zero. We will keep that on call. Thank you. Well, in final item order, we have Assemblymember Aguirre-Curry. Patrick Aarons has been waiting for probably about an hour. Would you be willing to let him go? Okay. So you defer to the majority leader. Okay, excellent. Hey, everybody's happy. Everybody's happy. I'll try to make this short for you, Patrick. All right, majority leader. Thank you. Please go ahead when ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Child care is the backbone for our families, our communities, and the economy here in California. It helps parents get to work, keeps their economy moving, ensures children are safely cared for. But too many families still cannot find care they can afford or find care at all. At the same time, child care providers remain underpaid with reimbursement rates that do not reflect the true cost of care. In previous budget years, the administration committed to fixing this by transitioning to a new rate system that reflects the real costs. But we are still waiting. And we're waiting. And that system has not yet been implemented. Current law requires CDSS to provide updates on this transition, but only through July 2027, regardless of whether implementation is complete. That creates an accountability gap, leaving families and providers without clear visibility into how and when these rates will be set. This bill requires CDSS to implement a rate system that reflects regional costs and key factors like age of children served, extended hours, transportation, and special needs care. It requires the Department to implement the new rates within 90 days of reaching an agreement with providers and to give quarterly updates until the new system is fully implemented. As new federal work requirements under H.R. 1 take effect, we need a stable and affordable child care for our families to stay employed and maintain economic stability. This bill makes sure that the state follows through on its promise to implementing a fair rate system based on the true cost of care. With me today, I have child care providers Charlotte Neal and Deo Augustine. Thank you very much. You each have two minutes. Go ahead. Okay. Hello. My name is Charlotte Neal. Hello, chair members. And I am a family child care provider in Sacramento County. I'm also a proud member of UDW ASME, Local 3930 CCPU. I've been doing this work for 28 years. I'm a second-generation child care provider, so this work is in my blood. I love my job, and I love the children and the families that I serve. But loving this work does not make it any easier to care for 18 children in my program under a system that refuses to value what we do. And that is why I'm here today, not just for myself, but for every single provider who is barely holding on and for every family who depends on us so their children can grow learn and be safe Let me be very clear about what it means if I cannot afford to keep my doors open 14 18 families 18 will be thrown into crisis overnight I am a 24 child care provider They will be scrambling to find another provider, and we all know they will not find another subsidized option. They will miss work, they will lose wages, they will lose hours, and some will lose their jobs. We've seen this happen before all throughout our state. So when we talk about child care, we are not just talking about service. We're talking about the backbone of California's workforce. We are talking about the stability of entire communities. And right now, the backbone is cracking. That stability is slipping. And that is not California, any of California of us should accept. Not after everything providers give to this state in every single day. That is why we are fighting for AB 1981, the true cost of care act, because we are done surviving on an outdated subsidy rate system. We are done being told to make it work while we subsidize the state with our unpaid labor. We are done pretending that passion can replace fair pay. AB 1981 is not just a bill, but it is a lifeline. It creates a clear, accountable process for setting fair, up-to-date reimbursement rates that actually reflect the true cost of care. Because without that, we cannot stay open. Families cannot stay working. Children cannot get the quality care that they deserve. I am here today because I refuse to let this system fail, the families that I serve. I refuse to let it fail, the providers who give their hearts, their homes, their lives to this work. And I refuse to let it fail, the children who depend on us. So I urge you to support AB 1981. Let's build a California where providers can stay open and children can have a safe place to learn while their parents work. Thank you. Thank you. Please go ahead. Hello, I'm Deo Agustin. I'm a child care provider for 18 years in San Jose, California, and I'm a proud member of CCPU SEIU Local 521. I see firsthand how heavily working families in my community struggle with the crushing cost of living. But right now, the state's reimbursement system is crushing the providers too. What California pays us does not reflect the true cost of care. Everything has gone up except for our rates. Nutritious meals cost significantly more at grocery store. Skyrocketing gas prices and auto insurance premiums to safely transport children to school are rising Maintaining proper staff ratios to ensure safety and quality attention costs more than ever Yet we struggle even to meet the minimum wage Because reimbursement rates fall behind, California's entire child care system faces constant destabilization. This reality hurts our children, hurts working families, and forces dedicated to close their doors. That is why we are here today with a direct, urgent ask. We demand that you protect our workforce and change the budget to include the true cost of care. You must support AB 1981, the True Cost of Care Act. AB 1981 establishes a clear, accountable, and transparent process to set fair to up-to-date subsidy rates. Do not let further budget delays break the promise already made to our families. fund the true cost of care past AB 1981 and stabilize California's child care workforce today. Thank you. Okay thank you to both of you. We'll now take others in support. Please step forward to the mic. I sense we have a big group. Good afternoon Mr. Chair Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in strong support. Thank you. