Senate Human Services Committee

Senate Committee on Human Services will come to order. Good morning. We are today over in the State Capitol in room 113. So we ask all members to get here so we can establish a quorum. We have 25 bills on today's agenda. Six of those bills are on the proposed consent calendar. consent we have file item 6, 8, 10, 13, 19, and 24. We will start as a subcommittee and we have

Okay, why don't you go first?

Go ahead.

For these reasons the Commission is proud to be in support of AB 262 and respectfully asks for your aye vote Thank you Thank you Thank you Chair And now I going to read the statement from Brian Cohan my second witness who not able to be here He wrote, Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for hearing AB 262 and my comment in absentia. My name is Brian Cohan, and I'm a constituent of Assembly District 52. For the past seven years, I've been running weekly drop-in programs and doing volunteer homeless street outreach with a group of neighbors. We started as a small mutual aid organization and now have four staff supporting over 800 active volunteers like myself. Our volunteers are on the front lines of the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles. We frequently encounter a woman claiming to be pregnant, and less frequently, but more so than is acceptable, encounter visibly pregnant women. Some notable experiences stand out to me over the years, particularly the case of a woman who was in her third trimester and living on the streets of Hollywood. She cared deeply for her unborn child, but for complex reasons of trust in her relationship with a father, was unable to move indoors. We brought her a cell phone so she could at least call 911 if she went into labor. In another instance, we found a new mother with an intellectual disability and her three-month-old baby in a tent on Sunset Boulevard. Our response to homelessness should try to break the cycles of poverty, mental illness, and violence that lead to it. Helping mothers and their children get the best start in life is a critical part of that. AB 262 is about asking if we can do more. That's the question I want to know the answer to, and I hope the answer is yes. Thank you.

Step to the mic. Thank you.

I just want to thank our witness for being here this morning. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I think the only question I have would be, I understand the silver alert. I understand the feather alert. What exactly would be the pink alert? What are you alerting to?

Well, I think it's a commitment. I'm grateful that you're going to be moving forward with the study. I think the only caution I would probably share would be when we think of a feather alert, when we think of a silver alert, we think of these alerts or an amber alert. We usually think of public safety, someone missing. So I think I think the only concern I would have would be by referring it to the pink alert that consider somebody missing. I historically speaking, precedence wise, we have it as someone missing. they need help finding someone. So to call it a pink alert, it just might be a little misleading, or not misleading, that's the wrong word. Let me rephrase that. Might be a little, what would be the word? It would imply something differently. That's the only thing I would just bring a little to your attention on calling it a pink alert. But other than that, I think it's a I really appreciate the arguments and support, which say protecting two lives at once, which I absolutely, really, really appreciate that. I am grateful for it. I'm going to be supporting it.

And when the time is appropriate, I would love to move the bill forward, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Thanks to our vice chair.

Thank you, senators. We appreciate your support. um and respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time thank you yes is that your clothes

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll keep my comments short because the real deal is here. First, I want to thank the committee and staff for their amendments, which I'll be accepting today. IS AB 673, WHICH ESTABLISHES THE UNACCOMPANIED YOUTH SUPPORT GRANT PROGRAM. THIS PROGRAM WILL PROVIDE ASSISTANCE to 16 and 17 year old students experiencing homelessness and who are not in the physical custody of a parent or guardian as they continue their education. With me today is Tony Thurman, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and also accompanied by Eric Dunk as well, who's been my ride or die through this whole process. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair. I want to thank Senator Jackson for your leadership on this matter. We'll keep it brief. Just to put it in context, most recent data shows us more than 280,000 homeless youth in our state. 10,000 of those youth are unaccompanied minors. Think about 16- and 17-year-olds who are homeless and don't have a parent or a guardian to help them. To make the matter worse, there's only 130 beds statewide for temporary emergency shelter. And only 10% of schools that get McKinney-Vento dollars are able to use any of those resources. But even with those resources, they don't provide enough to support the needs of those youth who are homeless and on their own. This bill closes the gap by establishing the pilot program that you heard the assembly member talk about for unaccompanied youth ages 16 and 17 to get access to housing navigation, basic needs, tutoring, employment, readiness, health, and certainly mental health services. The funding flows to a weighted formula that focuses on the school districts that have the highest concentration of unaccompanied youth with the greatest need, and that way we can focus on providing the best outcome. Your committee sits at the intersection of housing and child welfare and social services. This bill is fundamentally about connecting those students to systems and to schools. This bill does not ask school districts to replace human services, but it does ask them to be a bridge that gets vulnerable students to the right door. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 673.

Yeah.

Hi. I'm Zachariah Okenda. I'm with the Alliance for Children's Rights. We're also in support. And I want to speak on personally. I was a formerly homeless youth, unaccompanied minor, ages 16, 17, without a guardian. I moved to California without guardians or caregivers, and it was the school district and local population that came together. But I really personally support this bill because it would create a resource that would have been directly helpful to me, not just scraping, you know, ragdags sort of groups together from the interfaith community and other folks. to come help so thank you so much for doing your work again so we never

chair members Trevon also at the California Alliance of Child and Family

strong support thank you Amanda Kirschner County Welfare Directors and

So a couple of things. So we saw this bill in education. I did not support the bill in education at the time because it's my understanding that we currently have several areas where our students fall into as far as funding goes. So if we look at our LCFF funding, which is low social economic demographic, the students would fall into that particular segment. So additional funding would be provided in that circumstances. We also have currently the social services that are currently provided for students who are unaccompanied already. Sorry, I'm looking at my notes here. So, let's see. So right now, the CDE submitted a budget request for $45 million, and there's currently $30 million in the May revise for the McKinney-Vento and homeless supports in general. This has been augmented to $300 million in the Senate's proposal as of right now. So a couple of questions on this particular from this angle and this perspective. How will the CDE ensure that this program does not duplicate services already offered through county social services and other local homeless assistance programs? Because in this case, when students are unaccompanied or they are being mistaken care of as far as homes, the schools have an automatic responsibility to report to the social services. So in this case, as we spoke in education, they would be required to report to the Department of Social Services and get that department already engaged with these particular segment of students. So how do we not duplicate programs? That's my biggest concern right now is that we have pots of money everywhere. And in reality, we're starting to really duplicate a lot of services rather than focusing on what we currently have, the systems that we currently have and ensuring that we actually enforce fully funding them first, staffing them, and fully ensuring that they're working the way they're supposed to be working. So will this, one, how do we not duplicate? Number two, how will this take away control from social services who are already tasked by social service agencies to serve this population? And will there be collaborative efforts between the CDSS and the CDE? And we'll start with that. And then the follow-up question after that. Sorry, I have about a couple of four or five. And then after that, will the, say, you know, obviously you've got quite a team here. The likelihood of this bill being signed into law will likely be there. But I do want to put on record that if it does go through and it does get signed into law, will there be a requirement to come back to the legislature and ensure that we have an accountability measure in that? So one, two, three.

Senator, I would also just say that similar to how we always make sure that we have set aside for homelessness for veterans, the idea is that there's multiple housing programs. But we know that if we don't set aside funds and make sure that programs are specifically designated to the population, and many times they don't have an advocate to be able to get to those resources. And many times they don't even know that the resources exist. And so in a time where all of our programs and all of our supports are stressed to point it, like to express it lightly is that this just shows that, number one, these are the ones who are often forgotten, often are unable to advocate for themselves. And so by making sure that not only through law, but also through the budget, we are able to make sure that these funds are directly going to go to them so that we can actually deal with this population. So it's similar to a whole host of things that we do. For instance, when we do youth set aside for Home Key or other things, we're just basically saying it's time for us to set aside some funds specifically for this unique population that is even more distressed than for, say, the number of McKinney-Vento young people that also are going through our schools as well.

I think some of those details will get worked out as the budget process concludes, but you did ask in your opening questions if there would be cooperation between Department of Education and Department of Social Services, and the answer is yes, because most of the youth that we see in these situations ultimately do get served in between systems in some way, but there are no resources for them. And so this would be a great opportunity for the departments to continue working closely together. We've been in regular contact with some of the folks who work in the Department of Social Services, and we could do the same in terms of you heard today one of the groups in support is the County Welfare Directors Association. They give us the ability to work through county social services to make sure that there is a coordinated effort, great communication to help these youth. These are youth who fall through the cracks and it takes all those systems working together to help them. Okay so the

in this context. We asked the districts what kind of help they want. More than 60% of school districts in our state said that they want see these types of resources. Almost every district has a staff person who works with homeless students. You're correct. Not every district has enough counselors, but almost every district has some staff person who works with homeless students, and they need these resources to be able to help them navigate housing opportunities. This is a great opportunity to help, and respectfully, I ask that you support the bill. Okay, so going back, and I'm going to push a little

Can I address that? Sure. Go ahead. Thank you. I would just say that we need both housing and vouchers, and here's why. I spent almost five years working with emancipated foster youth, young people who are 18 to 24, who bounced around sometimes in foster care and then out of foster care, limited systems, and they needed the vouchers. The state offers some transitional housing programs, but it is completely underfunded, and there are resources that young adults can get housing if they have those vouchers, as well as the college students that you've talked about who need to have it. I would say that these 15-, 16-, 17-year-olds need it even more because they have no one. They have access to no one. They can't sign up for foster care. They can't sign up for extended foster care. They can't get any resources. They can't get into a group home. They can't get into a shelter. They can't get into anything. Because it's not available. Because it is not available. It's not available. And so we need both. We need both additional slots, and we need the stipends to fund the individual costs for the individuals who have to get into a place. Okay.

