Senate Human Services Committee

Please proceed when you're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you for this opportunity to present SB 969, which ensures Californians with intellectual developmental disabilities can continue to have the option to access services remotely based on their individual needs. California has long recognized that individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities have the right to live more independent and productive lives. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Developmental Services authorized remote services for critical supports like day programs and dependent living services and behavioral therapy. What started as an emergency response has proven to be highly effective, increasing independence, access, and participation for individuals and their families. However, this option is currently set to expire on December 31, 2026, and DDS does not have clear statutory authority to continue it on a permanent basis. Additionally, there is no consistent process to ensure individuals and families are informed that remote services are available. SB 969 simply codifies the option for remote service delivery. It does not mandate its use. This bill directs DDS to establish clear guidelines, ensure consistent communication with families, and maintain ongoing access to remote service options. SB 969 builds on a successful model and ensures we do not move backward. It affirms California's commitment to inclusive, accessible, and person-centered services. Joining me today in support are Emeline Chowbard, the Director of Government Affairs for the California Disability Service Association,

Thank you. Welcome to today. Ms. Emily.

Can you hear me?

Test?

Okay.

Thank you very much, ma'am, for your, for your, both of you for your testimony. We're now going to continue with any members of the public who would like to share their testimony in support of SB 969.

Good afternoon everybody. Christopher Arroyo with the State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support.

Sandy Topete, part of ICC Community Integrated in support.

support. Maribel Ahumada, ICC co-founder and also in support SBA 6.9. Thank you.

Good afternoon everyone. I'm a parent to a child. child with disability and I'm also from Integrated Community Collaborative Organization and I'm here also supporting this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, my name is Jacqueline Vargas. I have two children with disability and I also support the bill and also the Latino community. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi my name is Rosa Hernandez I have my son He is autismo and I apoyo the ESV

Hello, my name is Maria Hernandez and my daughter is 21 and I support remote for this bill.

Dora Contreras, Integrated Community Collaborative, grandmother to a 33-year-old intellectual disabled adult. And I'm here in support of this bill because she's able to sit and be able to join whatever I'm doing regarding this type of activity. Support the bill. Thank you.