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Glendale in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. My name is Sam Sam Khalifa. I have been family child care provider San Diego more than 15 years and I'm also proud of member UDW Local 89. Teddy, I'm here today to support AB 1981. Okay, thank you. Dean Grafiela with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support of AB 1901. It was a good year. It was a good year. I wasn't alive, but I'll take your word for it. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of UNITOS US in support. Thank you. Hi, my name is Blake in support. Good afternoon, Chair. Committee members of Blake Johnson, I'm of a Child Action here in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Edgar Guerra with SEIU California, proud co-sponsor. Thank you. Good afternoon. I am Manju. I am child care provider, proud member of CCPU from Santa Clara County, District 2. I am here to support. to support. Please, thank you. Hi, my name is Wendy Moran. I'm a provider from Los Angeles County. I'm a child care provider for 17 years. I'm here to support APA 1981. Please vote for APA 1981. Thank you. Hello, Aurora Reyes, a proud member of CCPU, family child care educator for 19 years in Los Angeles County. I'm asking that you guys support AB 1981. Hello my name is Jessica Magdaleno I am a family child care provider from Orange County I been doing this job for 25 years I also a proud member of CCPU and I here today in support of AB 1981 because family child care homes are essential and part of California child care system I respectfully ask for a jest to vote on AB 1981. Okay. Yes, Senor Abancho with NTAL Poverty California and strong support. Okay. Well, after all that, who wants to rise in opposition to these bills? Anyone in opposition? Seeing none, I'll be back. Let me just say from my own standpoint, I really appreciate this and your passion and leadership, Ms. Majority Leader, on the child care. I was on the Child Care Partnerships Council of San Mateo County before I elected. And I was very proud. My first year was 2021 when we worked on rate reform. And I was really proud and really encouraged by that. But obviously the job is not finished yet. And we have work to do to make it sustainable for all of you who are putting your heart and soul into the children that you look after. But we have to make it work. It has to be able to, that you can live and afford to do this. So I appreciate it. Unfortunately, we have a couple other committees going, and we have some other people out right now. So we will not be able to vote on this right at the moment because we don't have a motion. I'm confident to say that this bill is going to pass, but we'll have to wait to take a vote. But I want to thank all of you who came up here, especially those from Santa Clara County, but everyone who came up to support today. Thank you. Thank you very much. I would just like to make one comment. Yes, please go ahead. Yeah, please go ahead and close. That's all right. The Child Care Provider United, SEIU, California State Council, United Domestic Workers asked me, the local 3930. They've never, ever left working for the kids. They have been loyal. and I intend to help them get this across the line and I want to thank all of them have come today because it means so much to us they've made long trips to get up here and to make to do this for our children so with that when the time is correct I would like to respectfully ask for your aye vote. Absolutely, absolutely good thank you thank you all. Okay I'm gonna make a request even go out of file order for Assemblymember Ahrens, who's been waiting here patiently for a long time, if that's okay with you, Zimmerman Schultz. Okay, go ahead. As long as you guys are okay. Zimmerman Ahrens has been here from the beginning of the committee, but he's been waiting patiently. I'm sure you're being productive there. Zimmerman Schultz, you have AB 2478. I sure do, Mr. Chair. Thank you, and I have a carrot cake in my office for Mr. Aarons when he's all done. Wow. Oh, I'm fresh out of chocolate, but I got carrot cake for you. I asked for some, too, but that might be considered bribing the vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to be brief. I am pleased to present AB 2478, which will strengthen our state's commitment to keeping children with their families and extended kin whenever possible. As you well know, California has embraced a kin-first culture, meaning that the state strongly prioritizes keeping a child placed with a family member or trusted adult who can better assure that a child stays connected to their communities, cultures, or tribes. recognizes that kinship care includes both relatives and non-relative extended family members who are safe adult caregivers that a child has a pre-existing familial relationship with. Research has consistently shown that children placed with a familiar caregiver experiences better outcomes including greater placement stability, higher likelihood of enrolling in higher education or gaining employment by the age of 21, and improved mental and behavioral health. Currently in California, all foster care applicants must go through one unified application called the Resource Family Approval Process, or RFA for short, regardless of whether or not they are kin with the child they're applying to care for. The RFA was largely designed for licensing foster parents in traditional foster homes and does not fully reflect the needs of kin caregivers who step up during a family crisis. This standardized process can create unnecessary administrative barriers and undue delays for these kin applicants, sometimes preventing children from being placed with kin altogether. Recognizing these issues, the legislature passed AB 2830 by Speaker