Okay.

superintendent I don't know how much other chances I'll have this year to thank you for all your work across the board we talked about housing which are nothing separate from this bill right now but it's you've done so much to create housing on school district property the legislature as a whole I know actually in our community college district actually just broke ground on on 316 units of housing so we're all doing that also on in community colleges and other places but begin your work for all students also to make sure all students can succeed in California and I very much see this work your collective work as part of that making sure all students have a chance to succeed we heard from one of the witnesses about his experience and the school district helping him get to the stage he's here to be able to hear and represent one of groups testifying here today so I want to thank you the human services great to have the super human services chair for the assembly here in our committee I will be supporting the bill as well would you like to close thank you very

Well, thank you. Again, thank you both for your leadership here. We will both be supporting the bill, and we'll take a motion at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Thank you. member I want to begin by accepting the committee amendments and explain to you about a B 2304 which is also known as Gabriel's law it clarifies when a child requires immediate emergency care in an emergency situation social workers must have a child seen by the appropriate medical professional this bill additionally clarifies existing law that social workers can be held accountable for falsifying records. As you might know, since becoming a legislator, I've been trying to pass legislation revolving around the horrific child abuse case of Gabriel Fernandez. He was an eight-year-old boy who was tortured and killed by his mother and her boyfriend in my district. In his case, the social workers involved, they actually failed to take the necessary precautions that were needed to protect him. Even though they were called out to see him multiple times for various injuries, his body chart was only updated once with a bruise on his bottom, preventing any further investigation from him being seen by any medical professional. Additionally, the various social workers he was assigned to backdated and falsified his records. when his case was closed a month before he was killed one social worker changed the date to be March instead of April in order to not be held responsible for visits to the family in his final month the four social workers were charged with one count of child abuse and one count of falsifying public records However all charges were dismissed in 2020 The death of Gabriel Fernandez serves as a wake call to focus our collective consciousness on the systematic failures that exist to protect innocent children It revealed that there are many cracks within the child welfare system that malign the interest of those children. AB 2304 makes a necessary change and clarification in current law to help prevent any more cases like Gabriel. This bill requires that if a child appears to be in need of immediate emergency care, that the social worker called to the case must have seen the child. So they must come and respond. I have with me Gabriel's aunt Emily Carranza and Dan Felizato with the Los Angeles County Attorney's Office to testify.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Emily Carranza, and I'm here today in memory of Gabriel Fernandez, Anthony Avilos, and Noah Cuatro. A question was asked, why is Gabriel's Law necessary? The answer is clear. Gabriel's Law is necessary because children cannot protect themselves. When a child is being abused, neglected, or suffering in silence, they rely on adults and the systems designed to protect them to step in before it's too late. Sadly, California has witnessed the devastating consequences when those protections fail. Gabriel Fernandez was only eight years old when he was tortured and murdered, despite numerous reports of abuse. Anthony Avilos was 10 years old when he died, enduring horrific abuse and repeated warning signs that should have triggered stronger interventions. Noah Cuatro was just four years old when his young life was cut short after concerns about his safety had been raised. These children had names. They had dreams. They had futures. Most importantly, they deserved to be protected. Gabriel's law is necessary because the lessons learned from these tragedies must lead to action. It is about strengthening accountability, improving communication, ensuring thorough investigations and making child safety the highest priority. It is about preventing warning signs from being overlooked and ensuring the cries for help are met with immediate action. This legislation is not about politics. It is about protecting children. It is about making sure that the stories of Gabriel, Anthony, and Noah become catalysts for change rather than just headlines that fade with time. We cannot bring these boys back, but we can honor their lives by building a stronger child welfare system that responds quickly, acts decisively, and puts children first. I ask you to support Gabriel's law so that future children have the protection that Gabriel, Anthony, and Noah deserved but never received. Their voices were silenced, but ours do not have to be. Thank you for your time, your compassion, and your commitment to protecting California's children. Let the legacy of Gable Fernandez, Anthony Avilos, and Noah Cuatro be one of the lasting change and stronger protections for every child in our state. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members, Dan Philzotto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, we're proud to support AB 2304. As the author and witness said, this bill will simply ensure that children in need of immediate medical care actually receive it. Far too often in our investigations, after the fact, we hear story after story, if this child had just been seen by maybe one medical professional, something may have been done. This bill will help ensure that these children are seen by medical professionals. When they're seen by medical professionals, it helps ensure mandating reportings are taken into account. Law enforcement, social workers, the entire human services gambit is there to provide whatever services are needed for those children. It also clarifies that social workers employed by child welfare agencies who are not court officers are still covered by Section 6201. As the author said in our prosecution, we charged the individuals under Section 6200. The Court of Appeal said that was the wrong section to be charged. This will help ensure that no future prosecution is unnecessarily overturned because of a mistaken charging. For those reasons, we ask for your aye vote.

Yeah. Michael hefty Los Angeles dependency lawyers on the court appointed appellate attorney representing parents in the Los Angeles County juvenile dependency system we do oppose for two reasons the quicker reason would be that the medical the requirement to provide medical care does not include a corresponding potential criminal penalty for a failure to do that so only to the extent that there is not that corresponding penalty we oppose that particular aspect but we do certainly support the idea of making that provision of medical care a requirement. The main opposition that we have pertains to the amendments to section 6201. The court of appeal case that came out of the Gabriel Fernandez issue was BOM v. Superior Court. That's B-O-M, BOM. The court of appeal, as the district attorney identified, asserted that county child welfare social workers are not officers who can be prosecuted under 6200. 6201 already states, quote, every other person, end quote, who is not described by 6200 can be prosecuted under 6201 as a misdemeanor penalty. So 6201 already includes child welfare social workers who are employed by the county because as bomb asserted they are not officers who can be prosecuted under 6200 the Court of Appeal and bomb asserted part of the reason why they determined that social workers were not officers pertain to government code section 24,000 24,000 identifies county officers and the Court of Appeal and bomb said that child welfare social workers are not included in that list The Court of Appeal and Baum reasserted that those who are included in that list are officers who can be prosecuted under 6 The main problem I think with AB 2304 is I ask you to wrap up Oh, yes.

It's sad that we need this bill in the first place. It's incredibly disheartening to understand that we actually need this. But I am in full support to hold people accountable when they're trying to falsify information, when dealing with children. But I'm grateful for the author to bring this forward. I do want to ask for clarification purposes based on what the witness in opposition stated. is, would these, first of all, is there any plan to address the classification of social workers as quote-unquote officers? And following up on that, within this bill, with this, and I know this is probably in public safety, but it was brought up by the opposition, is this considered, would this be considered a misdemeanor or a felony if someone is caught falsifying information, which I'm assuming should already be illegal in our system moving forward. Through the chair.

Mr. Chair, through the chair. Certain social workers, child social workers, are considered court officers. Others are not. That is the confusing part. we have social workers in Los Angeles County who in their job description are classified as court officers. But like I say, other social workers are not. If this bill were to be enacted, the penalties, there's wobbler penalties available. So these can be charged as an alternate misdemeanor or felony. It is, you are right, it is completely inappropriate for a court officer or an on-court officer who is documenting instances of child abuse, child neglect, to falsify reports, alter reports. In our particular case, there was reports made on visits that never even occurred. It's just completely unacceptable. And like I say the prosecutor in our office who filed that case is considered one of the finest complex child abuse prosecutors in the state And he didn get it right This bill will help other prosecutors who are not as experienced as he was make the correct filing decision

to your questions first as far as whether you're a court officer or not a court officer that is it depends on your job duties that's a kind of a human resources issue as far as you know what what your job description is and I am not an expert on that as far as would this bill have made a difference. Yes, because in our, at the time, and I was not involved in that prosecution, but it's my understanding that at the time, they thought that all the social workers were court officers, and that's why the 6200 was the right charge. In this particular case, because the duties of the particular social workers involved did not qualify them as court officers. That's what the Court of Appeals ruled. Of course, by that time, it was too late to refile that case.

No, it wouldn't make them officers. But that's why I say if they were officers, you would charge under Section 6200. If you are not a court officer, you would be charged under Section 6201. What this bill does is clarify for prosecutors, other social workers, everybody, that non-court officer social workers are covered by 6201. So if you have a situation in which a non-court officer child social worker is doing these horrible things, that this is the appropriate code section to charge.

to be addressed will be addressed at the next committee hearing. With that, I'll be happy to move the bill when appropriate. Okay, thank you. Again, I appreciate raising those issues, but a lot of them will be discuss tomorrow. I just want to say thank you, Senator Lackey, you're, you know, going back and looking at your, all your bills over the years. You've been really steadfast and dogged in trying to fix this issue. I did note in the analysis, I want to note, you know, a number of changes that have been the LA County Department of Children and Family Services have taken in the wake of of the tragedy as well, and hopefully some of those are having an effect as well. But I do believe that your legislation will help prevent similar tragedies in the future. So I'll be supporting the bill here today. I want to thank you for testifying. Would you like to close?

We move the bill when the time comes and take a vote. Thank you all. Thanks for being here. Thank you. All right. We're going to try to stick to a follow as much as possible. Assemblymember Arambula you have two bills great welcome thank you mr. with file item 3 we start with 1575 first okay

Okay, welcome both of you. You each have two minutes.

All right, two minutes exactly.

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Thank you for testifying. Thank you. Do we have others in support who would like to answer?

Other in opposition to have anyone in opposition to the bill?

Okay, let's bring it back.

Thank you. Thank you very much for those comments. Again, thank you all for coming in and highlighting a change that really needs to be made and making a very powerful case for it. I will be supporting the bill as well.

Thank you very much. We're still operating a subcommittee, but we will take a vote at the appropriate time. Thank you all. Assemblymember Rambio, you have a second bill, AB 2510.

Thank you both for being here. We each have two minutes. Go ahead.

Thank you. Others in support?

Thank you. Okay, anyone in opposition? Is there any opposition? I see none. Let's take it back to the committee. Do I have any comments?

The average CalWARDS grant is about $1,000. Okay, so $1,000 per month.

So there are two things. Well, just to be clear, so when there's a temporary absence period that's always been there for 30 days, and that could cover things like a hospitalization, like the kid is out of the home. And so that has always been there. But the statute in 2021 in the trailer bill language, they added the six-month period for this aid. I don't think I could, you know, speak to the thinking in 2021, but we are just, you know, keeping that in the bill and clarifying that it is up to six months or for a time determined by the department. The reason we put that is we just didn't want it to be shorter than six months if it was needed.

They might be on the, you know, CalWORKs family reunification, and, you know, they might have mental health supports or those kinds of things.

So it doesn't have to, you know, be the entire time. But there are other CalWORK supports that families might be receiving.

Right. I don't think that the bill removes the incentive to work. The idea is that if the child is removed and then the grant gets pulled out from under them, it's immediately destabilizing, and people may not be able to pay their rent. They may become homeless. If they're homeless, the chances of getting their kids back is really harmed. So it's really more pulling that rug out from under them. I don't think it reduces the incentive to work. And I think this is my previous question as to how did you come up with six months?