Buenas tardes a todos. Mi nombre es María Granados y yo apoyo el BIL. Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Carolina Sousa de la comunidad ICC y yo apoyo el BIL. Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Marie Cruz Sierra. I'm a mother of a young man with a syndrome of Down syndrome. I support the bill. Thank you. Hi, my name is Carolina Arzate, ICC Integradora, and I'm here to support the bill. Good afternoon, my name is Maria Gutierrez, and I support the bill. My name is Oscar Mercado. I'm a self-advocate and person served by the regional center system, and I support this bill. bill. Thank you. Hi, my name is Stephanie Cruz Lopez. My brother, he's autistic and is hurt with the family too. So I come with my mom with the pink skirt. So I support the bill. Thank you so much. Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Guadalupe Tamayo. Soy mamá de un niño con autismo y apoyo el bill. Tenemos, ya, terminamos. Thank you to everyone who came today and testified on behalf of in support of the bill. We're now going to continue with any witnesses in opposition to SB 969. Seeing none, we're going to bring it back to the dais. Oh, Dr. Weber. Thank you. I want to really thank the author for bringing this bill forward. The ability for these families to get the services they need from remote locations is extremely important. I utilized the regional center in my area for my youngest for a while, and I'm very familiar with the importance of all of the work that they do, especially with early intervention and the ability for families to be able to access this regardless of where they are in the state is extremely important. I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward and at the appropriate time we move the bill. Thank you, Dr. Weber. Muchísimas gracias por traer este folleto de ley de nosotros. Thank you very much for bringing this bill forward. I am going to be supporting the bill today, so at the appropriate time we'll be supporting the bill. Seeing that it's just the two of us, would you like to close, Senator Reyes? Thank you. I do appreciate the comments. I also, if I may, also in Spanish, le quiero agradecer a todos los que vinieron a dar su apoyo para esta propuesta. I want to thank all of you who came to give your support for this bill. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. At the appropriate time. Thank you very much, Senator Reyes. We do not have yet enough members to form a quorum yet, So we're going to be holding off on voting on the bills until we do have a quorum established. Thank you very much. And I see we have another author. Thank you very much for coming. We do have an author, Senator Hurtado. Senator Hurtado, you'll be presenting SB 1025? That is correct, Madam Chair. Perfect. Welcome to our first meeting of the year. Please proceed when you're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. I can't promise that I'll be bilingual here today. It will be very difficult for me to do that, but nonetheless, thank you so much for your time and your attention. Today I'm here to present SB 1025, which establishes the Office of Food Security and Affordability. SB 1025 is about one simple idea, targeted coordination. I want to be very clear, this bill does not take authority away from any department. Instead, it creates a central coordinating hub so state departments can operate in alignment. Think of this office as a bridge, not a replacement, bringing together state departments, food banks, and community partners under one shared strategy. Right now, California's food programs are spread across multiple agencies that leads to missed opportunities for enrollment, duplicative efforts, and most concerning people falling through the cracks. According to the California Association of Food Banks, over 8.8 million Californians are food insecure, even though we invest heavily in food programs. And this tells us the issue is not effort, it is coordination. and Senate District 16 which includes many rural and agricultural communities in the Central Valley We grow the food that feeds the nation yet families still struggle to put food on the table And I heard this struggle directly from my constituents Our working families are having to choose between groceries and rent. Our seniors are unaware that they qualify for assistance, and our students are relying on food banks to get through the week. These are not failures of individual programs. These are gaps between systems that are not connected. SB 1025 creates a coordinating office that will align state departments and existing programs, expand outreach, so eligible families actually enroll, operate a 24-hour hunger hotline to connect people to resources and support food banks with best practices and stronger emergency coordination. But this bill is also intentionally designed to reduce duplication, not created. By improving coordination, we can make existing investments work better. And at the end of the day, no Californian, especially in a state as resource-rich as ours, should have to wonder where their next meal will come from. SB 1025 ensures we are not just investing in programs but connecting them into a system that works. And today I have with me Kelly Laurie, Executive Director for Community Action Partnership for Kern, to testify as a sponsor of this bill. Thank you very much and welcome. Thank you. Thanks. MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MY NAME IS KELLY LOWRY AND I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CAPKAY FOOD BANK LOCATED IN BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS BILL TODAY. I COME BEFORE YOU NOT ONLY AS A CO-SPONSOR OF SB1025, I'M ALONGSIDE SENATOR HIRTATO, BUT AS SOMEONE WORKING ON THE FRONT LINES EVERY DAY AT A FOOD BANK ON BEHALF OF FAMILIES WHO ARE NAVIGATING THE REALITIES OF FOOD INSECURITY IN OUR COMMUNITIES. In 2025, alongside our network of more than 150 agency partners in Kern County, we distributed over 22.5 million pounds of food for Kern County families. The truth of the matter is this. The drivers of food insecurity are more complex and more intense than at any point in recent history. Rising costs of living, housing instability, workforce disruptions, and lingering impacts from the pandemic are converging in ways that are stretching households and the systems designed to support them. What we're seeing on the ground is not a temporary strain. It's a sustained pressure. At the same time, the relationship between the federal and state governments is shifting in ways that directly affects how food reaches our communities. Federal programs that have long served as the backbone of the emergency food system are evolving and in many ways contracting. The passage of H.R. 1 is the first phase of the federal government shifting responsibility for strategy and resources to address food insecurity to the state. The system we rely on today was not meant and not built for this new reality. I want to be clear. The creation of the Office of Food Security is not a reflection of failure by any single entity, not a State Department, and not community-based organizations. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Across California, there's strong, committed work happening every single day, but it's happening in parallel. This moment calls for a different level of coordination. It calls for bringing that good work together, aligning it, and building something new and greater than the sum of its parts. Our emergency food network has always been resilient, but it was designed to respond, not to anticipate. It was designed for crisis relief, not for long-term structural alignment. What we need now is a three strategic plan and our current system is not built to do that That why SB 1025 matters right now This bill creates the structure to bring public agencies and community organizations to the same table, to align data, resources, and policy, and to develop a coordinated, forward-looking strategy that reflects the current landscape. We cannot solve today's challenges with yesterday's framework. Strategic planning at this level is essential if we're going to build a system that is forward-thinking, coordinated, and capable of meeting the scale of food insecurity our neighbors are experiencing today. Our communities are asking for stability, for access, and for dignity. And SB 1025 is a step towards delivering that, not just for today, but for the long term. And I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you very much for your testimony. We will now continue with any members in the public who would like to come up to the podium and express your support for SB 1025. No one? Oh, okay. Well, do we have – we will now continue with any witness in opposition to SB 1025. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions, comments, Senator Weber? Senator Dr. Weber. Okay. Thank you so much, Vice Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this up. And your staff may have given some of my questions to my staff, but I haven't received them yet. So I apologize. I will be asking a couple of questions. um so when you note that there are gaps in in this in the service when I think of gaps I think of the fact that there are things out there that are not being utilized or not being taken up so is it because of the lack of coordination that like food pantries are not dispensing all of the food that they have? Is that what we're talking about when you're referring to gaps? I'm trying to understand. Of course, I'll go ahead and allow my sponsor of the bill to answer the question. Sure. So there's a couple ways of looking at it. The first way is that we know that when it comes to CalFresh, CalFresh is actually the single greatest hunger fighting tool that the emergency food system has. For every one meal that we're able to provide at the food bank, CalFresh provides nine. And so strengthening CalFresh is a priority. And we know also that eligibility, people that are eligible, there's a lot that come through the doors of our food bank and our distribution sites that are eligible for CalFresh, but for one reason or another are not enrolled in CalFresh. So looking for strategic ways to enlist CBOs and others to help with increasing enrollment would be one of the first places to start in developing a strategy like this. So I think that's one way of understanding a potential gap. The other way of understanding is an overlapping of resources. Oftentimes there are great people doing this work in silos or in parallel that are overlapping resources. And so some people potentially could be over served at the detriment of others who are underserved as a result of that. So in a time where resources maybe are stretched thin, it becomes more incumbent upon us to be more strategic about where the resources are being applied. And so that why I really believe that having a convener like a director of the Office of Food Security and Affordability to be able to identify and bring those things to the same table would alleviate both the gaps and the overlaps. Thank you for that. And I noticed in the bill that you are proposing a 24-hour hotline for food insecurity. And there are some organizations that currently do that, like 211. that not only address food insecurity but can also screen individuals for other needs that they may have and they may have certain resources for. So I guess my question is if individuals who are food insecure go to this hotline instead of some of the others that have a more expansive reach in terms of other services, is that a potential concern? I'll just say, and I'll let my sponsor add, that the goal is to make sure that it works for everybody, right? Not to sidestep anybody particularly, but the goal is to make sure that it functions for all, right? So not necessarily taking it away from what works best for folks. This is something that really it's about sharing information, resources, and how best we could utilize the funds, especially as it's become more limited. Yeah, and I would only add that what we know right now is that across the state there are different tools being used in this way, and some are being used very effectively and some maybe aren't as effective. I'm a proponent of 2-1-1 as a community action agency. In Kern, we operate a 2-1-1 and do connect neighbors to other resources, and it's very, very effective. And so I don't think that this bill calls for just sort of a one-size-fits-all kind of approach. I think it calls for just ensuring that there's access to this information that's made readily available to everybody, regardless of where they live, that they should have the same level of access. So if we identify that one thing works exceptional in one area, that we would look for ways to replicate that in areas where it's not. Thank you. And then my final question, because I think from what I'm hearing, the premise of this bill is that what we have right now is not working. in what ways would we be monitoring this new office to say that it is working or it's not working because I didn't necessarily see any follow-up metrics or anything in the actual bill Kelly would you like to answer yeah absolutely so ultimately what we want to do as practitioners on the ground that are doing this work every day is not just find ways to serve the line better but to make the line shorter. And the Office of Food Security and Affordability does that. It not only looks for best practices to bring state agencies and CBOs together to more efficiently move resources to serve people who are experiencing food insecurity better, but it also looks at the drivers and the variables of what's causing food insecurity. So it would make a scenario where the Director of Food Security and Affordability would actually engage with other departments that right now maybe