Robert Rivas in 2024, calling on the Department of Social Services to adopt a simplified approval process for relatives to become foster care providers. AB 2478 follows through on this requirement. It would create the Kinship Family Approval Pathway, or KFA for short, a streamlined approval process specifically for kin caregivers. This pathway will help reduce regulatory barriers and irrelevant requirements to maximize efficient placement. Specifically, AB 2478 removes barriers to kinship placements by, one, extending a limited and preexisting criminal record exemption process to non-related extended family members and tribally approved foster homes, and two, enabling agencies to be eligible to claim Title IV-E federal dollars. By reducing these administrative delays and strengthening family first placement policies, the bill helps ensure that children entering foster care can thrive and remain connected to the people and communities that matter most to them. I'll close, Mr. Chair, with noting that our office is continuing to work with all of the sponsors, as well as the Department of Social Services and tribal advocates, to continue fine-tuning some of the technical language of the bill. Testifying in support today, I have Amanda Kirchner with the County Welfare Directors Association of California, as well as Ann Cork with Children's Law Center of California. Excellent. And I'll ask you each keep it to two minutes, please. Go ahead. I'm Anne Quirk, Policy Attorney with Children's Law Center of California. We are the attorneys for the children in the child welfare dependency system in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Placer counties. Being placed in foster care is often scary, confusing, and traumatic. We teach children about stranger danger. Then a social worker shows up, takes them from their home, and places them in a stranger's house. A seven-year-old client of mine clarified this for me many years ago. She'd recently been placed into a foster home, and I asked her how she was doing. She told me, I don't feel safe. I know I'm supposed to, but I don't. They're very nice people, but I don't know them, and I don't feel safe. AB 2478 seeks to remedy this. It's a big bill with a simple purpose. When a child can't be at home, get them with the people they know and love. as quickly as possible so they can both be safe and feel safe. Sadly, I have many examples of why this bill is necessary, but I think Jeremiah's story is particularly illustrative. I changed his name and blurred some details for his privacy. He entered foster care as a young teenager, along with his little half-brother and sister. They had the same mother with different fathers, but their father had been the one who raised Jeremiah so he considered him dad That father jumped right into reunification services and did everything that was asked of him so Jeremiah little brother and sister were able to be returned home quickly Unfortunately, it wasn't the same for Jeremiah. The father had some criminal history from long ago, and because he'd never married Jeremiah's mother, there was no legal relationship between him and Jeremiah, despite the deep connection. So Jeremiah couldn't be returned. It was very hard to explain why it was safe for his little brother and sister to go home, but not safe for him. Because the issue wasn't about safety. It's just the law doesn't allow it. Jeremiah remained in foster care and ended up aging out. We were never able to find him permanency, which makes sense because he had a home. We just couldn't put him there. AB 2478 would change that and give us the legal tools we need to get the current Jeremiah's home. We thank you for your support and respectfully request your aye vote. Excellent. Thank you. Go ahead. Good evening, Amanda Kirchner. On behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association, we are here as a co-sponsor for AB 2478. Statewide, about one-third of our children in foster care are placed with relatives. Counties have worked very diligently over the last several years to increase placement with relatives, including partnering with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding on best practices, participating in CDSS kinship navigation sprints and utilizing statewide funding to build out family finding units. But we know that there's more that we can do. AB 2478 is that next step forward. The bill updates our resource family approval to allow for kinship specific requirements. This is going to help us streamline our relative approvals so that more children in foster care can be placed with their family members. We're working very collaboratively with our co-sponsors, stakeholders, and Department of Social Services on these new kinship specific approval. and to make sure that we have equitable funding and resources, as well as greater flexibility on requirements that don't impact child safety. And for these reasons, we urge your support. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have others who would like to add on in support of AB 2478? Go ahead. Kristen Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights, a co-sponsor, asking for your aye vote. Hi, Jackie Rutesheiser with the California Alliance of Caregivers in strong support. Good afternoon, Josh Goger on behalf of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors in support. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone in opposition? Anyone like to speak in opposition? I see none. Take it back. Dice, any comments? I would like to thank you for this bill. It is a big bill, but as you say, with a very simple, I think understandable premise, and grateful to be supporting the bill today. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Do we have a motion? You're looking at the entire committee membership. I would move the bill. Excellent. We have a motion from Senator Laird. File Item 18, AB 2478, motion is due passed to Judiciary Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echobo? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Perez? Weber Pearson? Okay, two to zero. We'll keep that on call. Thank you. Thank you all. Okay, we're going to go with Assemblyman Rabonta. And some of our errands continues to wait patiently, which we appreciate. Okay, go ahead. Thank you. You have AB 1996 also a good year 1969 Oh 1996 is on that was on consent that right Which one Oh you too Okay, so 1969 will. And then 1996. Okay, great. I'm happy to have it go on consent. Yeah, exactly. All right. Well, then, good afternoon, Chair and members. On file item 12, AB 1969, I would like to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thanking committee staff for their thoughtful and thorough analysis. And I'm pleased to present AB 1969, the It Takes a Village Act of 2026. We often say that it takes a village to raise a child, but too often our systems are not structured to function like that village. If we are serious about improving outcomes for children and families, especially in economically disadvantaged communities, we must ensure access to coordinated supports from birth through college and career. This work is deeply personal to me. It has been my life's work, in fact. I've seen firsthand how a place-based, cradle-to-career approach can change the trajectory of a child's life. Prior to joining the Assembly, I served as the CEO of Oakland Promise, where we worked to improve educational and economic outcomes for students experiencing poverty. In that role, I saw both the gaps in our systems and the transformative impact of aligning services across sectors to meet families where they are. California invests billions of dollars annually in children families and their economic development programs. Yet these investments remain fragmented, siloed, and unevenly targeted, particularly in neighborhoods with the highest concentrations of child poverty. We've made significant progress launching CalKIDS children's savings accounts, investing in community schools, implementing CalAIM community supports to address upstream health and social needs, expanding the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program, advancing a Career Technical Education Master Plan, and we've made historic investments in early learning. Each of these efforts is critical, but they are most powerful when they are aligned and coordinated around the needs of children and families and can transition seamlessly through changing administrations. That is exactly what AB 1969 is designed to do. This bill establishes the California Coordinated Neighborhood and Community Schools Incentive Grant to support community schools and place-based partnerships that coordinate services from early childhood through college and career. Over the past decades, promised neighborhoods and similar cradle-to-career initiatives have shown this approach works. These partnerships align education, health, housing, and economic supports, and the results are clear, improved access to care, strong outcomes in academia, and increased college and career readiness. AB 1969 builds on that success by expanding and sustaining these efforts statewide. By investing in coordinated, community-driven solutions, this bill strengthens California's ability to reduce poverty, close opportunity gaps, and support children and families at every stage of their life. because when we invest in the systems that surround a child, we invest in their future and the future of our state. With me today to testify and support are Edgar Chavez, Executive Director of Hayward Promise Neighborhoods, and Richard Raya, Chief Executive Officer of Marin Promise Partnership. Okay. Thank you. Welcome, both of you. You each have two minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Edgar Chavez, Executive Director of Hayward Promise Neighborhoods. I am here to support AB 1969, representing over a dozen California Promise neighborhoods, serving more than 180 children a fraction of the 1 million California children living in poverty a number that we can eliminate with the right in local investments AB 1969 the Ittixa Village Act would establish a California Neighborhood and Community Services grant to fund place-based partnerships that coordinate cradle-to-career services. Nearly every legislator can name a neighborhood in their district where the need facing children in crisis exceeds anything any one agency can provide. If you can name the place, Promise Neighborhoods is a model for it. But we can no longer depend on federal funding and support to continue this work. In December, Hayward received a $13.5 million non-continuation notice from the U.S. Department of Education. Since then, we've closed over a dozen programs, eliminated 20 positions, and halted services families were counting on. This model works. Our state-funded evaluation through DSS and RTI International found that every dollar invested in promised neighborhoods returned $4 in societal benefits across rural, urban, and tribal communities. In Hayward, we've seen our strongest results in 15 years. Take chronic absenteeism when we look at our data by family instead of by school. We found that if one child is chronically absent, the whole family usually is. By pairing direct services with whole family support, food, transportation, child care, we've cut chronic absenteeism by over 25%. That is the It Takes a Village approach of AB 1969, which would bring a statewide investment and partnership with existing programs such as community schools. I respectfully urge you to continue to support this. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Richard Raya, CEO of Marin Promise Partnership and a member of the California Cradle to Career Coalition. So as Edgar mentioned, a recent study showed a $4 return for every $1 invested in California Promise neighborhoods due to increases in kinder readiness, graduation rates, and more. And the Marin community, which I represent, wants to join the growing movement for place-based partnerships across California. Contrary to stereotypes, Marin is one of the most inequitable counties in the state, with some of the starkest disparities for working families. The problem is not just the lack of resources, it's the lack of coordination and prioritization of resources, and the lack of commitment to shared data and accountability for results across systems. In Marin, we've convened a cross-sector leadership table to change this with community schools as anchor partners. We call this effort the Canal Promise Neighborhood. The canal is the most segregated Latino community in the Bay Area with steep income, health, and academic disparities for children. And our goal is to rally around these children to ensure they are on a path to college and career. And we do this by breaking through silos and collaborating along the cradle-to-career continuum, from creating new preschool slots to working with high schools on dual enrollment with colleges and internships with employers. At a time when communities can feel divided, place-based partnerships help us unify around a common vision for our children. And without a vision for our children, we have no vision for our future. The It Takes a Village Act sets us on a path to create that vision. Community by community, in alignment with state priorities. Thank you for your leadership, and we ask for your support. Thank you both. We have others in support. Please step to the mic. Thank you. Hi, Yesenia Robancho. Adding in our Cradle to Career Coalition members, Bright Futures Monterey County, Chula Vista Promise Neighborhoods, Cradle to Career Fresno County, Mission Promise Neighborhood, Oakland Promise, Stanislaus Cradle to Career Partnership. United Way of San Diego County and Strive Together. Good afternoon. Darby Kernan on behalf of In Child Poverty California in support. Good evening. Jasmine Asher representing the Greater Sacramento Urban League. We are in support. Okay. Anyone in opposition? Opposition comments? Seeing none. We'll take it back to the committee. Senator Laird. You keep looking over to me. It's until I resigned recently when I was named budget chair, I was on cradle to career as the Senate representative from its start. And that's such an important thing. And this is so consistent with it that I salute the author for doing it and I would move the bill. Thank you. Yeah. And I'll just add on, from my standpoint, you know, I kind of grew up in the age of social entrepreneurship, right, and looking for creative models and data-driven models. And we all heard of the Harlem Children's Zone. And, you know, I remember hearing about the promised neighborhoods from early on. And having followed that closely, I actually did not know before this bill how many promised neighborhoods we did have in California. And so it's really, on the one hand, very exciting. It was for me to realize how many, you know, the network that has been built here and how many promised neighbors we have. But on the other hand, as you say, now with the cutoff of federal funds, how this is in danger. So I'll, too, add my gratitude. Really excited about this. Want to, you know, be involved in any way and would invite you to close. Thank you so much. I invite you to be a co-author if you aren't already on this legislation. And really thank you for your support. This has been work that has been years in the making for us. We've really tried to focus on the fact that if we just do the simple thing of making sure that every child, from the time that they are in the womb to the time that they are able to get into their career that helps them to thrive, has what they need the most, which is all of our arms wrapped around them so tight that they cannot fail. that we will succeed in the state of California. And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote. Okay. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Laird. File item 12, AB 1969. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echobo? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Perez? Weber Pearson? That's two to zero, and we'll keep that bill on call. Thank you. Now your second bill. My second bill, AB 1996, the No More Child Poverty Act, is a bipartisan support-support bill with no opposition. California is the fourth largest economy in the world, and yet nearly one in five children in our state are growing up in poverty. In my district, children are surrounded by wealth of the Bay Area, and it is not reaching them. The data tells us exactly how we got there, and it's damning. Child poverty in California nearly tripled between 2021 and 2024, from 7.5% to 18.6%. Our child poverty rate is now the fourth highest in the nation. That is not a coincidence. It tracks directly with the expiration of pandemic federal investment that we working When we made intentional coordinated investments child poverty fell to historic lows When Congress let those supports expire poverty more than doubled Poverty is a policy choice. The consequences for our children are not abstract. They arrive to school hungry. They live in overcrowded homes, cars, and temporary shelters. And untreated medical and mental health conditions go unaddressed, a problem that we only worsen as we see cuts to Medi-Cal. Despite significant state investment, California currently lacks a unified structure to align programs, evaluate what's working, and ensure we are meaningfully reducing child poverty. AB 1996, the No More Child Poverty Act, creates the structure California currently lacks. It establishes the California Child Poverty Reduction Advisory Council within the California Health and Human Services Agency. bringing together State Department, local agencies, nonprofits, and individuals with lived experience, ensuring our approach is both data-driven and community-informed. The Council will create a plan to reduce redundancy of child welfare commissions, publish annual benchmarks to decrease child poverty by 50% in 10 years, and develop metrics to measure whether existing and proposed policies increase or decrease child poverty and administrative burdens on families and children. Here to testify in support is Avo Magdesian, Executive Director of the First Five Association of California. Avo, you're welcome. Please go ahead.