So I'll start if I can, Senator. I was present back in 2021 when we passed that trailer bill language, chairing the subcommittee that oversaw health and human services. And at that time, what we heard from families is the need to get their feet under them. And what we were able to accomplish that year only dealt with those who had their full family removed. At this time, what we're seeking to do is to create parity, to ensure that if you had one child instead of two children removed in the case that was talked about, that we could ensure that they had that same stability, that they were able to better reunify their family unit. And that oftentimes does require months of help to make sure that they're doing work, as well as doing long-term educational attainment, as well as ensuring that they're getting the behavioral health supports. We have mostly women who are on CalWORKs that need this type of support to create the best environment we can for children to stay within the home. The alternative was they then enter into the foster care system. And once they're into the foster care system, it's much harder for them to prove if they're now homeless, if they're now unstable with their life. And thus we found a real rationale for us to push for a longer grace period, if you will. But ultimately, this bill is about creating parity if you had one or two children removed versus if you had the entire family removed. And by doing that, we are better able to support all family units and not to focus on saying that you need to have all your children removed from your house to be able to receive support at all. Okay Yeah I think that good Well I want to thank you I want to thank you all for being here and working on this We be supporting the bill here today We still operating in the subcommittee We have several members in budget

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to present, and I'll take my response earlier as my close.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I'm proud to present AB 1655. The CalWORKs program is designed to protect children's basic needs when families are struggling financially. The program provides modest support to help pay for food, rent, clothing, and other essentials. However, when a child is temporarily absent from the home for longer than 30 days, that support can be reduced or eliminated. There are some exceptions for this, of course. For example, if a child is in the hospital, they are considered temporarily absent for the duration of their stay, even if it passes 30 days and the family doesn't lose support. However, for families who have their children kidnapped by ICE and held in a detention facility for longer than 30 days, they can lose the critical safety net that they need and deserve. This bill, AB 1655, protects struggling families when their children are kidnapped by ICE and held in detention facilities. I think often about the five-year-old boy from Minnesota, Liam Ramos, who was shipped to a facility down in Texas, became sick at that facility and a court ordered that he be returned home. Had he been gone for more than 30 days here in California, his family would have suffered financially during his absence. It's shameful that we have to think about these kinds of policies in this moment, but it's also important that we do. With me to testify is Edgar Guerra with SEIU State Council.

Good morning, Chair Becker. My name is Edgar Guetta here on behalf of SEIU California, co-sponsor of AB 1655, representing more than 750,000 workers across the state, including the county eligibility workers who administer the CalWORKs program every day. AB 1655 is a targeted fix. When a child or family member is unlawfully detained in federal immigration custody, current law can reduce a family's CalWORKs grant because that person is no longer counted in the assistance unit. From the perspective of the county workers who run this program, this change makes sense. County eligibility staff are often the ones sitting across the table from the families in crisis. When a parent or child is suddenly detained, the last thing a worker should have to do is explain that the family's cash aid will also be cut. AB 1655 gives counties clear direction and allows workers to do their job in a way that protects children instead of punishing them, pushing them deeper into poverty. The spill is also about stability for California families. Research shows that immigration arrests can result in tens of thousands of dollars in financial loss to a household, and losing CalWORKs on top of that only makes the situation worse. On behalf of SEIU California and our members, including the county workers who administer these programs, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Do we have others in support who would like to weigh in?

Santiago Avila policy intern with Lamas and Vila group representing the Central American Resource Center got us in and support

Sarah Brennan with a Weidemann group on behalf of Next Gen California and strong support. Thank you Yes, any of a bunch of within child poverty in California proud co-sponsors and strong support Quays a turn with a coalition of California welfare rights organization and strong support Rebecca Gonzalez Western Center on Law and Poverty in support good morning Adam Kegwin on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association and California LULAC in support good morning Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association and support hey do others in up to any opposition we do yeah

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair Becker and committee members for this opportunity to speak. Glenn Allen, on behalf of the California Welfare Fraud Investigators Association, also known as CWFIA. CWFIA is in respectful opposition to the bill. I would like to introduce our organization for over 50 years. It is a nonprofit organization whose main goal is to ensure welfare fraud is detected, prevented, and or prosecuted in order to maintain program integrity and trust in public assistance programs. We are recognized on the state's social services website as stakeholders in public benefit programs. Most of our members are sworn law enforcement officers, and we have eligibility workers out of SEIU that are working in our units. This bill is missing specific language that would protect the taxpayers' money, which funds CalWORKs and protect fraud. Two simple steps to correct the bill. The reporting person should be required to sign a county or state social services sworn statement form. The present bill just says a sworn statement. Under the present bill, that could be an oral statement, which if we deny aid to a recipient that's detained, they file a fair hearing, the recipient. We have to prove our case in front of a state judge, state hearings judge, an oral argument would not hold too much water there. If the case went into criminal court, the best evidence is a written statement. It could be simply fixed in the bill by stating a county human services sworn statement signed by the applicant instead of just saying a sworn statement. Also, one other area that's lacking in the bill, the reporting person should be required to sign it. I'm sorry, back up. The reporting member should provide the location of the detention facility where the assistance member is detained. immigration customs enforcement has a public portal to obtain the location of the detention if it's not possible at the time of aid request the location should be provided within 30 days continuing aid for the detained family member would be terminated the following month if the location of detainment is not reported. And a final statement, the State Department of Social Services figured this bill is probably about 1.7 million for the next fiscal year and every year thereafter. Our organization is seeing it well north of

Okay, state social services did not include investigator time, state hearing time, and some other facets. Thank you for your time.

Do you have a vice chair, any comments? I'm just curious if the author has had an opportunity to work with the opposition to address some of the concerns?

Great. And we'll note this bill is going to judiciary next. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. So there'll be some opportunity to discuss some of these issues in judiciary.

I think will be appropriate there as well. Okay, so I will, I won't be supporting the bill today. I will look to see what the language will look like after judiciary. Is that what you're saying? Judiciary is next? Yes. And then I'm assuming some of these concerns will be addressed then? Okay. So I'm not going to support it today. I will have my team monitor the bill as it moves forward and we'll look into the bill and its final language when it comes before us. I'm assuming the Senate is probably going to go after that directly to us. Yes, probably. Senate after that judish. And then this just a little point for any opposition for advocates moving forward.

It's a proponent for advocates moving forward. So thank you for bringing this measure forward. And thank you for being here and expressing your concerns. I'm very, very much supportive of any measurements within statute to ensure against fraud. So thank you for bringing that forward, sir.

Okay. Excellent.

We have a motion from Senator Dr. Weber Pearson. Please call the roll.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

If there's two to one, that bill will stay on call. Can I make a motion for the consent?

Sure. Why don't we do that?

Dr. Pearson moves the bill.

Echoboak.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senators, today I'm here to present AB 1746. I first want to thank committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this bill. Senators, AB 1746 is a common sense measure to require counties to provide CalWORKs applicants and recipients with more information and opportunities to request child care support. The bill includes a 10-day deadline for county welfare departments to approve, deny, or seek more information once the child care request form is submitted. This prevents administrative delays that could otherwise keep a parent from starting a job or attending a training program. This bill ensures parents aren't just told that aid exists but are actively given the tools to find and choose a provider that fits their family needs Without reliability affordable care talented and motivated parents are forced to choose between the well of their children and the stability of their careers, a choice that no California should have to make. By investing in child care, we aren't just supporting families. We are fueling the workforce that drives our state's economy forward. And lastly, you have my commitment to continue working with all interest parties to ensure the goals of the bill to ensure child care is received in a timely manner is met. With that, Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me here today to talk about the issue is Coyce Tern on behalf of the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization.

Members, Coyce Tern with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. The purpose is to require counties to process child care within 10 days of request. CalWORKs child care starts when CalWORKs starts. Counties do not do referrals. They don't actually begin services until the CalWORKs recipient submits a form called the CCP7. The problem is that there is no true time frame for counties to process the CCP7 if counties delay in doing that, then this means that CalWORKs recipient is not eligible for child care. And they cannot, this bill requires the counties to process that CCP 7 or equivalent form within 10 days to allow the CalWORKs families to quickly access child care and move forward with their welfare to work plans. So when I was a student parent at UC Santa Cruz, I had a 10-year-old and a newborn. I went to the CalWORKs center and they handed me the notice, and not the actual form because THAT'S WHAT THE COUNTY'S OBLIGATION IS CURRENTLY. AFTER HAVING TO NAVIGATE GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY, NAVIGATING CHILD CARE, BEING THAT STUDENT PARENT AND BEING A FIRST GENERATION ESPECIALLY, IT'S HARD FOR YOU TO JUST NAVIGATE ALL THE MENTAL WORKLOAD. AND I THINK THIS EXPERIENCE ISN'T UNUSUAL IN MY CASE ALONE. IT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE. THERE'S A HUGE GAP THAT NEEDS TO BE CLOSED. THIS BILL ENSURES THAT THAT GAP IS CLOSED. The county's obligation is clear, 10 calendar days. It's processed. It's in the system. And then, yeah, if my kid is going to school, I'm already kind of like looking for childcare or whatever. It's already in process, and I know that it's going to come. So we respectfully urge you to vote for support this. Thank you.

We're here for technical support.

Good morning. Thank you. I'm Naomi Gemmel with Child Care Law Center. We do support the intent of the bill, but there are a few amendments we'd like to see, so we look forward to working with the author on those amendments. Thank you.

Good morning, Amanda Kirchner, County Welfare Directors. Not officially in opposition, but we do have some concerns. We've been in engagement with the author's office. We're just going to continue to work on that over the break, and I think we'll get to a resolution.

Sounds positive. I have a good feeling about that.

Vice Chair, we'll take it back to the committee. I love serving with a chair that is optimistic.

I am grateful for the bill to Assemblymember Davis. Thank you for bringing this forward. We always want to see streamlining in government. We call it government bureaucracy for a reason and it is incredibly frustrating when we can get the work and there just so much paperwork and so much information This is where I a huge advocate of the use of AI ensuring that we have collaboration between all state agencies and departments that we're not duplicating the work. And I hope that the powers that be that are listening, that they will move forward in a way where we are sharing information between agency departments, utilizing AI in a way to share that information so that we're not duplicating it and creating extensive bureaucratic. I mean, this is where I think the tools at hand could be fully utilized and really benefit. Should I use consumers or not consumers? I don't know what to use now. Persons receiving able to qualify for benefits, I guess. Is that what the term is? I want to be very mindful now on how to use those terms, But thank you for bringing this bill forward. I'm happy to move the bill forward.

I'll be supporting the bill, too. Echo the comments about streamlining, and especially in this case, giving the money out to other people who need it. So thank you.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senator Schaubach. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1688. First, I would like to thank the committee for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. Thank you. AB 1688 is a measure that will provide a greater degree of transparency and accountability for attorneys and guardians of the dependents of the California foster care system. Currently, in cases of suspicion of abuse or neglect, only the attorneys of children suspected of being abused directly are the only parties alerted of these allegations. This creates a gap in reporting allowing other youth in the same foster placement to potentially be subject to the same abuse or neglect. For context, Children's Bureau reports that some 68,000 children move in and out of the California foster care system annually, with more than half of foster youth being housed in Southern California. Within Los Angeles County, general neglect made up to 39.2% of their referrals to foster homes, with 19.4% being at risk due to their siblings being abused, and 15.6% being physically abused. In a 2022 study, it was found that 169 children in California were victims of abuse or maltreatment by their foster parents. Nationally, six children passed away due to the abuse or maltreatment from their foster parents. As it stands, there is no legal requirement to provide notice to the parents or attorneys of other children in the same placement that their client or child has been housed in a foster location where abuse has occurred. And due to this, too many children are falling through the cracks of our state's foster system because of this oversight in the child welfare reporting process. This is why I am here today to introduce AB 1688 to protect our most vulnerable population of children that must trust. and navigate the complexities of foster care system and aid their guardians that depend on them for support. In order to continue protecting foster youth throughout California, we must ensure that there are effective interventions to close the holes in our state safety net and report allegations of child abuse or neglect in foster homes. This piece of legislation will be a critical step forward to ensure that those that will come after us are carefree in a safe and secure environment. Joining me to testify and support and answer technical questions is Ann Quirk with the Children's Law Center.