don't even traditionally interact with the issue of food security, folks that are dealing with housing, folks that are dealing with other issues around the state that are the drivers of food insecurity. And so I think that's the main thing that I would want to kind of illustrate is that, as I said in my comments, there's A lot of people doing a lot of great work, and it's almost like imagine a symphony where you have very talented musicians that are all playing great music. But imagine a scenario where each one of those that are playing music, they're all playing Beethoven, but maybe they're playing different pieces of Beethoven. And maybe they're all playing it really well, but we're not playing it in concert together. And the Office of Food Security and Affordability is essentially creating a framework that puts a conductor that's able to bring together the pieces to be able to make something work the way it's supposed to. Thank you. The one suggestion that I would have, I will be supporting the bill today, but in the past we will often maybe establish an office, give funding to something. but we'd never go back and check if it's actually doing what we intended it to do. And that was really my question. What methods will we put in place? What reports will we require to say that when we started, we had this percentage of food insecurity, and now because of these things, because we are working, we are collaborating, we have now reduced that in half or in 75 percent. so that we know that if this is established, because it's a big undertaking to establish another office, that we know that we're going down the right road. And if we need to pivot and fix something or change something, we know it early on instead of 5, 10, 15 years down the line. Yeah. That's my question. So that's what I would recommend. But thank you, Senator. And if I can, I'm sorry. I was going to answer that question more succinctly, and I apologize. I got a little sidetracked. thinking about the orchestra there. But what I was going to say is that one of the main elements of the creation of the Office of Food and Security and Affordability would be to create a three-year strategic plan that would have very measurable metrics and KPIs, but the number one of them being a reduction of food insecurity. We shouldn't take pride in the fact that we distribute lots of food and that we serve a lot of people. We should be measuring by are the lines getting shorter, and if they're not, then what is it that we're missing? And I think those are the conversations that aren't necessarily being had right now that with the creation of this will start to be had, and you'll see the needle moving in the right direction. Thank you. I like that. So maybe if we can make sure we have language in there to ensure that the strategic plan is being created and that there is a report out from the legislature or whoever to ensure that what the purpose is is actually getting done. Thank you. Thank you. And I do have a couple of comments. Oh, Senator Laird, I apologize. I forgot you were here. Well, no. I know you don't usually look to your right. I always look to the right. What do you mean? Yes. Destroying your re-election. Nothing else. Thank you. And I'm sorry because I missed the opening statements, and you may have addressed this, But we learned during the pandemic that when the congregate meals shut down at schools and senior centers and child care and other place, it was us putting all this extra money into food banks to cover the gaps. And I know you are championing the money for food banks this year, and I suspect you see that. But it seems to me that makes the case for this. And I don want to I hope you don get lost in the three year strategic plan and everything else because when I was a cabinet secretary doing a strategic plan was a recipe for me jumping off the top of a building because it would just be a laundry list of what people wanted, rather than sometimes addressing the question of what we're trying to fix. And in this case, I think it's things falling through the cracks with all the different silos of the way people get food. And I hope that's what this addresses. I think it's a very good concept. And I know we have a quorum, but I don't know if it's been called yet, because at the appropriate time, I would move the bill. We have not. Actually, great reminder right now, since we do have three members here. Let's establish quorum, please. Becker? Echobo? Present. Echobo? Present. Laird? Here. Laird? Here. Here. Perez? Weber Pearson here. Weber Pearson here. And we have a quorum, so it will be the first bill to get voted. So is that all, Mr. Lerner? Yes, thank you. Thank you. And I do – you know, it's interesting because I – this is my sixth year here in the Senate, and I think I've seen quite a bit of history in the legislature starting new oversight departments and efforts towards that end to ensure that what we currently have is working in place. So we've seen this in different spaces. This is not the first one. We see it in housing, dealing with homelessness. So we've seen quite a bit of those. And my hesitation is always that we have so many departments, so many agencies in our state, that my first instinct is to start asking for accountability measures for the different state agencies and departments auditing those entities to ensure that they are fulfilling the purpose of why they were created before we start establishing new and more programs or agencies or departments. That's my hesitation with this bill. I think in principle I completely agree with you is to address those gaps that are occurring. But my first question would be, wouldn't it be best, and you're probably going to say no because otherwise you would not be bringing this bill forward. But wouldn't it be a good practice to start looking and studying what we currently have before we move forward with an additional agency, an oversight agency? Would you like an answer? Sure. So I would just say that I think that this agency could be and do just that. But I know that I've shared many conversations over the last couple of years with many of my colleagues about the importance of food security to me, to my district, but really what food security means not just for my district but for the state of California and for this nation. I've always said food security is national security, and that's the main reason why I'm pushing for this, because I've always believed that every individual, no matter what their background or where they come from, deserves to have access to food. and we know that there's been many challenges since 2020 but even more so that we clearly need to address and we haven and when we don address those and we don address them with urgency they really begin to break apart the foundation of our nation of our communities And we know what food insecurity can create in countries and regions when people don have access to it. It's an important issue. And I think that it's time that California step up, create this office, and make sure Make it work and be an example for the nation. Again, food security is a national security issue, and I think it's long overdue to make this happen. Which is, going back, no problem with the principle of what we're trying to do here, which is address food insecurity. But as mentioned earlier by our witness is that we do have an incredibly generous state with many, many departments that are addressing food insecurity. So once again, going back to the question is, should we start first in studying the current programs that we are supporting in our state to ensure that they're doing best practices, that they are actually fulfilling their objectives of meeting that food insecurity before we start creating another agency, another entity? That's where I'm struggling with is, I don't know, I feel we need to figure out what we currently have before we move forward with something new. So that's probably my biggest, biggest concern with the bill because I hate to see more and more entities created without addressing what we currently have in place and then meeting those needs. So that's, I think, my biggest concern is just here goes one more entity to address what the state has so generously been supporting in various ways through different entities. That's my biggest concern that I have. So but we do have a would you like to close Senator? No, I appreciate the comments, the feedback. And I respect for an I vote. And we have a motion by Senator Laird. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. File item 5, SB1025, the motion is due pass to Governmental Organization Committee. Becker, Ochoa-Bogue, Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Perez, Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. And we're going to keep that on call for our absent members, but you have the votes to pass. Thank you. Thank you. We do have an author in the room, Senator Gonzalez. Madam Chair, while the author is moving to the podium, I would move the three consent items, item one, item four, and item six. So efficient, Senator Laird. This is what institutional knowledge and experience brings to the dais. When you see me getting up and leaving while everybody is waiting for the calls being lifted, you'll remember this moment. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Consent calendar. Motion is to be adopted. Becker. Echobog. Aye. Echobog, aye. Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Perez. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Thank you very much And we keep that on call for our absent members as well And welcome Senator Gonzalez You may proceed when you ready And good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. I'm here to present SB 1052, which will authorize the State Council on Developmental Disabilities to make contingent appointments of authorized representatives to support people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in case of an emergency. People with intellectual and developmental disabilities who are served by regional centers often rely on family members who are involved or close friends to help them navigate services and express their desires. If their family member is suddenly unable to provide support, they would be left without representation in regional center matters, which could result in gaps in essential services or individuals ending up in conservatorships, which are much more restrictive and strip away many of a person's legal rights. And as the federal government conducts immigration raids on top of it all in our communities, more families are concerned about how family separation could impact their loved ones with disabilities. And SB 1052 addresses all of these fears by allowing the state council to appoint a vetted backup representative when requested, likely another family member or close friend who could step in if needed. Testifying in support today, I have Erin Carruthers, the Executive Director of the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, as well as Josephine Romo of the Integrated Community Collaborative. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. And if your witnesses is welcome, you may proceed when ready. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Josephine Romo. I am an immigrant, a person with disability, and a mother of two. one of my children who has autism is served by the regional center, North Delay Regional Center. I am also an advocate with the Integrated Community Collaborative, ICC. Last year, I experienced a serious health episode. For several days, I could not take calls or manage paperwork. Not only was I very sick, but very worried and stressed at wondering. If I am not reachable, who will make sure my son's IPP meetings happen? Who will ensure his services continue without interruption? This worry and concern is not mine alone. It's also a reality for many immigrant households across our state. In the communities we advocate, families are navigating not only complex disability systems, but also deep fear, fear of sudden separation, fear of immigration enforcement, and fear of systems they do not fully understand and trust. When a parent is suddenly unavailable, whether due to detention, illness, or crisis, there There is often no one formally recognized it to step in and make decisions for their child with a disability. I want to share a couple of brief stories. A father whose support was detained unexpectedly. His teenager son who has significant developmental needs was unexpectedly left in the care of a neighbor. The regional center could not move forward with decisions because there was no authorized representative in place. Services were delayed. supports were paused and a young person already vulnerable and confused was left without stability during one of the most traumatic moments of his life. With another family, a mother was suddenly hospitalized. Her daughter, a young adult in self-determination program, had no one recognized it to support her budget decisions or communicate with providers. We passed it before support was reestablished. the system didn't not care because people did not care it failed because there was no clear pathways to someone to step in when it matters must. These are not isolated incidents. These are patterns. Assignment representation is not about replacing families. It is about protecting them. It is about ensuring continuity, dignity, and stability when life becomes uncertain. It gives families peace of mind knowing that if something happens, their loved ones will be safe and with the help they need. Our journey is hard and challenging and we cannot control when a crisis comes. But we can decide whether families face it alone. I respectfully ask for your support of SB 1052 so that no child, no individual with a disability is left with a voice when it matters much. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. My name is Erin Carruthers. I am the child of parents with developmental and other disabilities. Just want to make sure your microphone was on. How is it now? I think so. Thank you. I'm a child of parents with developmental and other disabilities. I'm a person with disabilities. I'm a parent of a young man with disabilities. I'm also the executive director of California's State Council on Developmental Disabilities. The State Council is an independent State Department created to listen to people with developmental disabilities and their families and find solutions together. One common question we often hear, and sometimes it's whispered, is what happens to me, my family member, if something happens to me? This is any parent's greatest fear. It's particularly true of those with children with developmental disabilities. Adding to this question, during a recent visit to an ICC cafecito, I heard Josefina's story along with hundreds of others who have a new and greater reason to believe this fear could come true. I left that night wondering how can the state council help, and it really was one of those middle-of-the-night moments when I realized I've got a current authority in law that can come to be in play here. Under current law, I as executive director can appoint an authorized representative when a person has no parent, guardian, or conservator. An authorized representative stands beside the person, not in place of them, and that person always has the right to accept or decline the help. Senate Bill 1052 would strengthen this tool. It authorizes a contingent authorized representative. This is really just a trusted backup who's named in advance. So if the primary supporter is unavailable, services don't collapse. Advocacy doesn't collapse. The bill also adds some safeguards to current law, puts in standards for when representation is needed, investigation with consent, and time-limited appointments with renewals. This bill also clarifies good cause, so it's clear when we can remove somebody as an authorized representative. All of this is free to service to families, and it gives peace of mind to families to be able to plan ahead, really, for the unthinkable. So I respectfully ask your consideration in making clear that my current authority can be used for today's threats to families with developmental disabilities. Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any witnesses in support of SB 1052 here in room 2200. Please approach the podium and just as a reminder, it's a Me Too, so your name, the organization that you represent and your support or opposition on the bill. Good afternoon Evan Fern with Disability Rights California in support Hi my name is Carolina Arzate I CCC Integradora and I here to support My name is Maria Granados I support My name is Maria Lopez and I am co-founder of ICC and also we are here supporting with the state council supporting the bill and thank you the senator for for yeah for be here supporting the bill. Thank you. Hi, I'm Juan Martinez and I'm going to support the bill. So none of those ICE agent animals are trying to take away my family. Okay, thank you. That's just for your name and organization and position. Thank you. Ruby Saldana, ICC Integradora, co-founder and mother of three and support. Thank you. My name is Jacqueline Casas and support the bill. Good afternoon. My name is Jacqueline Vargas. I'm with ICC and I support the bill. Thank you. My name is Fabiola Regis. I'm supporting the law 1052. We are from Red Good Cause. Maribel Ahumada, co-founder of the ICC, mother of a special needs child, and I am here strongly supporting SB 1052. Thank you. My name is Juan Cruz, and I'm here in support of SB 1052. Good afternoon. My name is Fabiola Cruz. I'm a mother to two children with disabilities, also an integrator from Integrated Community Collaborative. I'm here to fully support SB 1052 and thank you for giving us a platform to support this bill. Good afternoon, I'm Rocio Oliveros, mother with a autistic child, and here I am to support the SB 1052. Thank you. Good afternoon, I'm Griselda Maldonado, and I'm going to support the 1052, and thank you to the Senator Lena González, who strengthens and explains the law to ensure our children. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Maria Hernandez and I'm here to support the ASV-1052 so they can help our kids because we really need your help. Thank you. Vengo apoyando a la B1052 del lugar de Ucaya, de Redwood Coast. Gracias. Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Mar Elena D y vengo a apoyar la ley SB1052 Gracias Buenas tardes Mi nombre es Ernesto I going to support the SB 1052 Thank you Thank you Good afternoon My name is Elizabeth Gomez. I am a mother of two young adults served by the Regional Center System. I'm also the Director of the Integrated Community Collaborative, and I'm here to support Senator Gonzalez SB 1052. Thank you for listening to us today. Thank you. and God bless you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jose Flores, father of a child with autism. We support the SB 1052. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Maria Gutierrez and I also support the SB 1052. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Carolina Sousa. We are representing the ICC and the State Council. I'm going to support SB 1052. Thank you. Dora Contreras, grandmother to a 33-year-old adult, and I want to thank especially Aaron Carruthers for attending our cafecito and listening to our needs. And thank you, Senator, for writing the bill. that is so much needed. Good afternoon. My name is Selena Estrada. I'm a mother of two children who have autism here from part of East LA Regional Center and also here for the families that couldn't come from all the way over there. I wanted to say thank you to Senator Gonzalez, to State Council, for creating this bill. That means a lot to us because as a mother, my biggest concern is what's going to happen to my kids if I'm not here. So I'm here today, but tomorrow who knows? And so I just want to say thank you to everybody here listening and thank you. Oscar Mercados. I'm an individual with autism served by the Regional Center. a self-advocate with the Integrated Community Collaborative, and most importantly, the son of a Hispanic immigrant, in strong support of this bill. Thank you. Ted Jackson, CEO of the Marin Center for Independent Living and Matrix Parent Network. We serve 1,534 families in the North Bay with children with disabilities in support of this bill. Good afternoon. of a young age 17 with Down syndrome syndrome and I going to support this law of Senator Gonzalez the SB 1052 Thank you Hello buenas tardes Mi nombre es Mar de Cruz L Soy la voz de mi hijo y apoyo el bill B1052. Gracias. Hi, my name is Stephanie Cruz López. My brother is autistic and I support the SB 1052. Thank you. My name is Juan Francisco Perez and I support SB1052. My name is Juan Francisco Perez and I support SB1052. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for being here. My name is Andrea and I'm his PA and I support SB 1052. Good afternoon, Emelyn Shabard with California Disability Services Association in strong support. Good afternoon. Tony Anderson with the Association of Regional Center Agencies in support. Good afternoon. Jordan Lindsay with the Arc of California, a proud co-sponsor of the bill. We thank the State Council and the Assemblywoman for bringing this forward, this important issue. Thanks very much. Thank you. Okay. Opposition witnesses. Do we have any opposition witnesses? See none. Do we have any opposition comments? All right. We'll take it back to the members then. Would anyone like to have any questions? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I understand the intent of the bill. I have a couple of concerns and then maybe a question of maybe a different approach to addressing the issue. I think my biggest concern well let me let me ask first currently what is the the approval process for someone who is a authorized reference an authorized yes and author I what is it what's proper term authorized representative authorized representative what is currently the the renewal approval process for them. And I can absolutely let Executive Director Carruthers answer. Thank you, Senator. The request is received by our office. We have multiple ways people can request it. By phone, there's a portal talking to our offices. We receive this request. We write them up. We have a standard format for information that we're looking for. Our staff then speaks to the person who's requesting it. If it's not the person with developmental disabilities themselves, then to the family members, to all involved. Depending upon the facts of the case, there may be others we're speaking to. That information is then compiled into a recommendation, which is then reviewed by legal, sent to me for final decision. Okay. And what is currently the time period between the request, the evaluation, and the assignment? 30 days. 30 days. Okay. Which I think is pretty reasonable. I think my biggest concern is the logistics behind what this is actually going to be implementing. And part of it is the renewal process, the annual renewal process. So right now, how long? you have to do you have before you have to renew your your permit or your authorization? Once a year is our current practice. Okay, so this is not changing what current practice is. Correct. The senator's bill puts current practice into law. Okay. All right. So that's more helpful. And then. Yeah, please. I think. Okay, where did I go? Sorry. Okay, so if it doesn't change, then the next part of my question does not relate, but I'll let you know what that concern was. is the fact that, say, because it's, in my understanding, I did not know that it was already required to do it annually, but my concern was if it was required annually, what would that look like as far as the delay for authorizing? Because the workload would be so much more expansive than what we currently have. But it's the same, so it doesn't matter. It's not relative to that, so good for that. If it helps I can reassure that we track them on a timeline, make sure that we're doing our work ahead of that that being cut off so there is not a gap in coverage if if there's a desire for the authorization to continue okay and then has there been any considerations as far I'm sorry to the author I apologize has there been any consideration in requiring people to do the authorization to be done at a time when they request a termination or a removal of a new authorized person? At the same time as the – I will, of course, defer to the expert here. My apologies if you could clarify the question. So has there been any consideration as far as maybe doing – instead of having to do it annually, having folks with IDD to retain their authorized representative until they request a change or termination rather than doing it annually, just so it's not so cumbersome. Under this legislation, I think it would require us to do something annually. So if that something is checking back in with a person, if it's reconducting another, I want to get to the spirit of your question, which is really administrative ease. Yeah, and that's my thing. To me, administrative, legal, you know, bureaucracy always makes getting anything done difficult and expensive. So I'm just thinking of how do you streamline it so it's not so cumbersome, expensive, and especially for those that are applying. It just seems really redundant to do it annually. It just seems like a lot of work. Yeah. Let's talk, because I want to see what can be done to relieve the administrative burden on families. They're already working on so much, and if this is already granted. Really, we want to make sure that the person still wants it, circumstances haven't changed, everything's accurate, and there hasn't been any conflicts that have been developed. That's what we look for at the annual renewal. And how – so it's 30 days before you get the approval done, but how long does it take for families to actually compile and address it and meet with you to get that approval? That's all within the 30 days. Oh, within 30 days. And then we'll start at month 10 to make sure we don't go past 12. Okay so if you indulge me I want to just explain in Spanish we have a lot of Spanish speaking witnesses So I want to explain what my question my concern was So hice una pregunta sobre el programa que tenemos ahorita en cuanto al requerido de tener el programa o la aplicaci para ser certificado y autorizado anualmente. Se me hace un poco demasiado trabajoso. Y quisiera ver y pregunté si hubiera una forma más fácil para hacer eso. Por ejemplo, que cuando el paciente o la persona requiriendo los servicios quiera cambiar su persona, su representante, hagan el requerido permiso en ese tiempo en vez de hacerlo anualmente. Thank you. Thank you. Gracias. Sure. Senator, I took that time to just review the way the language is written specifically, and it states that it can be renewed annually. It doesn't specify the process, which I think allows for the administrative flexibility that you'd be seeking to make sure the burden is light on the families. And we can certainly work on that more with more additional, you know, obviously with information and some precedent that he may have, you know, at his direction now, which Which is current which is this current authority. So we'd love to learn more But I appreciate that ensuring that families have more less of the administrative burden and just getting a faster representation for sure All right any other comments questions? Well, I'm very supportive the bill. I think all the people who came such a long way to Testify and be here with us. Would you like to close? I just want to say thank you so much to executive director Carothers and miss Romo this is an incredible bill. I can't tell you how many families have come to me from regional centers and the ICC families who have said thank you, thank you, thank you so much. And I'm just so very grateful that you absolutely did listen to these families and this is their bill. So with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you. Did we... Okay. Senator Laird moves the bill. The motion is... Okay. Why don't you call the roll and give us a motion? File item 7, SB1052. The motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Etobo? Aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Perez? Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Okay, that is 3-0. We'll keep that one on call. Thank you very much. Senator Gonzalez, we have your second bill. Senator Gonzalez, Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here to present SB 1077, which will prepare California for potential future government shutdowns by requiring that the California Department of Social Services create a communications and contingency plan for disruptions to CalFresh benefits As we all know on October 1st of last year the federal government shut down for 43 whole days leaving over 5 million Californians without access to their full CalFresh benefits for the month of November, a very scary time for our California families. And California was also left without options to fill the gap. Had the state wanted to appropriate funds to replace SNAP benefits before low-income individuals were directly harmed, it could not have done so as the state simply does not have the infrastructure and capacity to act. So we obviously cannot afford this and we want to ensure that our California families are fed and that we do have the infrastructure to get it done quickly. With me to testify in support is Josh Wright from the California Association of Food Banks. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 1077. Okay, please go ahead. You have two minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Last year, California was affected by the longest federal shutdown in history. Among the impacts, this shutdown delayed the issuance of food benefits for people on CalFresh, which is our state's most important anti-hunger program. Millions of Californians rely on CalFresh, and for every meal that a food bank provides, CalFresh provides nine. When it became clear that the federal government would not issue benefits on time, widespread fear ensued. The UC Nutrition Policy Institute conducted a study of food banks during the shutdown. Multiple sites studied had people show up between 3 and 6 a.m. for distributions that started at 10 a.m. because people were worried that the food would run out. Some sites had to make substitutions to ensure that all people that came were served. We also polled our food banks to better understand what they experienced after the shutdown was over. 92% of food banks reported that their average service numbers increased during the shutdown. Our food banks reported significant increases in people seeking out food assistance. For example, one food bank reported a 330% increase in people using the Food Finder on their website. Another food bank reported that their call volume doubled week over week from 63 to 460 calls per week. While in this instance, California was able to act quickly to restore benefits, 60% of CalFresh recipients still experience a delay. And any delay has negative impacts on physical and mental health. This shutdown demonstrates how important it is for California to increase our resilience against federal actions that harm the most vulnerable in our state. SB 1077 will ensure that Californians who rely on CalFresh have the food that they need by creating a mechanism for the Department of Social Services to rapidly issue benefits during a shutdown. And will mitigate the panic over benefits loss by requiring a strategic communications plan to ensure people know that their families will continue to be fed regardless of what the federal government does. CAFB is proud to support SB 1077 and we urge your aye vote. Great, thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Darby Kernan on behalf of In Child Poverty California in support. Hi, Koisi Tern with Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support. Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We will get our letter in. It's not there yet. In support. All right. Any opposition witnesses? How about opposition comments? All right. With that, we'll take it back to the members. Senator Weber. Thank you, Chair. I really want to thank Senator Gonzales for bringing this bill forward I don think any of us could have imagined a time where people were not able to access their benefits but really appreciate the fact that you were forward to realize that this, unfortunately, may be something that happened again this year and next year and to ensure that we in California are prepared for it for our residents' sake. And so we'll move the bill. We'd love to be a co-author. And once again, thank you so much for bringing this forward. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So a couple of questions as well. So I know we've the bill reflects on the 2025 federal government shutdown for the lack of assistance. Two questions, I think, for me. Number one, what did California do when the previous administration under Biden, we had a shutdown? What did we do back then? I don't believe there was a delay in CalFresh benefits during that previous administration. It was too short of a period? This one, because it was so long, we ended up having a delay of six days. Six days. Okay. So it wasn't that long before that. No. Okay. The other question, and that's as far as I go back. I didn't go back to any more delays prior to getting to the first. Yeah, and this is, you know, agnostic to whoever is in the federal government. We just want to ensure that people are being fed. And 43 days is a long, long time, but six days to go without benefits, without any fresh food is very long. And so my question then falls onto what we currently have. So here we're trying to add another program. Why wouldn't we just work on, right? Is that what I understand, another program? Not necessarily. I mean, the program already exists. They had communicated via text for the 43-day shutdown that had happened last year. We want to ensure that it's codified, that the department actually has a robust communications plan that could include a web page. If people don't have smartphones and they don't have text messages, maybe there's another language that we forgot about that we need to include. There could be so many other issues, but it needs to be a robust communications plan. And so elected officials understand, so the community understands, so everybody is on hopefully the same page as to what the shutdown means and how long it may or may not take to get their benefits. And then secondary to that in this bill, we require some sort of, like, step forward to create the infrastructure so that if, you know, again, it's very limited right now because of the federal government that has the infrastructure to be able to, you know, implement and actually give the benefits. to people. We want to ensure that there's a state program and system in place so that way we can do that if there is a federal shutdown and we're not barred from providing fresh food to our families. Okay, so for clarification purposes, because I completely understand the goal, but according to my notes here, it says that it requires the California Department of Social Services to develop a secondary emergency food assistance program for CalFresh recipients using state resources to ensure that they're not in lapse in coverage in the event of a federal government shutdown. So I think that's where my question was lying, is developing a secondary emergency food assistance program versus just maybe doubling what we currently have under CalFresh. I think you're saying kind of the same thing, but I will defer to our... But do you understand where... Yes, I understand what you're saying. I think the issue is CalFresh is a federal program that the state administers. If there's a shutdown and there's an inability for the federal government to pass the money on to the state to be able to issue the benefits. There is no state tool currently to be able to just turn on, even if we want to, We want to have that discussion and turn on a way to get benefits out. And so I think we're trying to make sure that there's a tool that we have as a resource so that if there's another shutdown that goes, you know, God forbid, long enough to impact people's food benefits, the state has the capacity, the technological capacity to be able to issue the benefits in that interim period. It doesn't, not intended, I'm sorry, not intended to replace CalFresh, just not an additional program as much as just a tool that's ready to augment in the event of a need. So what we currently have, just making sure that it's, that the state can, one, allocate funding for it, I'm assuming? Yes. Well, to be able to distribute to the EBT cards is more of the issue. The state, a state funded distribution system. So it's still, but it would require the state coming in with the funding and then having the ability to put it onto those debit cards that would otherwise be federally structurally sent over there. Is that correct? Yes, yes. Upon appropriation by the state, absolutely. But, again, we don't want any family to go hungry. That's the issue here. I mean, to go a whole week without food is a long time. No, no, and I understand that. I was just trying to figure out, because another – I was trying to understand the logistics behind what the goal was when I read that there was a – to develop a secondary emergency food assistance program. my thought was, why do we need to develop a second one when we could just probably just directly fund CalFresh itself? And that's what this bill would require, yes. Okay. So, thank you. Thank you. And I think those were my two questions or my concerns. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Anyone else? Well, we have a motion from Senator Weber. Would you like to close? Thank you. Did we hear from supporters? We did, didn't we? Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm going back and forth here. I'm in two different committees in my head, so my apologies. Because we had so many in the former one. I know. Well, thank you so much. I just want to say thank you, and I respectfully ask for an Ivo. We want to make sure California families are fed throughout shutdowns. Well, thank you. I want to also add my thanks for your bringing this bill forward. It was a really scary time for our state. And I remember my team on their own, the kids came up with the idea of doing an emergency food drive because they were so concerned about people who were going to be left without CalFresh. And so for a number of weeks, our district office was turned into a food storage and food distribution. But it was really wonderful to see the community rally. But hopefully we will not have to go through that again with your bill. So I will be supporting the bill today. Will you please read the motion and call the roll? Thanks. File item 8, SB 1077. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echobo? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Perez? Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Can I aye for Echobo? Oh, that's okay. Aye. Feridjo-Bogue. Okay, so that is 4-0 and we'll keep it on call. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Next up I see Senator McNerney You have File item 9 SB 1201 Go ahead. Good afternoon, Chair Becker, Vice Chair Ochoa Bogue, distinguished members of the committee. I'm here today to present SB 1201, the No Hungry Heroes Act. clearly aimed at veterans or to benefit veterans. I want to thank the committee staff for their work. And H.R. 1, and I won't call it a name, H.R. 1 enacted a very large and very harmful cut to food assistance nationwide. These federal cuts specifically targeted vulnerable veterans, Veterans who are currently homeless, veterans who are raising children, veterans awaiting disability determinations from the Veterans Administration. Veterans rely on CalFresh to feed their families and often face higher poverty and lower unemployment because of health challenges such as post-traumatic stress disorder or brain injuries. SB 1201 helps protect veterans from these cuts by directing the state to request federal waivers to exclude job search costs from income and to ease work requirements for vulnerable veterans. SB 1201 also ensures that every veteran who applies for benefits is connected to the county veteran service officer that's relevant. With me in testimony, I have two testifiers. Roberto Alvarez on behalf of the California Association of Veteran Service Officers and Josh Wright on behalf of the California Association of Food Banks. All right, excellent. You both have two minutes. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to share why this bill is vital for California's veterans and their families. My name is Roberto Alvarez. I'm a member of the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers, and I'm an Army veteran myself. So our members serve veterans across the state, and we see firsthand how difficult the transition to civilian life can be. While military service builds exceptional leadership, resilience, and versatility, Those qualities do not always translate into the specific credentials that employers demand. As a result, transitioning out of a uniform frequently does not always lead to immediate employment. Previously, veterans had Cal Fresno exemptions that reflected the reality of this complex transition. Recent federal changes to SNAP eliminated those exemptions, creating an untenable situation for service members, especially those with young families. Additionally, for unhoused veterans, the newly discharged or those awaiting disability determinations, their pathways require additional support. SB 1201 would allow the state to seek federal waivers to ensure these vulnerable veterans, as well as those with children, are not unfairly penalized. Furthermore, under current guidelines, out-of-pocket costs incurred during job search, like travel or professional certification fees, are counted as available income. This calculation ignores the reality that these funds are unavailable for basic necessities like food and housing. Critically, SB 1201 mandates direct referrals to County Veteran Service Officers for additional assistance by ensuring all veterans applying to CalFresh across different agencies are connected to CVSOs it would allow a proactive approach to help some of the tourist barriers that veterans face when trying to engage benefits and services. As CVSOs, one of our greatest strengths is our understanding of the veteran community. Many of us have served or come from military families, giving us the cultural understanding to meet their specific needs. Thank you. Last year on July 4th, Congress passed H.R. 1, which included the largest cuts to the SNAP program known in California as CalFresh in the program's over 60-year history. It cannot be overstated how important the CalFresh program is. Over 5 million Californians rely on the food benefits they receive from CalFresh every month, and food banks cannot make up the difference. For every meal our food banks provide, CalFresh provides nine. These federal cuts impact people that are particularly vulnerable to food insecurity, including abuse and trafficking survivors, families with children, former foster youth, and veterans. HR1 added a three-month time limit on veterans, which requires them to report 20 hours of work per week or lose benefits after those three months. These requirements apply even if a veteran has children in their home, and there are no exceptions if the veteran is unhoused, has a less than 100% disability diagnosis, or is recently discharged. In California, over 100,000 veteran families rely on the vital food benefits that CalFresh provides. Recognizing the unique challenges that veterans face after service, SB 1201 does three things. One, it requests a federal waiver to exempt veterans from the CalFresh time limits if they are homeless, newly discharged, awaiting a disability determination, or if they have children. Two, it requires counties to give veterans who apply for benefits a direct referral to county veteran service officers who are best prepared to serve Americans who have served. And three, it ensures that the money that veterans spend on job searching does not count against them being able to receive food assistance. Taking away food never helps anyone find a job, keep a job, or get more hours at a job. And making veterans hungry will never make us a better country. The California Association of Food Banks has asked Congress to repeal HR1 food cuts to veterans and their families, and you should too. Until they do, the least we can do is make sure that we are all in California protecting our veterans who are at risk of going hungry. For those reasons, we are proud to support SB 1201, and we urge your aye vote. Well, thank you both. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Turn in on behalf of In Child Poverty California in support. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California on behalf of our county workers and our workers at VSOs in strong support. Thank you so much. Koisi, turn on behalf of the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Association, also an ex of a veteran, in strong support. Thank you for your service. Okay, do you have any opposition witnesses? Any opposition comments? All right, turn it back to the members. Any comments? Okay. We have a motion from Senator Laird. I want to thank you for bringing this forward as well. And this is something we need to correct, and I appreciate just being on top of it and just see if we can act swiftly to go ahead and get these waivers and get this done. So thank you. I be supporting the bill today I would like to close Well again I thank the committee for hearing this bill I thank the witnesses for speaking up this morning or this afternoon H.R. 1 is hurting our veterans, among others. At least we can take this step to make sure that veterans have access to food and their families. And with that, I'll ask for an aye vote. Okay. I have a motion for Senator Laird. Please call the roll. Item 9, SB 1201, motion is due passed to Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echobo? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Perez? Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. All right, that is 3-0. We'll keep it on call. Thank you. Thank you. I think we'll go with Senator Laird next. You have SB 1261. Go ahead when ready. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. This bill ensures aging and disability resource connections, or ADRCs, ADRCs in the acronym jargon, statewide may continue operating during major transitions affecting aging services. These agencies serve as a no wrong door, a system to connect people with the resources they need regardless of age or disability. State law requires every ADRC to have both an area agency on aging and independent living center as core partners. Under current law, these changes would force the ADRCs serving the three counties in my home area, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura, to close, even though community members still depend on their services every day. This bill allows an ADRC to continue operating for at least one year and up to two years if its area agency on aging or independent living center can no longer serve in its operator role. This transition period ensures essential services remain uninterrupted while a replacement partner is designated. Once a new partner is in place, full joint operation of the ADRC will be reestablished. While this bill is spurred by a situation that is in my district, it would actually apply statewide to anyone that had this kind of problem or this kind of experience. The bill has no registered opposition. With me here to testify is Jennifer Griffin, Executive Director of Access Central Coast, and Christina Mills, Executive Director of the California Association of Area Agencies on Aging. At the appropriate time, I would respectfully request an aye vote. Okay, well thank you both for being here, and you each have two minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Becker and members. My name is Christina Mills. I'm the Executive Director of the California Association of Area Agencies on Aging, the 33 area agencies on aging across our state. I'm here in strong support of SB 1261, which C4A is a proud sponsor of. This bill is about continuation of support services. Aging and Disability Resource Centers, ADRCs, serve as a critical entry point into community-based, cost-effective, long-term services and supports. They provide trusted, person-centered information and assistance to help people remain safely in their homes and communities. For many, ADRCs are where everything begins, where navigation truly starts. They help individuals and families navigate how to bring a loved one home from institutional settings, whether a hospital, a nursing facility, or even incarceration. They connect older adults to home-delivered meals, health care counseling, and so, so much more. They support people with disabilities who often fall between the cracks and help them avoid costly institutional care. These services are not only the right supports, they are the building blocks for California's No Wrong Door system. But under current law, when an ADRC partner undergoes a transition, the ADRC designation can be lost. When that happens, services don't just pause, they will disappear. SB 1261 provides a simple, practical fix. It ensures continuity of ADRC services during transitions so individuals do not lose access to their critical entry points of care. This bill does not create a new program. It simply preserves what already is working. At a time when California's older adult population is growing, we cannot afford disruptions and access to the vital supports and services we need for older adults and people with disabilities to thrive. SB 1261 ensures that the door stays open on behalf of C4A. I respectfully thank you in advance for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Becker and members. My name is Jennifer Griffin. I am the Executive Director of Access Central Coast, the Independent Living Center serving Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo counties. And I am here in strong support of SB 1261. On the Central Coast, we have two ADRCs, one in Ventura County and the other serving Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo, and both have faced the risk of losing their designation. In Ventura County, we are grateful that the Board of Supervisors paused revocation of the Area Agency on Aging, giving us about a year to continue operating. But without a policy solution like SB 1261, that pause only delays disruption. It does not solve the underlying issue. In Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, the situation is more urgent. Without this bill, the existing ADRC partnership, its relationships, the infrastructure, and trust will be terminated, forcing any future ADRC to start from scratch. That means real people in need waiting while a system rebuilds, not because it's failed, but because current law does not allow continuity through transition. When an ADRC is disrupted, people lose more than convenience. They lose access. They lose guidance when bringing a loved one home from a hospital or avoiding unnecessary institutionalization. They lose a trusted partner to help navigate complex systems and make informed choices about their care and independence. SB 1261 is a practical fix. It allows ADRCs to remain intact during transitions so communities are not forced to rebuild and individuals do not fall through the cracks. Without it, we are being asked to maintain continuity in a system that does not allow for it. On behalf of Access Central Coast and ADRC partnerships across California, I respectfully ask for your support of SB 1261. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support Good afternoon, Senators. Dan Okenfuss with the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers. We are co-sponsors and we're here in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Ted Jackson. I'm the Public Policy Chair at California Foundation for Independent Living Centers and CEO of Marin Center for Independent Living. Our ADRC One Door Marin serves 1,700 people in addition to what we serve at the ILCs and the AAA successfully. And I don't know what we would do if we would lose that partnership in full support. Hello, my name is Karen Jones. I'm with the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Services of San Luis Obispo County. In strong support of this bill, our program is very impacted by what's happening to San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara County AAA, where it's completely failed and services are really in a miss right now. So thank you for your support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Elizabeth Espinosa here today on behalf of the County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors. Thank you. Good afternoon. Jason Sullivan Halpern, California Long-Term Care Ombudsman Association, in strong support. Good afternoon. Brandi Bluhel, Executive Director of Resources for Independent Living and a core partner in the YOLO and Sacramento ADRCs, in very strong support. Thank you. Thank you. I see none. Let's bring it back to the committee. Any thoughts, questions? Well, thank you. I will be supporting the bill today. As you mentioned, we do have a safely aging population here in this state, and we do need to make sure that, as the senator said, that we don't have those kinds of gaps in the service. and we have to make sure we get the continuity of these essential services. So I will be supporting the bill today. Do we have a motion? Senator Weber moves the bill. Please call the roll. Oh, we've closed. I would ask for an aye vote. Okay. I see the way this is going. Yeah. File item 10, SB 1261. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echobo, Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Perez. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Okay, 3-0, and we'll keep it on call. Thank you. Our next bill will be file item 11 SB 1110 by Senator Becker Good morning. I know it might be good afternoon now. Okay. I was prepared for both here. Please to present SB 1110. I would like to thank the committee and staff for working on this bill. the nearly 1.8 million children in California eligible for affordable child care but not enrolled. The families behind that number, working parents, navigating complex systems, children who would benefit from quality early learning, are the reason that this bill exists. As California transitions to enrollment-based funding on July 1, 2026, we need to ensure the anticipated transition strengthens the child care system. This bill builds a more stable and robust child care subsidy system. It's based on a solid infrastructure and resource for consistent services to child care providers. Currently, alternative payment programs do the hands-on work of enrolling families, managing cases, and connecting parents to providers. But current law lumps that work together with back office overhead under a single cap that has not kept pace with reality. This bill creates a transparent funding structure that recognizes the difference between administrative overhead and direct family services and ensures that even the smallest community-based agencies have the resources to keep serving families. This bill originally also required direct contract care centers being reimbursed based on an 85% enrollment threshold. We are aware now that we need to align the bill with the 2025 budget, so we will be removing that provision from the bill going forward. So I plan to address that before the bill gets to the Senate floor. The approach that takes is a focus on necessary administrative fixes in a responsible manner. As I said, the bill is a work in progress. I do intend on addressing those concerns. And with me today to testify, we have Donna Snaringer from the California Child Care Resource Center and Alicia Hatfield from Every Child California. Thank you, Senator. You will each have two minutes for your presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members, and thank you to Senator Becker. My name is Donna Snaringer, and I'm the president of the Child Care Resource Center. My organization is a community-based nonprofit. We provide child care services in northern Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties in Southern California. We administer a wide array of programs aligned with our mission to cultivate child, family, and community well-being. For over 50 years, we've administered contracts with the state of California to provide subsidies to families in our community, and we currently serve over 60,000 children. Across the state, these contracts offer the state a cost-effective and expedient delivery system to provide child care to hundreds of thousands of children. Along with our fellow contractors across the state, we have partnered to deliver services and offer support to families as they navigate their child care needs. Immediately prior to and during the Great Recession, starting in about 2006, there were significant reductions made to our reimbursement for services. Many of these reductions happened with a false understanding of program services offered. Our reimbursement was framed simply as administrative rate, which was misconstrued to only mean indirect. When in reality, the work of the program includes significant direct client services to families, including enrollment case management support in selecting and changing care for their children and in supporting the holistic needs of families In the 16 years since these reductions were made the work we do and the environment in which we operate has completely changed Labor costs have increased 106%. California increased the minimum wage since 2010 from $8 per hour to $16.50. California now has a union in child care where they agree to and negotiate different terms. California has seen dramatic increase in cost of insurance, including our umbrella liability and general liability insurance. Cyber insurance didn't exist, and now we are required to carry significant coverage. And we have had to really lean into learning about HIPAA and FERPA and all the things to protect the data of our clients. And we have had increased program integrity measures. So during the pandemic, our organizations were called upon to swiftly deliver relief and one-time payment to providers. Since that time, the state has entered into multiple agreements, which require us to make additional payments per child in a care cost plus stipend. Thank you. Thank you. Can I add just the three things it'll do? You're 30 seconds over. 30 seconds. Okay, this bill will ensure— No, you're 30 seconds over already. Oh, okay. Well, it would ensure better staffing, better planning, and a stronger business structure. So we thank you for your time, and thank you, Senator Becker. You may begin. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Alicia Castaneda Hatfield, Senior Legislative and Government Relations Advisor for Every Child California, a statewide nonprofit representing 2,500 publicly funded early care and education programs across California. This bill was informed by a critical truth that the cost of operating a high-quality child care center is not driven by attendance and does not experience static enrollment. Regardless of short-term fluctuations, programs must maintain staff, classrooms, and safe operations daily. Before the pandemic, California's reimbursement structure was attendance-driven and deeply unstable. Even small attendance disruptions caused by family wellness issues, work schedule changes, or eligibility resulted in immediate revenue loss. Programs absorbed that instability through money-saving mechanisms that aren't sustainable and frankly didn't feel right because they're not how the field wanted to show up for communities. During the COVID pandemic, Hold Harmless was a tool utilized to preserve the state-funded early learning centers. This kept programs open, staff employed, and service available to families during the pandemic. Now, as the state puts down the use of this tool, programs have not had the chance to restabilize the way that we envisioned. With new conditions that have been introduced, creating more volatility and challenging programs that programs are navigating. Today programs are managing changes brought on by the expansion of universal transitional kindergarten, operating and material costs rising wildly, and family mobility issues including disruptions tied to broader enforcement and community conditions, as well as ongoing persistent workforce shortages and mid-year enrollment shifts. These are structural conditions that have become part of the operating environment, which is why contract earning stabilization issues have become a priority. This bill is a stability mechanism, not a funding enhancement. It helps preserve access for families, reduces disruption for children, and gives programs a more realistic chance to remain open and staffed for the communities they rely on. We also recognize that there is work to continue on this bill, and we look forward to continuing the work with the author and stakeholders for the amendments we need to move forward. Thank you so much. We will now hear from any others in the audience that would like to speak in support. please just state your name, organization and your position. Good afternoon, Chair Committee. Members are Blake Johnson on behalf of Child Action, a proud co-sponsor here in support. Thank you. Mackenzie Richardson with Thriving Families California Foundation, co-sponsor in strong support. Thank you. Maeva Rono with Cadengo in strong support. Thank you. Hello, Sophia Quach on behalf of Children's Paradise in support. Thank you. Thank you. Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support. Thank you. Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Thank you. Seeing no further individuals coming to the mic, we will now allow for any lead witnesses in opposition. If there are any lead witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Seeing none, if there's any others that would like to register their opposition, please come to the mic. State your name, your organization, and your position. Seeing none, I will now move it back to the committee. Senator Laird? I'll just make a brief comment because the original version of this bill had the section that was referred to by the author where I know the Budget Committee had some concerns about how it related to the budget deal on this issue last year, and you have removed that section. So I just want to acknowledge it, and at the appropriate time I will be happy to support the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other comments, would you like to close? No, Lathia, thank you to all those who weighed in, and it's really important to get the stabilization, I think, as was mentioned. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much, Senator Becker. Do I see a motion? Move by Senator Laird. Assistant, please call the roll. File Item 11, SB 1110. Motion is due pass to Education Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echobo? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. That's 4-0. The bill is on call. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? I know we have one author, but we have one bill that was presented before we had a quorum, and that is item number two by Senator Reyes, and I would move that bill. Like I said, I would support the motion of Senator Weber. Senator Weber. Yes, let's call the roll on that with a motion from Senator Weber. File item 2, motion is due. Oh, sorry. File item 2, SB 969, motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Chobo, Laird? Laird, aye. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. And I'm gonna present the final bill from Senator Menjivar. We will now move to file item number three, SB-9-1, SB by Senator Menjivar which will be presented by Senator Becker You may begin when you are ready Thank you Happy to present this bill on behalf of Senator Menjivar Currently, if one was to look up a specific residential care facility and there's a violation associated with it, it would be categorized broadly as a violation of residents' rights rather than a specific type of abuse. So we can't tell if a facility had a rat infestation or if staff were found to have scammed an elder resident into writing a $30,000 check. A resident having bed sores would be categorized the same as a resident getting assaulted. That's why SB 991 is important because it will ensure that we are promoting elder abuse accountability and residential care facilities for the elderly. By using categories found in existing statute, we are asking to clearly define types of abuse, such as physical abuse, abandonment, abduction, financial abuse, isolation, mental suffering, neglect, just to name a few. By doing so, we can improve how substantiated reports of abuse and neglect are categorized by CDSS and their public-facing licensing enforcement database. because the current umbrella category doesn't, for example, allow for family members looking for a facility to clearly know what type of violations are occurring. It doesn't allow policymakers to address matters if we don't know the specific form of violation. Testifying in support of this bill, Krista Barnett, Executive Director of Senior Advocacy Services, and Karen Jones, the Executive Director of Long-Term Care Ombudsman Services in San Luis Obispo County. Thank you. You will each have two minutes for your presentation. Thank you. My name is Karen Jones. I'm the Executive Director of Long-Term Care Ombudsman Services of San Luis Obispo County. I'm also representing the California Long-Term Care Association, also known as CALCOA. Several years ago in San Luis Obispo County, in a residential care facility for the elderly that is licensed by Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, a facility staff person walked into a resident's private room and found a male staff person sexually assaulting a resident. The resident was highly intelligent, fully competent, but had a medical condition that left her unable to talk or move her body. The licensing agency cited the facility for violating the resident's rights. Weeks earlier, at another residential facility for the elderly, a staff person was observed failing to wear a mask. This was during COVID. That facility was also cited for a resident's rights violation. I cannot say it loudly enough that sexual assault and failing to wear a mask are not the same level of harm, But that is what the current community care licensing information system implies. Unfortunately, these were not limited one-time incidents. Over the past several years, San Luis Obispo County has experienced multiple situations where residents in residential care facilities for the elderly and licensed by community care licensing were cited for residence rights violations that were abused. This includes a hospice nurse who discovered one of her patients at a six-bed facility tied by bed sheets to all four limbs to the bedposts. The staff admitted they had tied her. The daughter of a resident in another facility found her dad's arms tied with garbage bags to the wheelchair arms. Those facility staff also admitted to tying their dad to the wheelchair. And then more recently, an ombudsman walked into a care facility, residential facility for the elderly, and found a resident tied with a gate belt, which is a type of belt to the recliner. These are absolutely abuse and not appropriate. In response to these incidents I had several meetings with the licensing agency to discuss the reasons they were citing abuse as rights violations rather than the more obvious issue which was abuse What I was told was that they did not have a regulation or a law that they could cite as abuse The nearest option would be the penal code and they do not cite criminal law The Ombudsman Program is very familiar with coding complaints and outcomes. We have our own information system that provides a number for everything that can happen in a facility. For instance, physical abuse is A1, while the residents' rights violations are D9. This is the National Ombudsman Reporting System. Every four years that system is reviewed and updated to make sure it's statistically valid. Each change requires... Oh, dear. Okay. Well, we have our own system. We know what it takes to make them better, and this bill makes it better. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much. If there's anyone else in the audience that would like to register their support, please come to the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your position. Thank you.