Okay, thank you. We'll go to others in support who would like to step to the mic. Support AB 1996 Yesenia Rubancho with End Child Poverty in California proud sponsors Also including our Cradle to Career neighborhoods Bright Futures Monterey County Chula Vista Promise Neighborhood Cradle to Career Fresno County, Mission Promise Neighborhood, Oakland Promise, Stanislaus Cradle to Career Partnership, United Way of San Diego. Thank you. Edgar Chavez, Hayward Promise Neighborhoods in support. Simran Carr with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Richard Raya with Marin Promise Partnership in support. Amanda Kirchner, County Welfare Directors Association in support. Okay. I was like when our witnesses in one bill get to testify in support of another bill. Thank you. Anyone in opposition? Opposition comments? See none? We'll go back to the committee.

We have a motion from Senator Laird.

Would you like to close?

Okay. Please call the roll. File Item 13, AB 1996. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker?

Becker, aye. Echobo? Laird?

Laird, aye. Perez? Weber Pearson? That is 2-0. We'll keep it on call. Thank you. Thank you for both those bills. bills. Okay. We have Assemblymember Alawari keeping Assemblymember Aarons for the duration. He's been here for the duration. He gets MVP for making it through our entire committee hearing. Excellent. Please go ahead when you're ready.

prevention, community-based response, at the heart of our work is a simple belief. Building relationships creates safer and healthier communities. When I first came to Family Bridges, I had recently paroled from state prison. I started as a community ambassador, walking the streets of Oakland, listening to the community members, and learning that public safety begins with trust. The crisis funding allowed us to build a model focused on both prevention and response. because we know the best interventions often happen before a crisis escalates. What began as a small team has grown into a trusted community response program. When I first started in 2023, we made approximately 1,000 connections a year. With the Crisis Funding Act, in the last fiscal year alone, our team made more than 10,500 connections on the streets of Oakland. Every one of those connections was an opportunity to build trust, de-escalate conflict, and connect someone to resources that they need. Those connections have strengthened relationships across Oakland and created opportunities for people with lived experience to help others through difficult moments. Recently, we surveyed community members who received our services and asked how their experience compared to previous interactions was with law enforcement. One response has stayed with me. Better, I did not go to jail. Those six words capture why this funding matters. As someone who was once given a second chance, I know firsthand what is possible when we believe in people. Sustained funding will allow us to continue healing communities through connection rather than correction. I respectfully urge your support for AB 1932. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Darby Phillips, and I'm a project manager at Family Bridges. Today I speak in strong support for AB1932. I have the distinct pleasure of supervising the Family Bridges Crisis Grant. One of the most impactful stories that I can share is that of one of our unhoused neighbors. This client first got to know our team when they were ambassadors cleaning up the park that he resides at in downtown Oakland. Since this first encounter, our team has provided consistent relationship building, emotional support, and food and water distribution in his journey of confronting his substance use disorder and taking steps towards getting connected towards housing. Last week, after three years of being unhoused, he received a permanent housing match and toured his new apartment. This story demonstrates the crisis program's ability to provide not just crisis response, but also daily investment in the community to prevent future crises. Organizations like ours have already proven that community-led crisis response works, but these efforts must be sustained. Investment in services such as ours is essential because we know our neighbors, we know what they need, and we show up long before and long after any outside system does. I respectfully urge your support for AB 1932. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Hussama Muqaddam on behalf of the California Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations in strong support.

I appreciate this effort. And my understanding is, I just want to be punctual and correct, so the current program is set to sunset in June of 2026, and the grants did not start until 2324, is that right?

Okay. Right. But you also make a few changes in terms of the requirement for local government service intermediary.

And you think that will help streamline the –

Well, that's enough for me. I certainly support the program and support, you know, anything we can do to streamline it and get these grants out faster. And also, of course, continue the program. Really important. So I'll be supporting the bill here today.

Wow, that's saying a lot. We have a motion. Please call the roll. File item 11, AB 1932. Motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Becker?

Becker, aye. Echoboag?

Laird, aye. Perez?

Okay, that is 2-0. We'll keep it on call. Thank you all for coming up and testifying. Thanks for your work, especially. Mr. Chair, you sure you don't want to lift calls or do something?

Maybe a recess. Maybe a brief recess. Mr. Aarons, Assemblymember, you were – thank you for being here, keeping us company throughout the whole hearing.

I'll see. You have three bills.

AB, you're going to start with 2764?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, thank you both for being here. You each have two minutes. Go ahead.

Okay, thank you for that data. Thank you.

Wow. Well, congratulations and thank you for sharing your story.

We'll have others now in support. Go ahead. Adrienne Shilton on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, proud co-sponsor and support. Thank you. Okay. Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support. Amanda Kirshner County Welfare Director is in support. Yesenia Rabonjo with End Child Poverty in California in support. Good afternoon. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education in strong support of the bill. Ann Quirk, Children's Law Center in support. Jackie Reitzheiser, California Alliance of Caregivers in support. Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Hi, Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics in support. Kristen Power Alliance for Children's Rights in support. Simone Turek-Lee, John Burton Advocates for Youth, proud sponsor. Okay. Anyone in opposition? Nope. Nope. Opposition comments. Anybody, anybody. We'll take it back to the committee.

Thank you.

Assemblyman, would you like to close?

Okay. We have a motion for Senator Laird. Please call the roll. File item 19, AB 2764. Motion is do pass to the floor. Becker?

Becker, aye. Echoboak?

Laird, aye. Perez?

Okay, that bill is 2-0. We will keep it on call. Thank you again for both of you. Next up, you have Assembly Bill 2765. Thank you.

You each have two minutes. Who's going to go? Who would like to go first?

Okay. Okay, you say.

Okay. Thank you, Senator. Go ahead.