Thank you. Others in support? Do we have others in support?

Thank you. Any opposition? I see none. We'll take it back.

Would you like to close?

Okay.

Thank you. All right. Well, we do have a motion from Senator Echobo. Please call the roll. File item 7, AB 1688. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echobo? Aye. Echobo, aye. Laird, Perez, Weber-Pearson. Thank you. 2 We stay on call Rodriguez you you see you here Go ahead You have Actually, you have two bills in front of us.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We are proud co-sponsored of AB2195 under the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition, a coalition of more than 30 organizations working to reform California's child support system so it better supports low-income children and families and helps reduce child poverty. At its core, child support is about children. It is about making sure a child being raised in a single-parent household has financial support from both parents, support that helps pay for food, rent, transportation, clothing, and basic stability. AB 2195 asks a simple question. Are our enforcement tools helping deliver that support to children, or are they sometimes making it harder?

Koisi Turner with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. I'm reading testimony on behalf of DeMont Hampton of Van Nuys. My child support obligations began in 1995 and over time, as I could not pay the full amount, my child support arrears just ballooned. My debt got so high that I felt like I was stuck in a hole. My children were in their 30s and had over 100,000 in child support arrears, most of it interest. Over that last decade, I have been on a fixed income. Although I was making regular payments of $50 a month, every six months or so, because Because of my arrears, my driver's license would get suspended. When this happened, I contacted the DMV and child support, but it was hard to get into contact with the right person. Once I got into contact with them, child support said they would lift the suspension, but sometimes it would take months to get my license reinstated. Thanks to AB 1055, I didn't have to worry about my license being suspended anymore. I had not been able to work for a long period of time, but once I was mentally, physically, and emotionally better, I wanted to go back to school to learn a skill, so I looked into programs that would train me to become a barber. When I first received my barbering license, they immediately suspended my license because of my arrears. I called them back and they fixed it. About one month later, it happened again. I had to call them back and they lifted the suspension. About two days later, it happened again. The person I talked with knew that my license kept getting suspended, but there wasn't anything she could do. I would have to call, get in contact with them, wait for them to call me back. She would ask a few questions and then she would release the hold. This happened even though I was making regular payments as they requested me to do. It was really important for me to address my child support arrears because they held me back from growing in life. I could not move forward while I had such a big debt. Over the years, I had talked to child support workers and family law facilitators about my arrears, but no one ever told me about the debt reduction program. When I went to neighborhood legal services, an attorney told me about the debt reduction program. When I asked my child support case worker about it, she told me that in order to apply for the debt reduction program, LA Child Support had to first audit my account, which could take up to a year. Once the audit was complete. Thank you.

We respectfully ask for your.

Yes. So, question. Questions on this particular bill would be, so, I'm in complete support of the principle of the bill, which means that I would imply that we want folks to work, because if they don't work, if we take away that license, how are they going to be able to provide for their families? So I'm in complete support of the principal. I do have a concern with regards to what options do departments have in order to enforce parents to actually pay child support if we remove every single tool that we have to enforce that. I was also supportive of ensuring that we don remove licenses like driver license because people need to get to work in order to be able to provide for their children So what tools are there to help folks enforce parental obligations for child support Want to go ahead?

No, and I agree on that principle. I just wanted to make sure that we actually have tools to enforce the obligation of paying child support. And I think the other concern that I would have had would have been or it would be if they're self-employed, you have a license to be self-employed what what guarantees do we have that they don't and I guess this would be even for on behalf of the government paying your taxes but how do you ensure that they're fully reporting what they're making in order to ensure that they are paying their their their child support they still have to go through income verification and actually the

I know your concern was about the department and they have all of the tools at their disposal and and they are also aware that this is another opportunity for them. Okay that was my my biggest concern is okay yeah you don't want them to you want to be able to have them be able to work on on that end, but the number one concern would be the enforcement part.

and if that's the case, then I'll be able to support the bill at this time.

they need a little extra help but unfortunately there's a paperwork barrier because they have to show us that they've approved and applied for any other available information especially in situations where we have evictions it's very easy for them to lose the documents they need to prove to us that they've applied for those types of income especially around veterans benefits if they lost their DD214 in an eviction and then they have to show us that they've applied for it but they still need to get a new one It just delays all of the process when at the end of the day, they really are already eligible for CalWORKS. They just need some paperwork to show us. And so what this lets us do is move that paperwork to the back end instead of the front end. And that way we can get them the immediate needs. It's about $200 in cash benefit and then some temporary housing support for a housing voucher. And it's only for 16 days. It's not long term. It's just a little bit of something to get them stabilized while the CalWORKS approval goes through. and they meet all the other eligibility requirements so it streamlines our workload it's better for our clients and I ask for your vote thank you very much

Chloe see turn with the coalition of California welfare rights organization and support Rebecca Gonzalez Western Center on law and poverty and support Josh Garger on behalf of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and support okay see no other witnesses in support will now continue with any witnesses in

one concern that I would like to see if they kind of would like to address is the POSSIBLE DOUBLE DIPPING. WOULD THERE BE A POSSIBILITY OF PROVIDING THE EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE BEFORE APPLICANTS PURSURE THEIR AVAILABLE BENEFITS MAY INCREASE THE STATE COST AND DUPLICATE AVAILABLE ASSISTANCE ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA OF EFFORTS TO HOLD FRAUD ACCOUNTABLE ALL WHILE THE STATE GRAPPLES WITH VISIT pursue their available benefits may increase the state costs and duplicate available assistance especially in the area of efforts to hold fraud accountable all while the state grapples with fiscal deficits So is there a possibility that, you know, as you're moving forward, that they could be an issue or a problem with literally double-dipping in other areas in this particular space?

Okay. If that's the case, I trust you. and I will be happy to make a motion on the bill.

Aye.

Aye.

Number 15.

Aye.

Aye.

Zabur?

Okay welcome Some members of Burr in file order Please go ahead Thank you Mr Chair and members I proud today to present AB 1967 which will promote better outcomes for older youth experiencing homelessness and instability. Children and young adults often experience homelessness for reasons that are distinct from the adult population. Their episodes of homelessness may follow significant family instability or exits from institutional settings such as the juvenile justice system. In other cases, youth may have left the child welfare system through adoption or guardianship only to find themselves in a situation that is not supportive or even unsafe. Youth who leave those situations can become homeless or exploited within weeks. Disproportionately, LGBTQ plus and people of color, these youth, are extremely vulnerable and yet current law is leaving them behind. Youth who are unhoused and living in a youth shelter or group home are often unable to enter the child welfare system through self-petition. When these youth self-petition, the county often only investigates the shelter or group home that they're temporarily living in and considers them to be in a stable situation. This assessment ignores the reality of the youth situation and the circumstances that they may have left behind when they became unhoused. For unhoused youth who need the support of the child welfare system, this bill ensures that county social workers review the circumstances in the home of the youth, not just the youth shelter or the group home they may be temporarily living in when determining if they need to enter the child welfare system. This gives the social workers a more accurate picture of the instability a youth may be experiencing and why they need services. This bill also ensures that these youth can petition the court if the assigned county social worker does not respond to their self-petition and gives the court jurisdiction to open a juvenile dependency case. For youth who left an adoptive home, this bill eliminates barriers so that they can enter extended foster care when their guardian or adoptive parent is no longer providing support but is still receiving financial benefits on their behalf. Reentry into foster care allows a youth to regain access to housing, case management, behavioral health services, and education supports and prevents homelessness and long-term harm. Older youth deserve a safe path into foster care when abuse or neglect occurs, whether they're entering for the first time on their own petition or returning because an adoptive parent is no longer supporting them. AB 1967 continues the work that I started in this space several years ago and ensures that older youth have access to the support they need. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time, and with me today are Kim Lewis on behalf of the California Coalition for Youth, and Zachariah Elkenda, Senior Policy Attorney with the Alliance for Children's Rights, both co-sponsors of the bill.

Great, thank you, Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth. And I think most folks are very familiar with the CPS hotline call as a process of how you would normally bring a young person into child welfare and call to the attention of social workers. But the WIC 329 and 331 process has been on the books for over 50 years. And we're just, and young people can self-petition today. We are trying to improve that process for young people that we have worked with many times that are getting ignored in their circumstances and not getting the attention they deserve. So when they file their JV 210, they outline what are the conditions that they are meeting for abusive neglect. We are not changing the definition of abusive neglect. That is a different section of the code and we are not touching that at all. We are just saying to ask, please take into consideration the home environment that the custodial parents of where that young person comes from. That's all we're asking for the social worker to also, not just the place where the young person is residing, which may be one of our minor shelters. And the other person of the bill if a social worker deems to not bring poll papers to bring that young person in front of the court to bring them into child welfare The young person can appeal that process Right now in the code in 331 there is no timeline for when the judge must act on that petition in the JV212 And so what we have seen is great. We've seen sometimes where 14 days can be met. Oftentimes it's 50, 60, worst case 300 days. For a young person who is being abused and neglected, that is a long time for them to be ignored and to not have their actions met upon. So we were just asking for the judge to rule on this in a timely manner. So then that petition goes before the court where you would commence what is called a detention process. And that's where all that triggers the requirements around due process notification and everything else that goes into bringing a young person into child welfare. and it is still a lengthy process. It does not just immediately happen that day. So I just wanted to clarify what Sections 1 and 2 of the bill really are about, and thank you for your time. Happy to answer any questions.

I'm Zachariah Okenda with the Alliance for Children's Rights. We serve youth who experience poverty, abuse, or neglect, which can include youth in adoptive families, and so I'm going to talk about Section 3 of the bill. Adoption is not always the permanent safety net that we hope it to be. When an adoption breaks down, a young person can lose their housing and support overnight, and under current law, a youth can be locked out of extended foster care entirely if they are unable to successfully reenter before turning 18. The worst-case scenario can happen when the adoptive parent is still collecting adoption assistance program payments, even while providing no support to the youth. And we saw this with many clients, but one of them, Alex, Alex was a child adopted at two years old by his aunt and uncle and kicked out at 17, just months before graduating high school. Alex wanted to go to college. His uncle, coming from a legacy of family military service, insisted Alex enlist in the military instead. Alex simply remained committed to pursuing his education, and for this he was cut off. Meanwhile, Alex's adoptive parents continued to receive those AAP benefits without passing that support on to Alex. Despite being homeless in those final months, Alex couch-surfed, stayed focused, and he graduated with a 3.5 GPA. But the system had no pathway for him to get support by re-entering foster care. No more should the flow of those AAP payments go to unsupportive adoptive parents, and that should not be a barrier for youth like Alex to re-entering foster care and getting the support that they need. AB 1967 would have helped Alex by allowing him to reenter foster care under the Section 3 of this bill with a voluntary reentry agreement that triggers the suspension of those AAP payments, and this refocuses the support where it should be, and that's on the youth. Thank you.

Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now and Strong Support. Michael Henning on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family

name is Greg Burt with the California Family Council representing thousands of families and churches. We support aspects of AB 1967 related to protecting age-out foster youth. However, we are gravely concerned with the changes to sections 329 and 331. First, the bill does not just affect homeless children. It disrupts the parent-chosen residential placement of a child. The bill speeds up the minor initiated dependency proceedings against the family without notice to the parents. Affidavits by email, a mandatory assessment of the parent's home, and a 14-day clock on the court. and it adds not one protection for the parent, and it does not even require the parents be told their home is under review. What worries us the most is that the author says he wants to protect LGBTQ youth from abusive parents, but how does Assemblyman Zuber define abuse? Under the undefined serious emotional damage standard in Section 300C, we believe the Assemblyman would treat a parent's faith-based decision not to affirm a gender identity of a child as itself harm. And if true, AB 1967 builds a faster track on which the claim can travel. Last year, the Supreme Court held the opposite. In Mahmood v. Taylor, the court affirmed that parents, not the state, hold the primary right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. The state does not get to relabel a sincerely religious conviction as abuse just because it disagrees with it. We ask for three amendments. Confirm the religious belief.

Just do your. OK, the amendments we want to confirm that religious belief in good faith parenting decisions about gender identity are not in themselves abuse. So if this bill is not aimed at people of faith, this amendment will cost nothing.

Erin Friday, President of our duty. This bill is part of the left's agenda to replace parents with government chosen guardians. Law after law, SB 107, AB 957, AB 665, AB 495, AB 1955, designed to take kids from parents like me. My daughter adopted a trans identity after sex ed class. When I learned that the school had been socially transitioning her, I demanded it to stop. Then CPS knocked at my door, followed by the police. My crime was that I was raising her as a girl. She later asked to be emancipated and that she would go live in an LGBTQ center. The only reason that I did not lose her is because I'm an attorney. That was seven years ago. She is now an adult, having dropped her trans identity before she did reversible damage to her body. 99% of the world would celebrate my daughter's outcome, but members like the author wished that my daughter had left home, found a chosen foster family, and pumped her body with cross-sex hormones. That is what this bill is about. The author's own witness, Zachariah Okenda, admitted to me that he and the author believe that parents who are raising their gender dysphoric child as their sex are abusive. This bill creates an expedited method for kids to claim abuse and escape their loving parents, even if they are in an appropriate, safe, therapeutic placement or boarding school. Parents who refuse to transition their kids must be punished They must be investigated They must lose custody You must add to the ranks of foster care This bill doesn't protect abused children, but streamlines the process for the government to take control over children should a parent dare direct the child's medical treatment contrary to the trans agenda. I'm here for any legal questions, too.

Good morning, Chair. My name is David Bollag and on behalf of the organizations SFV Alliance, the California Moms for Liberty, Taxpayer Oversights for Parents and Students, the Truth Exchange, and the Facts Law Truth Justice Law Firm, we are in opposition. Thank you.

Matthew Ward, School Board Member for Gould Elementary School District, and I oppose the bill.

I'll turn over to our vice chair. I should have had lunch before this. It's been a long hearing already. It's been a long day. Okay. So let's see, where do we begin? Let's begin by trying to define when a minor is currently wanting to, is this for emancipation, to remove from a housing component, wherever that may be, towards abuse. what is the definition of neglect or abuse as of right now? What is that considered?

What would that be? What would trigger? Can I say something? I'd like them to actually get into the experts get into details.

So what is the current standard? Because that's what we're trying to address here is the abuse and neglect. So what is currently being addressed right now?

So could you explain that? I haven't read the code, so I would like to hear what that definition would be.

Okay. So let me ask a little bit. So one of the concerns that have been expressed is not using affirming pronouns. Would that be considered emotional Would that fall under the emotional psychological abuse or neglect I think it is a case basis and that all gets determined in the court

So this is where I... Yeah, the one thing they say is that this does not change any of those standards. The bill, they're raising issues related to their views of these standards, but this bill does not do anything to change the standards. All this bill does is it basically says that if you have a child that is actually self-petitioning to come back into the foster care system and they're in a temporary facility, because they are in a shelter, they may be unhoused, they may be in a shelter, or they may be in some kind of residential facility, that when you're assessing whether or not they are at harm, you don't just look at the point in time and say, do they have a roof over the head that night because they're in a temporary shelter, that you need to look at all the circumstances of their housing and their physical situation. That's all the bill does. And I think, well, with that in mind, but you're taking everything in consideration, I think the biggest concern is that we're streamlining the process and removing the ability to investigate the actual facility. Is that correct?

So it's just in a very niche instance of a self-petition. And on that JV 210, you are filling out all the facts and instances and the allegations of abuse and neglect. So you are providing evidence. You are providing written documentation under penalty of perjury about why you believe that the child, either it's on yourself or if you are filling it out on behalf of another child or for some child that you believe is being abused, what do you think all those circumstances are? And the judge will review that and see if it meets the standards of that against 300.

there's a you know the fact that they're in a temporary shelter in and of itself should mean that you should be looking beyond a narrow issue of whether or not they have a roof over their head on a particular point in time you should be looking at whether the kid has a stable living situation and that's all this bill does okay

case in which there is a reported allegation of abuse.

I'm sorry? They're closing the roll. Now you're getting called out. What's that? Sorry. We're dealing with three committees at the same time right now, so we're trying to prioritize timing and questions. But I'm sorry. Okay. Folks, this is what happens when you have three committees going all at once when they're about to close the roll and you're not done, you know, doing your questioning and doing your job in the current committees. This is the biggest, I don't know, disservice to the American, to California public when we're not able to vote because we're in these scenarios. So I'm just putting it out there. It's frustrating. It's incredibly frustrating. Okay. Sorry. I think that the biggest concern is that we're taking away the opportunity for parents to be in making decisions on their child. as far as, you know, say, the biggest concern that I have right now is that when parents, whether we agree or disagree, have a prerogative to place their child in a facility where they feel they're going to receive the, you know, counseling support services they may need at that particular time, that the child may at some point through an email decide and claim that they're being abused and mistreated because they're in a facility that may not be at the time conducive to their idea or their notion that they are wanting to transition or considering themselves as trans or identifying as some LGBTQ identity that they want, and it takes away from the parent's ability to place that child in an environment where they feel is going to give them the support that they may need. Whether one agrees or disagree with it, that is currently, according to the courts, an opportunity that these parents have. My fear is that this particular bill, well, at some point this child can say, I am being neglected or abused because this goes contrary to my personal belief at that time, point in time with a minor, which then triggers the ability for then the state to come in and say, okay, we're going to remove you. immediately take them into the custody of the state and then remove for a period of time the parents opportunity to be there and choose the facility where these children are going to be at that time in that particular residential facility that's the concern that I have that this has that puts in place be happy to hear your concerns and then with that, am I to the witness who's the attorney on the opposition, would that be an accurate statement of the concern that we have with the way the bill is currently written? So I think we'll respond with through the chair if it would be okay from the support witnesses if my if my concern is valid or not on that end. May I? Yes, let me just say something and I'd like

but I think you framed what I understood their position to be very clearly, and I think that is my understanding of it.

And I think that's where the question lies, is when you're doing that follow-up and you're trying to define the, the, the, uh, the definition of abuse and neglect, what does that entail? And I I think that's the biggest concern, and I could be completely wrong. But on the technical, I know we have an attorney, Ms. Friday, here, who could actually expand on that if that is okay through the chair. Yeah.

Yeah, well, I just want to clarify. I'm the assembly member is seeming to indicate that these are just that this bill just addresses temporary shelters and it goes well beyond that it goes to residential facilities so those are residential facilities if we take it out of the trans milieu for a second it's a residential facility that a parent may have chosen for their child because they think that is the best facility for their child which is the parents right under J.R. versus Parham all under Supreme Court cases 14th amendment and that parent chooses that facility and says this is a safe place for my child and this is where I want my child to get drug rehab or or therapeutic you know therapy or or non affirming therapy and this bill makes it then that kids safe that child is in a safe place chosen by the parent this bill then says hey we're going to look into that decision made by that parent and we're going to streamline it and we're going to make it really simple for this child to say I don't want to be in this facility because maybe I don't get my cell phone maybe I don't get to get the drugs I want so that's one aspect of the bill that we need to be very clear about that it goes it goes into residential facilities even boarding schools that a parent has chosen so that's a violation of parental rights now when we talk about the trans stuff which is the thing that I'm most concerned about as I always am is this is another avenue for parents who don't affirm their child's trans identity and in that space and the Assemblyman keeps saying that they're not changing the definition of abuse and that is true this bill does not change the definition of abuse but what I want to hear and what we should all hear is is it consider do you consider it abusive for parents like me who raised their child as their sex should I have been investigated by CPS and determined to be abusive on that issue only because I wouldn't affirm the trans identity and that's what this comes down to in this bill

So the witness seems to be really worried about looking at the residential facility that the child may be placed in On the existing law without it the self would look at that facility So what this law does do is it says look at you when you looking at it you don just look at the facility If she's worried about the facility that the parent places the child in, currently they would look at the facility without this bill. What this is basically saying, though, is that the fact pattern that's occurring is that we have kids that are in temporary homeless shelters, And we have county social workers that go out and they basically say the kid is in a temporary shelter. The shelter is safe for the kid for that period of time, for a day or two, a few weeks. And therefore, the kid is not in imminent danger. And they basically close down the case, even though they haven't looked at the broader circumstances of the kid's safety. So that's all the bill does, is it basically says, look, you're going to look at not just that narrow scope and time where the kid is at the facility, the residential facility, whatever. And she's right. It doesn't include just homeless shelters. It's any residential facility. But you're going to look at. But people don't live in residential facilities generally. I mean, the goal is really looking at if a kid is basically self-petitioning, saying, I feel like I'm in danger for whatever reason. It could be because they're at a facility that has nothing to do with the issues that the witnesses are coming up and they're at a facility where they are in danger. I mean, you would want the kids to be able to petition. and you'd want to actually look at, okay, what is the broader circumstances that indicate whether the kid has a stable place to go back to at the end of that time and not cut off the inquiry at that point. So that's all the bill does.