Evan Fern with Disability Rights California and support.

I'm Jason Sullivan Halpern. I'm the director of the California Long-Term Care Ombudsman Association. I'm also acting as a proxy for Consumer Attorneys of California. I just want to say that this bill does not – the current system does not do justice to the experiences of victims, and it does not provide the state with data with which we can use to prevent abuse. Thank you.

Good afternoon Elise Brummer the San Mateo County Ombudsman Program and Executive Director of Age Up in strong support Thank you

Faye Gordon, California State Long-Term Care Ombudsman in strong support of this common sense bill to improve needed transparency in long-term care facilities. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Charmaine Brent with Empowered Aging. I'm the Director of Programs and Services. And as my executive director stated, we covered Alameda County, Solano, and Contra Costa, and definitely in strong support. Please consider. Thank you.

I'm actually quite surprised that we don't already have something like this in place. I think like one of the witnesses stated, the examples are very broad, very nonspecific. And I think one of the people who came up here said, what we have right now, it doesn't protect the residents, but it also does not give us the correct data that we need from the state to ensure that we are protecting California residents, especially our most vulnerable ones. And so with that, you may close.

Thank you so much. The bill has been moved by Senator Perez. Assistant, please call the roll. File Item 3, SB 991, the motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker?

Becker, aye. Echobo?

Laird, aye.

Perez, aye.

Weber Pearson, aye. Okay, four to zero, and that is out. All right, we'll start from the top and go through, thank you, go through the bills, beginning with the consent calendar. The consent calendar, we have three bills on the consent calendar, 902, 1051, and 1030.

Becker, aye.

Perez, aye. Okay, 5-0, the case. We'll now go to file item 3. We had everyone on that. Okay, you want to go through? Sure. File item 2, SB 969. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee.

File item 2. Is that number 2? Yeah.

Echobo, aye. That one's out. Okay, 5-0. That bill is out. File item 5, SB1025. Motion is due pass to governmental organization committee.

Becker, aye.

5-5.

Not voting.

Perez, aye. Okay, 4-0. That bill is out. File Item 7, SB1052. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee.

Perez?

4-0. That bill is out. File item 8, SB 1077. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Perez Oh is the chair voting Oh sorry the chair is voting aye Aye Aye Perez aye That one 5 5 That bill is out File item 9, SB 1201. Motion is due. Passed to Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. With the chair voting aye. Vice chair not voting.

Perez.

4-0. That bill is out. File Item 10, SB 1261. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. With the chair voting, aye.

Ochoa-Bogue, aye.

Perez, aye. 5-0. That bill is out. File item 11, SB 1110. The motion is due pass to Education Committee with the chair voting aye and no vote from Etobo.

Etobo, aye. Excellent. Five to zero. That bill is out. I want to thank everyone who participated today. This closes our meeting of the Human Services Committee. Thank you very much. Thank you.