policy changes across CalFresh being restricted and hitting hardest to those who are at risk, including foster children. Those barriers don't just take food off the table, they take away dignity, stability, and opportunity. And together today, we stand and say enough is enough. Foster Youth and other Californians should not be in a constant battle for food and other basic needs. Without food, strength is not only physically and mentally and emotionally a barrier, but is what causes these ripple effects and struggles of everyday life, including homelessness. Without the support I got from CalFresh and numerous other food bank systems growing up, I would be in another situation and I wouldn't be where I'm at today. So as I say this, AV2765 would make a difference in making sure that barriers are prevented for foster youth and equitable access for food is kept. So thank you and I ask for your aye vote. Okay. Well, thank you for sharing your story with us here today. And congratulations on making it to UC Davis and where you've gotten to. Thank you. That's amazing. All right. We'll go ahead and have folks show their support. Michelle Rubelcaba with Nielsen Merksmer on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors of San Diego County in support. And go Aggies. Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support. Tiffany White with SEIU California, proud co-sponsors and support. Thank you so much. Adrienne Shelton on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services and support. Anne Quirk, Children's Law Center, in support. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, in support. Khoise Tern with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations in strong support. Kathy Musberg, California Association of Food Banks in support. Josh Gogger on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. Sarah Potter, Executive Director of John Burton Advocates for Youth, proud co-sponsor. Thanks. Julie Sherman, Director of Public Policy for the Arc of California in strong support. Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now and Strong Support. Awesome. Thank you all for being here. Any opposition comments? I see none. We'll come back to the committee. Senator Laird moves the bill. Thank you again for sharing your personal experience and Senator Aaron's for sharing your personal experience. That's what makes this, that's what leaves the impact on the committee. So I really appreciate it. It's an important measure. I'll be supporting the bill. Would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Senator. Okay, we have a motion from Senator Laird. File item 20 AB 2765 Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee Becker Aye Becker aye Echopo Laird Aye Laird aye Perez? Weber-Pearson? Okay. That's two to zero. That will be on call. And we have your final bill, AB 2769. Thank you, Senator. AB 2769 creates parity between California's Child Welfare Permanency Support Programs, the Adoption Assistance Program, and the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment Kin Gap Program by allowing adopted youth to continue receiving AAP benefits past age 18 until they graduate high school or turn 19, whichever comes first. It has been proven that youth in foster care face challenges to their learning stemming from instability of their living arrangements, much like I did, the trauma of removal from their homes or other factors that they are unable to control. This bill is a common sense bill to ensure that no matter which permanency support program a child is part of, they receive the support that they deserve when they navigate their early adult lives. Joining me today is Kristen Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights, the bill's sponsor to provide testimony, and Jackie Ruthseer with the California Alliance of Caregivers. Great, go ahead. You each have two minutes. Good afternoon. Kristen Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights. AB 2769 provides stability during the critical transition to adulthood and ensures students and their families don't lose financial support while they're completing their high school education for youth receiving adoption assistance payment programs, supporting their permanency out of foster care. I'd like to share a story of one of our clients who would have benefited from AB 2769. When Cain was just 10 years old, he and his younger sibling were placed in foster care with his maternal grandparents. The children had survived significant early trauma, and their grandparents stepped in without hesitation to give them stability, love, and a sense of safety. Four years later, when Cain was just 14, he was adopted by his grandparents. By then, it was clear Cain needed intensive support. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression. Despite his challenges, Cain was committed to staying in school. His grandparents assured he attended school every day, and they advocated fiercely when evaluations showed he was reading well below his grade level into high school. They believed education was his path forward. When Cain turned 18, he was still enrolled in high school, and working hard toward graduation, but his adoption assistance payment program benefits were cut off. Without AAP, his family struggled as his grandparents were retired and living on a fixed income. Even with these challenges, Cain persevered. While he ultimately graduated in 2024 at age 19, the year leading up to his graduation was far harder than it needed to be. Losing benefits during his final year of high school destabilized the whole family at a time when stability mattered most. AB 2769 would have helped Kane achieve his educational goals. It ensures that adopted youth who are still in high school at age 18, just like those in KINGAP, can continue receiving their AAP support until graduation or age 19. We really appreciate Assemblymember Aaron's commitment to youth in foster care and educational attainment, and we respectfully request your aye vote on AB 2769. Great. Go ahead. Hi, I'm Jackie Ruth Heiser, and I'm with the California Alliance of Caregivers, and we represent relative and non-relative caregivers, resource parents, adoptive parents, and guardianship parents throughout California. We work daily with caregivers. We have support groups. We talk to them. We hear their anecdotes. We help them all the time Again we have like weekly support groups so we hear a lot of these stories Children in foster care as we know often experience great instability They've already experienced a lot of trauma just by being removed by their parents, being separated from their parents, creates lifelong trauma. And they have reduced high school graduation rates and decreased college attendance rates compared to their peers who were not in foster care. Youth adopted before 16 are allowed to receive AAP and KINGAP, I mean, after age 16 until they're 21. But youth adopted or placed in KINGAP prior to age 16, in adoption it terminates at age 18. In KINGAP it terminates at 19 if they're going through high school. So there is that difference of permanency. And that's what we're hoping to correct with this bill. Cutting off financial support, as Christian said, during a very critical time in high school is very disruptive and can delay or derail the high school completion. So what the bill does is it creates the equity between the KINGAP and AAP. It allows for those who are adopted to receive the same type of supports until, regardless of that they were adopted prior to age 16, until they complete high school or until they reach age 19, whichever comes first. Again, I just said that. By ensuring continued support through high school graduation, we're helping foster youth who were adopted prior to 16, maintain stability, achieve educational milestones, and improve long-term outcomes. We respectfully request your aye vote. Okay. Thank you for explaining that to us. Anyone who would like to add on in support? Adrienne Chilton on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support. Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in strong support. Hello Kelly Macmillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics in support. Josh Gogger on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support. Sarah Potter on behalf of John Burton Advocates for Youth in support. Okay. Opposition. Any opposition comments? No. Okay. We'll take it back to the committee. I would move the bill. Okay. Senator Laird moves the bill. And some of my errands I just want to say, I know we had a lot of joking today about your extended stay here, but I just really want to compliment you and thank you for your passion and for these three bills focused on blunting the impacts of H.R. 1 and these extended benefits that we know will pay huge dividends down the road. We know we should be doing this because, again, it's just going to pay off many-fold down the road to society. So I will be supporting the bill today. Would you like to close? Thank you, Senator, and thank you to the committee members and, again, to the amazing staff work to helping me and so many others on these really tough issues. As you can see I feel very passionately about this issue area as someone who is a former foster youth I it is important that we remind the legislature that the Supporting our foster kids is really all of our responsibility not just the departments not just the counties But we need to focus more on helping and using proven policy techniques that we know are going to help our foster youth And that's something I'm committed to this body of work in the legislature during my short time here so far. And just really respect the due consideration. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. We have a motion for Senator Laird. Please call the roll. File item 21, AB 2769. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echoboak? Aye. Echoboak, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Perez? Weber-Pearson? That is 3-0. We'll keep that on call. Thank you so much. All right. We are going to open the roll on some items. Can we start with the consent calendar? Yes. Excellent. Let's do that. Kinsink Calendar. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Perez? Okay. Four to zero. Will we keep that one on call? Do you want to just go ahead and go through? Yeah, you got it. File Item 1, AB308. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Perez? File item 2, AB 1049. Motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Put that one on call. Perez? Okay. AB 1201. Motion is due pass to Judiciary Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echoboak? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Perez? Put that one on call. File item 7, AB 2429. Motion is due passed to Education Committee. Echoboak? 2429, file item 7. No problem. 2429? Yes. Echobo aye Laird aye Perez we will put that bill on call File Item 8 AB1755 motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee Echobog? Aye. Echobog, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Perez? We'll put that on call. File Item 11, AB1932, motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Echobog. Sorry. It's okay. Aye. Echobog, aye. Perez. We'll put that one on call. File item 12, AB 1969. Motion is to pass to Appropriations Committee. Echobog. No. Echobog, no. Perez. Okay, we'll put that on call. File Item 13, AB 1996. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Echobo. Aye. Echobo, aye. Perez. Which number was it again? File Item 13, AB 1996. By who? It's by Bonta. Aye. Perez, aye. So that one is out. Okay, that was out on a 4-0 vote. File item 14, AB 1981, motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Oh, yes, we need a motion. Oh, I'm so sorry. Do we have a motion? Move the bill. Layered, okay. Okay, move the bill. And then that is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echobo? Aye. Echobo, aye. Laird, aye. Perez, aye. Perez, aye. That one is out. Okay, that bill is out. File Item 17 AB 2379 Motion is do pass Public Safety Committee Laird Aye Laird aye Perez Aye Perez aye That bill is out 5 5 That bill is out File Item 18 AB 2478. Motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. Echoboge? Aye. Echoboge, aye. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. So 4-0, that's out. 4-0, that bill is out as well. File Item 19, AB 2764, motion is due, passed. Echoboge? Aye. Echoboge, aye. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Okay, 4-0, 2764 is out. I'm sorry, file item 20, AB 2765, motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Echobo. Not voting. Not voting. Perez. Can you repeat the number again? Of course. File item 20, AB 2765. Aye. Aye. Perez, aye. Okay, so this one is. 3-0. That bill is out. 2765 is out. Perfect. Thank you. File item 21, AB 2769. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. That bill is out. 4-0. Okay. 4-0, 2769 is out. And then I can lift the call on the other bill. Yes. We're going to go back from the top, starting with the consent calendar. Okay. Consent calendar. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Okay, 5-0 because that calendar is passed. File item 1, AB 308. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. That's out. Okay, 5-0. File item 2 AB 1049 Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee Perez Aye Perez aye 4 4 to 1 That one out 4 to 1 1049 is out File Item 3 AB 1201 Motion is due passed to Judiciary Committee Ochoa Bogue Perez Aye Perez aye Okay, it's 4 to 0. 12-01 is out. Okay. File item 7, AB 2429, motion is due passed to Education Committee. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. 5 to 0, and that one is out. Okay, 5 to 0, 2429 is out. File item 8, AB 1755, motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. 5 to 0. Okay, that was 5-0 as well. AB 1755 is out. File item 11, AB 1932. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. 4-0. 4-0. 1932 is out. Our last one is file item 12, AB 1969. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Okay, 3 to 1, 1969, a very good year, is out. Yes. Well, thank you. That concludes this hearing of the Senate Committee on Human Services. Thank you all. We're done. Thank you.