This follows the same procedures as any other petition or allegation of abuse or neglect, and it goes through the court system, juvenile dependency system, and the judge says we either have jurisdiction or we don't, we're going to detain the child or we don't, it's the same process.

It's just to get to the front door of that process. If anything, you kind of think of it as a parity type of bill because it's actually saying this just has to be treated as any other, essentially as any other form of allegation.

Hold on a second, hold on a second. Did you have a application?

We'll be okay.

immediately if the child petitions to be removed unsafe claim or is there a period of time where they do the investigation first before removing the child?

The opposition, I think, is they characterize the potential for a judge to decide moving of the child. As far as my understanding of the law, that currently is the way it goes. Like, if the judge determines they're going to take jurisdiction of the child, whatever the case may be, wherever they are, that is the process they would follow. this bill doesn't change that at all. It doesn't create a, doesn't make it easier, doesn't...

I feel unsafe, and the authorities get a hold of this email that says, I'm unsafe, do they immediately remove that child, or do they do the investigation first to assess the whole before removing that child? Just in that context, for example, they'll send a social worker to that facility to interview the child first to see what is this, you know, you submitted this petition. I want to know more about it so they can substantiate it a little bit more. And then there's a whole process that's not an automatic removal unless that child is in physical danger in that facility, say, like, there's sexual abuse allegations in the facility or something like that. That would be the context in which they would actually, at that stage, without judges' intervention, emergency remove the child from the facility.

You know, if the issue is with respect to the facility where the child's in, this bill doesn't change anything about that. The judge has the discretion today without my bill at all to remove a child from an unsafe facility. And then the bill does not change the standards of what constitutes harm.

There's investigations that go on when the child does the email, the social worker comes into the facility, they speak to the child. And then they evaluate based on current law, especially constitutionally speaking, with the law stating and giving preference to parents to raise their children according to their personal belief system. I don't think, knowing that, that the current social workers would be able to remove that child based on that child's personal belief system, that they're not being, say, affirmed by their gender to be defined as abuse. Would that be fair to state? That would be the protection that parents right now would have according to what has been constitutionally defined in court. In case of this argument, that child that could not be removed from that facility based on that definition. I couldn't say for sure. I'm not a social worker myself on these cases. I don't know. But I mean that is the law, right? Under current law. I'm not entirely sure. This bill does not change the standard of what's deemed unsafe for the child. It just doesn't. I mean so if a social worker came in and just determined it was unsafe they'd be applying the law as is today. We're not changing that at all. So the bill just doesn't change.

The bill doesn't change the standard. The decision ultimately is made by a judge applying that standard, and that doesn't change the judge's discretion. Thank you, sir.

I just want to thank the committee and your staff for the focus on the bill. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

If you... Put down my comments.

But if we keep our comments brief that be great So thank you so much Mr Chair I am happy to present AB 1914 which would require local governments to include child care in their general planning At the end of the day, what this bill is about is making sure that there is a process and intentionality around child care planning for our cities. And right now, you know, we've heard from people in the child care community who have tried to engage in this process and got met with blank stares or you don't belong here kind of conversation. So we want to make sure that this process is, you know, is really taking into account the needs of the community when it comes to child care. This is one of the biggest costs that families have to pay. Some people paying as much or more than their mortgage for child care. They make decisions to not have parents go to work. That happened in my family. When I went back to work, I went to work and my husband stayed home. It is a huge financial burden on families, and one of the biggest things that we can do to support families as they grow. I have 20,000 homes that are being built in my community of Santa Clarita right now. No child care plan for that. So, you know, this is just one example, I think, of why it's so important that we really take on this issue at the local level. And this bill allows for flexibility, and I'm grateful for the letter from the city of Mountain View that really points out the flexibility that it allows for, allowing an existing child care plan to meet the requirement of the bill. And so with that, I'll turn it over to my witnesses, Kirk Kimmelschew, representing the Low Income Investment Fund, and Sua Bowen, who's a council member for the city of San Leandro.

Okay we don't have any opposition. So I'll bring it back. I was before being elected I served on the Child Care Partnerships Council San Mateo County that's our local planning council and you know it was very proud to serve on that we had three dimensions we had the building dimension the workforce dimension and the policy dimension and I learned a lot of being on there and and I think because we had that kind of focus we were able to own the support of supervisors to take steps that are some are still in process but to to really increase the number of facilities in in the county but really did take that kind focus so I'm very supportive of this bill I think we absolutely should and you mentioned the 20,000 person city you know without taking this account is is highly problematic so when you know we talk about support and the childcare and we're doing some good work in the budget here later today but we also need to have the facilities you know if we don't have the facilities we don't have the workforce then you know we're not going to be successful so I will be supporting We're still a subcommittee. I appreciate you being here today, but I'll recommend an aye vote. Tom, would you like to close?

Thank you so much. Well, we will take a brief recess, and when we do have some other members come back, some of them in Patterson, if you want to stick around, we'll be able to take your bill. We should have some folks coming over soon from budget. So if you want, I don't have a great sense, but hopefully we'll find it soon. Let's say a brief recess now. All righty. We will bring this committee back to order. And I see that we have Assemblymember Patterson here to present, AB 2037 Assemblymember, if you would like to present whenever you're ready.

Thank you for your presentation. Do we have anyone else here in support to offer Me Too's?

Excellent. Thank you so much. Now do we have anyone here in opposition? Anyone in opposition? Seeing no one rising, I'll turn it back to the committee. Do we have any questions or comments? The chair's recommendation is an aye vote, and I certainly support your bill as well. I appreciate you bringing this forward, Assemblymember Patterson, and you being patient while one of us arrived to chair the committee. So I will turn it over to you to close.

Great. By the way, do we have a quorum? Can we call vote? Okay. a motion by Senator Weber and that motion is okay okay do pass and if you'd like to call the roll file item 14 a B 2037 motion is do pass to appropriations committee Becker a Chobo Laird Perez Perez I Weber Pearson Weber Pearson I and we will put that bill back on call thank you so much assemblymember thank you for your presentation thank you so let's go ahead and lift calls we're going to start with the consent calendar layered Perez I Perez I will put that one okay and we will put that back on call file item 1 a B 262 motion is due past two appropriations layered Perez Perez I will put that bill back on call file item 2 a B 673 motion is due past two appropriations layered Perez Perez I file item 3 a B 1 5 7 5 motion is due pass layered Perez Perez I file item 4 a B 2 5 1 0 motion is due past two appropriations a Chobo Laird Perez Perez I file item 5 a B 1 6 5 5 motion is due passed to Judiciary Committee layered Perez Perez I file item 7 a B 1 6 8 8 motion is due past two appropriations Laird Perez Perez I Weber Pearson Weber Pearson I file item 9 a B 1 7 4 1746 motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee Laird Perez aye Perez, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weber Pearson, aye. We'll put that on call. We'll put that bill back on call. File item 11, AB 1914, motion is due passed to, oh, I'm sorry, we don't have a motion on that one. Would anyone want to move that bill? I'm sorry. 1914 No, okay, so we'll just hold that bill Okay, and then we don't have a motion yet on file item 12 I've moved the bill, okay Moved by Weber Pearson File item 12, AB1967 Motion is due past two appropriations Becker, Echobo, Laird, Perez Aye Perez, aye, Weber Pearson Aye Weber Pearson, aye Put that on call. We'll put that bill back on call. And then file item 15, AB2195. Motion is due past two appropriations. Laird. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. We'll put that on call. We'll put that bill back on call. File item 16, AB2567. Motion is due past two appropriations committee. Laird Perez Perez I Weber Pearson Weber Pearson I I'll put that bill back on call file item 21 a B 2 3 0 4 motion is do pass to Public Safety Committee Laird Perez I Perez I put that on call and then we'll put that bill back on call yeah alrighty I see we have both Assemblymember Shark Collins and Rogers I believe Rogers is first so if you would like to begin your presentation whenever you're ready okay whichever yeah if you would like to.

I'll text again. All right, I'm going to start off with Calderon's bill. Okay, whenever you're ready. All right.

Yeah, I'm doing the Calderon bill.

Oh, you're here.

I'll switch it.

It's all right.

2395. Got it. Okay.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you so much. If there's anyone else in the committee room that would like to speak in support of this bill, this is your time to come to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position only. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak and lead opposition to this bill, this is your time to come to the table. Not seeing any movement. if there's anyone that would like to register their opposition to this bill. This is your time to come forward. State your name, your position, and your organization only. Not seeing any movement. We'll bring it back to committee. Not seeing any.

Thank you.

No, not necessarily. The debt reduction program is for non-custodial parents who have gotten behind on government-owned child support. So that could be current or formerly assisted CalWORKs people.

No, I didn't think there was a $10,000 threshold.

So increases the existing authority for DSS to compromise an amount of child support are reversed to $10,000.

Right. That's the amount that can be compromised without any approval by the state DCSS. That's authority for the local child support agency itself without state approval to compromise.

That is kind of correct, and there's two different responses, I think. And let me say Stephen Goldberg from the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations providing technical assistance. That is the situation today, and the philosophy behind it is these are low-income parents who aren't going to be able to pay, say, $20,000, and so the state is going to get nothing. And so the idea is this allows the noncustodial parent, the paying parent, to give a lump sum, say $5,000, and compromise the debt. So the state gets something when more than likely they would have gotten nothing. The second important thing is this bill doesn't change any of that. That is the current law. All this bill does is change procedures and allow for transparency and uniformity in the system that already exists. Okay.

Well, the idea is that these are very low-income parents, paying parents, and so they just don't have it to pay. Let me give the example of a client of mine that was one of the triggers of this bill. The client came into, the client was homeless, had absolutely nothing. We settled a lawsuit on his behalf, and he had a lump sum that he could pay. And so we offered, we will give you the lump sum in satisfaction of the entire debt. He's never going to have another dime in his life. And so the state is getting, in this case, I want to say it was about $5,000 of about a $15,000 arrearage. they would have gotten nothing. They're getting $5,000 and writing off the rest. Okay It an offer and compromise of a debt Kind of similar way to think about it is for tax debts The Internal Revenue Service and the Franchise Tax Board does this all the time

Well, thank you so much for presenting this on behalf of Assemblymember Calderon.

Oh. Well, on behalf of yourself, would you like to close?

Thank you, and when we get some more members in, we'll be able to make that motion. Okay, thank you. And now you'll do file item 20, AB 2299 from Assemblymember Calderon. Yes. All right, thank you. All right, for 2299.

Okay. Welcome both. You each have two minutes. Thank you.

I think that's it. Okay. Thank you. Got it. Thank you. Go ahead.

Cal First recipient, public benefits recipient. This system was built with someone like me in mind who had the support and guidance to get me to where I am. And it's really still hard to survive. On April 1st, these humanitarian immigrants, refugees, asylees, survivors of trafficking began losing their benefits. People who came here the same way my family did to flee persecution because of war. They'll lose their benefits one by one at recertification without a bridge waiting for them and AB 2299 is that bridge. And it really has to land before, I mean, it has to pass before the way it fully lands because it's already happening. It's already happening right now, and there are people who need this bridge. My community came here carrying trauma most had never had the chance to treat A published study in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that 93 of me and patients showed PTSD even among those who made it to a clinic These are people in my community who are already below baseline. When you're carrying that kind of weight, losing food assistance doesn't come as a separate problem. It really accelerates everything. And a 2023 drama study found that SNAP access is directly associated with reduced suicide risk. And 36% of these humanitarian immigrants that started losing their benefits on April 1st, 36% are children. And we all know that once you lose food assistance, you don't have the support, stability, guidance. You will end up in hospitals, emergency rooms, child welfare cases. And while food banks are a vital source, they cannot fill the gap that H.R. 1 is causing. And I truly believe that with proper assistance in place, people can truly thrive, not just survive. Thank you. Thank you. Others in support?

Thank you. Thank you.

of this important measure. Thank you.

Gracias.

Thanks for coming.

Come in.

Okay, anyone opposition? Do we have opposition witnesses or opposition? We'll take it back to the... We have a motion. I want to thank you for presenting for some member Calderon this is incredibly important bill you know we've seen how in other states how many folks are losing access how many children are losing access how many families are losing access and we have to do whatever we can to stem that tide so very grateful to the to the same member thank you for presenting for her would you you like to close? Yes. She said keep it short and brief. She said thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Do we have a motion? Yes, yes we can. Okay. Motion from the Dr. Weber Pearson, please call the roll. File item 20, AB 2299, motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Here. I mean, I. Becker, I. Echobo, Laird, Perez, Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, I. Okay, 2-0, keep that on call. And I'd love to see if we can get a motion on your bill. Okay. We have a motion from Dr. Weber Pearson. On which bill? On 2395. 2395. file item 23 a B 239 5 motion is do pass to appropriations committee Becker I Becker I a chill poke layered Perez Weber Pearson Weber Pearson I right that's also 2-0. We'll keep it on call. Thank you. Okay, let me see who's next. Member Rogers, you're here. Okay. You have AB 2314? Correct. We'll start when ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you for coming in. Go ahead.

Thank you both. Do you have others in support?

Thank you. Thank you. Opposition. Do we have any in opposition? Nope. Back to the committee. Any comments? Questions? Okay. Thank you. This bill actually does a lot of things, but to make the process better. and as we've said throughout this hearing today a couple times, you know, streamlining, getting the money out to where it's supposed to go is a priority for all of us. So thank you. Be supportive.

Okay. With that, we have a motion from our vice chair, Senator Echolbog. File item 22, AB 2314. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echolbog. Aye. Etoboge, aye. Laird, Perez, Weber-Pearson. Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. All right, 3-0. We'll keep that on call. Thank you. Beautiful. Thank you. Thank you to take a brief recess I will reconvene some of the authorities please you have two bills which do you want to start with we'll start with 2230 if that's okay or whatever when you want me to go why this chair so okay sounds great thank you mr. chair and members

Thank you, Assemblymember, for inviting me.

Are there other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? We'll take it back to the dais. Any comments? So I appreciate the bill and its intent. I know we've seen another bill, I believe it was in this committee, that would allow us to, well, I guess the state to educate child care employees with constitutional rights. And I'm all for financial literacy in order to do that. I think the only clarification that I need is currently when either law enforcement or immigration enforcement officials come into a facility, usually they only will come in if they have a warrant, right? I mean, this doesn't forgo the ability for the officials to go into a facility if they have a warrant, per se, right?

in law, normally law enforcement or immigration enforcement officers usually don't go into spaces unless they usually have a warrant instead of a building, unless you're giving permission. And this still goes through. If a law enforcement or an immigration officer comes into this space and they have a warrant, it doesn't preclude the folks in charge of the facilities to say, sorry, we can't, that's state law. Yes. Right. OK, that's what I want to make sure is that they are only allowed to come in. And usually they, you know, if they were to come into a facility, go into the private spaces only with the warrant is usually the case. Right. So it's nothing contrary to what currently would be practiced. This isn't just you're in the neighborhood. I'm going to stop by. and intimidate individuals or families or children and racially profiling people thinking, oh, you might be of this. So we're trying to mitigate that. And so, again, it's a preventative bill.

And I think it's already current practice, quite frankly. I mean, you're just codifying something that is already in place, I think, in practice that should be.

Mr. Chair. I want to thank you for bringing this bill super important you know we did have some bills last year about some of the areas around schools and hospitals and this is a critically important area because we we don't want to discourage parents from using these services we want them to using our and taking kids to child care centers so they can work and earn a living and support their family In some cases, maybe they've already lost their loved ones, already detained by us, they're already earning capacities down for the family. We have to make sure that these can be safe places.

We'd like to close.

Okay. We have a motion from Senator Cho Boat. Please call the roll. File item 17, AB 2230. Motion is due, pass. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echoboak? Aye. Echoboak, aye. Laird, Perez, Weber-Pearson? All right, that is two to zero. No, we'll have that on call. Thank you. All right, we'd like to take up your... You guys had that matching uniform, too. I know. I'm 20-ing with a lot of people today. Okay, we'll take your next bill.

Dineen Micheletti.

CEO with Thriving Families California Foundation in support of AB 2258. I personally have been involved in reviewing child care dollars since 2010. Respectfully, it wasn't until the pandemic and California's historic commitment to add 200,000 new child care slots that we began seeing the unprecedented underspending and overspending that we are discussing today. This is not a failure of the child care delivery model. It is a structural challenge in how the state contracts with different program types, the timing and release of contract dollars. Many of our member agencies operate both alternative payment program or vouchers and center-based contracts, so we understand both perspectives. For example, under the pending budget proposal, many new center-based slots would not become available until April 2027, the final quarter of the fiscal year. That simply does not provide enough time to hire staff, prepare classrooms, recruit families, and fully expand those funds. expend those funds. As a result, dollars are often returned, not because providers lack commitment or demand, but because the contracting structure doesn't provide adequate time for implementation. AB 2258 addresses that problem and others. This bill does not reduce funding for programs serving children. Redirection is a last resort, not the first option. Existing safeguards, including temporary transfer opportunities and coordination through local child care and development planning councils, are intended to maximize contract utilization first. Only after a contractor determines it cannot fully expend its contract with those otherwise... I think we're going to have a lot of questions, so we can probably get into some discussion, but anything you want to...

Okay. Do we have others in support?

Others? Anyone in opposition? Any opposition? Yep. Sure. Go ahead.

Okay. And which amendments were these ones from last night? Or which?

that'll get us to a neutral position thank you okay to get back to the dais

Okay. So, I mean, we're kind of voting on the bill in print. Yeah. Okay. And mainly it was because of the timing that once we had the opposition,

and then we'll, I'm assuming, do you review them? I do have copies, my staff.

the amendment, if that's how they can still vote on the bill. So how do we, Mr. Chair, how do we review the amendments that are going to be proposed, and how are they accepted, and how do they move forward? Well, it's, as we say, we don't negotiate from the diocese. I think we have to consider the bill in print. you know obviously they could take amendments after this committee but right now we're evaluating the bill in print what committee does this go through next so it goes straight to appropriations yeah it's difficult on the timing so let me see this is 18 so I think so I'm actually in support of the the intent of the bill which is you know ensuring that those funds that have been allocated appropriated by that legislation be used for for child care I think as long as we are and I know that you were working you said in your opening statement that you were working with the opposition to address the concerns with regards to the account in which it going to go to ensure that it not used for anything else but for child care And I'm assuming that the amendments are to that end? That's correct. Okay, so I'm going to move forward and support the bill, and then I will look at the final language when it comes before us in the Senate is when I will see it next, and then I will hopefully continue to support the bill if the language is accurate. I think it's a great point to make that we want to make sure that it is intended because sometimes unless it's expressly specified, it could be used for something else, and we don't want that either. So with that, I'll be happy to move the bill, Mr. Chair. Well, we appreciate you tackling this issue. It's obviously important, consistent with other discussions today. We want to make sure money gets out as fast as possible, and we don't want to have unused funds. We want to make sure if there's anything available for child care, we want to use it. We were very concerned about the opposition's concerns. I think we shared a lot of the same concerns about if a contractor gets out of contract funds then what's going to happen going forward. And if they cannot absorb those costs within the regular contract then we have to continue taking funding from other contractors or identify other funding sources to backfill that cost. So that posed the risk of reducing child care funding in other programs or other counties, or in the worst case, be to disenroll families. So I will say we had a no recommendation. I had a no recommendation on this bill and really have not had a lot of time to review the amendments that came in last night. So I'm of two minds on this one. I'll say that if opposition is saying that they have, and this has been our lead opposition, if you're saying you have reviewed the amendments and that you would be comfortable with the bill going forward? That's correct, with the amendments that were done over the weekend. Okay. I mean, I do, I don't like to do this. And I do, you know, let's assume the amendments do address these concerns that I outlined. You know, there may be other things still going forward. There might be pieces. So, you know, would you commit to meeting with any members of the committee that have concerns before the bill, once we take these other amendments and then before the bill goes to appropriations? Absolutely. as I said in my opening, that it's work in progress. It's a space that's very complex and challenging and moving that absolutely we want to get it right, and we will continue to work with all stakeholders and obviously the committee. Okay. Okay, well, it is about last minute, but I appreciate you've been working with the opposition and gotten to the space. With that, I will support the bill today. We'll notify the committee members. Would you like to close? I just want to share just the overall arching theme of this is in the space of affordability for Californians and as someone with my background in housing and community development next to housing affordable housing in California is child care and we as legislators need to really lean into this space heavily and why my ultimate and I think many of us have that utopia that one day we will reach universal child care this is the first of many steps that I hope under my tenure here of 11 years that when I depart that we actually can look back on this day and say this was the catalyst that brought that utopia to Californians. But it's in that space that if we are really going to tackle affordability, we need to be able to factor in the cost of living of child care. And we should all be able to not have to make choices of a career and raising a family. I'm a firm believer that you can do both. And we should be a state that allows that to prosper for so many young families wanting to have children that can't afford to live here. So I appreciate the confidence in us continuing to work with opposition, that I was no longer opposition, and continuing to work with you all. And you have my personal commitment that we will follow up in your office and make sure that the language is where it needs to be when it comes back to you all. So thank you. Well, thank you. It's been a big priority of mine as well, and we've made, including with the budget we'll vote on today, some huge strides in terms of the number spaces, which translate to kids. I hate using the word slots, but it translates to individual kids, but still a long way to go. With that, we have a motion from Senator Chaubeau. Please call the roll. File item 18, AB 2258. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echoboge? Aye. Echoboge, aye. Laird? Perez? Weber-Pearson? Okay, so to make that on call. We're going to keep that on call. Okay. Thank you. I'm ready well thank you so much mr. chair and members a B 2766 takes several key steps to enhance the ability of foster youth former foster youth and students experiencing homelessness to obtain stable housing at our California colleges and universities first it requires that the California community colleges grant priority housing to current and former foster youth and homeless students. This bill also requires that the California Community Colleges and California State University campuses and requests that the UC campuses to identify foster youth and homeless students within housing applications and prominently display that priority housing benefits are available on their websites. In addition, 2766 requires the California Community Colleges and CSUs and requests UC campuses to defer housing deposits and fees for foster youth and homeless students until financial aid is dispersed. Finally, this bill aligns priority registration with eligibility for the Next Up program, ensuring foster youth can access required courses at our California community colleges. As someone who's experienced homelessness, someone who's been in the foster care system, and as something that we already do and with other higher education systems in the state of California, I believe that this is a very straightforward, forward, meaningful legislation that can make a huge impact on a group AND BODY OF STUDENTS THAT WE SO DESPERATELY WANT TO SUCCEED IN OUR HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM AND IT VERY CRUCIAL THAT WE HELP THESE VULNERABLE STUDENTS THAT LACK SUPPORT SYSTEMS THAT MANY OTHER STUDENTS HAVE and our higher education system and it very crucial that we help these vulnerable students that lack support systems that many other students have with me today is Chris Jenny a senior project manager at the John Burton advocates for youth and he's L to see us a first-year UC Davis student thank you both for being here and being very patient we do have sessions starting shortly so if you could get into remarks a bit we'd appreciate it thank you Good afternoon chair members of the committee my name is Chris Jenny and I'm with John Burns advocates for you for far too long students with experience in foster care and homelessness have faced significant barriers leading to just 12 percent and 15 percent respectively it's even a higher education compared with 49 percent of their peers while California has made meaningful progress in closing this gap two key factors continue to drive this disparity and that is persistent housing instability as well as limited access to the college courses they need to graduate. Nearly half of foster youth attending community colleges and 25% enrolls in the CSU's experience homelessness and there's clear connection between a lack of stable housing and the failure to persist in and complete post-secondary education. While the CUS system is required and the UCs are requested to provide priority housing to students with experience in foster care or homelessness, the California community colleges are not. As a result, students at the community colleges who make up the majority of these populations face unequal access to stable housing even as community college housing capacity has expanded. At institutions where priority housing does exist, students are often unaware of this benefit. This coupled with upfront housing deposits and the fees that are required often months before a student receives their financial aid can actually block access to campus housing and in some cases prevent enrollment altogether for students with little or no financial support. Lastly, there are approximately 900 students in NextUp, a a community college foster youth support program, and they're over the age of 25, which means they're unable to access priority registration, a critical benefit for all student success. AB 2766 will address these challenges, ensuring that California's most vulnerable students have access to the resources they need to achieve the California dream through post-secondary education. And it's for these reasons that I urge and I vote in the support of AB 2766. Thank you. Go ahead. Good afternoon, my name is Aizel Casillas, and I am a first year at UC Davis, and majoring in environmental policy. My journey to get here was not easy. I experienced homelessness as a child and entering foster care when I was 15. As a foster youth, I don't have financial safety net to fall back on when emergencies happen, unlike many of my fellow peers. Without stable housing, it's nearly impossible to build a future, let alone succeed in higher education. For me, accessing on-campus housing at UC Davis was critical to pursuing my goals. But nobody told me that foster youth were eligible for priority housing. There was no clear information on the housing website. Luckily, I found out through a question on the application, which connected me to that support. Having a question to identify eligible populations about priority housing was a game-changer for me. Securing housing changed everything for me. It gave me stability, peace of mind, and the ability to focus on my education. It made me feel seen and supported by my university. I don't have a car and I rely on being close to campus to get to class. Without on-campus housing, just getting to school each day would be a big barrier. While I was fortunate, many students aren't. Not all campuses offer or clearly communicate priority housing for foster youth Students like me working to overcome significant challenges that were never our choice Policies like priority housing and registration help level the playing field and remove barriers so we can succeed and transform our lives through a college degree. That's why I respectfully urge an aye vote on AB 2766. Thanks for being here and sharing your story thank you all right we've had any Adams in support just please keep it to name an organization position on the bill Nicole Morales on behalf of children now and support hi Kate Rogers on behalf of the student homes coalition strong support as a sponsor thank you Michael Henning on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support Christina Salazar with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools in strong support. Good afternoon Karina Paredes with Public Advocates in strong support. Sarah Brennan with the Weidemann Group on behalf of NextGen California in strong support. Josh Cocker on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support. Francisco Arnelas with the University of California Students Association. We strongly support this bill. I am a rising senior at UC Davis and I'm with the University of California Student Association in strong support. Good afternoon Yancy Garcia Montes I'm also a rising senior at UC Irvine and I'm on behalf of the University of California Student Association and we strongly to support this bill thank you good afternoon Xavier Bertschild on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success as well as Santa Clara Santa Clara County Office of Education and support David Knight the California Community Action Partnership Association in support thank you any opposition do have any opposition take it back to the dais I'm just clarifying questions on that. I'm pretty sure we saw this bill in education. I don't recall if we had this conversation or not. So when we prioritize this demographic, it's over what demographics, such as what would you be prioritizing over? What other demographics? Well, so we already do this at many of the UCs and CSUs. This is asking for us to prioritize for foster youth for our California community colleges as well. Meaning anyone who applies for housing, many of these impacted colleges have limited slots on campus. So what we're asking is we align foster youth priority registration before you open it available to your entire cohort. Before everyone. I get that. But what demographics would that include? All demographics, Senator. Is there any other priority now? This would be the first priority, really. My understanding is that there's priority registration at the UCs and CSUs, which is why you saw in the bill that we're just simply aligning that people know about it, such as putting it readily available on your housing websites. but my understanding is that this would be one of the first that we prioritize for foster youth. One of the first or the first I trying to figure out who and there a reason for my questioning why I asking that question That why I want to make sure that we have a record what over what demographics are we prioritizing All demographics Senator So this is just giving early access by a couple of weeks to all everyone who was trying to get limited slots in housing. Such as every single other demographic that is available. We're not prejudicing one demographic or the other. We're just saying if you are a former foster youth. There's not a preference, and this would create a preference for a group. The reason I'm asking is because it says here housing current former foster youth and homeless youth past the age of 25. So the reason I'm asking is past the age of 25. So if we're prioritizing foster youth that were currently enrolled past the age of 25 and I do have concerns that's that's a grown adult and if we were to prioritize that age group or that demographic over say an 18 19 year old low-income first-generation coming into the the community college so that's that's where I'm coming an 18 year old is very different coming in first generation English language learner to a 25 year old adult or plus 25 plus adult past the age of 25 that's why I'm asking address the age question I'm not quite sure how to address that that sounds like your witness yes for so was John birds advocates for youth we've actually reached out with the California community colleges they we had brought this concern about the age component they have complete confidence about how they are able to handle that when it comes to their student housing priority policies they do have an internal matching process to ensure and to take account into age considerations as well I'm sorry one more time to ensure and to take into account age considerations so the colleges have a housing process for when it comes to matching folks when it comes to their housing situations and they're able to take into consideration age to ensure that there wouldn't be a situation where an 18 year old would be sharing a room with someone who's over the age of 25? Not even sharing, but prioritizing housing someone that is 18 year old versus someone that's 25 coming into the system. That's the concern that I have when we're looking at that, not the housing together. That is irrelevant to me, but prioritizing putting someone into housing that is an 18 year old, first generation versus... Can I just show you? My question is only if you're the next up program correct this is only this is only applying to about 900 students and this is not just someone who's simply 26 this is someone who has lived experience being homeless and whose former foster youth or current foster youth so this is not just simply comparing age very limited pool there's a next up program which is limited to less than a thousand kids and this would only apply to that group and this go ahead there's there is the student housing priority which is prioritizing student housing for community colleges and then there's another part of the bill which is about the next up program specifically for provision I was just gonna say when we were on the budget subcommittee together we expanded the next up program it was ten million dollars or some small smaller amount it was limited to ten campuses and we blew the limit off and allowed it to go to many more, but it's still relative to the universe is a small number of people. people that are foster kids in the community college system and qualify for this program. Okay, I think, so just for the record, I just have concerns about a 25 plus year old being prioritized for housing versus an 18 year old who's coming in brand spanking you into the system that is, you know, say, first-generation, low-income, and that's the concern I have, is that you would prioritize a full-grown adult, 26, versus a recently-grown young adult. That's the concern that I have. I'm going to support the bill, but I do. The powers that be that are listening to this, that that is something that we should be considering when we're looking at, you know, next-gen. And even if it's a small cohort, you're still prioritizing a grown adult over an 18 year old and it's very different on that end so with that I'll be you know I supported the bill in education but I had the same concerns in education I'm not sure if we discussed it or not but I just wanted to place that on the record thank you senator I'd love to have my staff follow up with yours so we can brief you on the intricacies of the bill so we can clear up any concerns that you may have thank Thank you. Mr. Chair, what are we doing? Because we're 10 minutes into session. I present the budget bills. We haven't listed the calls yet. What are we doing? Well, we were trying to finish this bill quickly. And this is our last bill. I think there's any other comments. No, I think we're good. So would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye. Okay. So can we have a motion? Okay, we have a motion. Let's call the roll. File Item 25, AB 2766, motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Echoboak? Aye. Echoboak, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Perez? Weber Pearson? Aye. On call? What is your on call? Now let's start to the top. We will lift calls. Thank you, Assemblyman Arons. Start from the top. Consent Calendar, File Item 6, Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. that is out. 5 that out File item 1 AB 262 Laird Aye Laird aye Also 5 that is out File item 2, AB 673, motion is due pass to appropriations. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. 5-0, that is out. File item 3, AB 1575, motion is due pass. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. 5-0, that's all. File Item 4, AB 2510, motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee, ECHOA Bogue. Not voting. Laird? Laird, aye. 4-0, that bill's out. File Item 5, AB 1655, motion is due passed to Judiciary Committee, Laird? Laird, aye. 4-1, that bill's out. Did I vote on that one, the number 5? Yes. No. file item 7 a B 1688 motion is due pass to appropriations committee layer layer I 5-0 file item 9 a B 1746 motion is due pass to appropriations committee layered layered I 5-0 that's now file item 11 a B 1914 motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee and we need a motion on 11 1914 yes file item 11 okay layer thank you motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee Becker I Becker I a Chobo is that number 11 no layered layered I Perez Weber Pearson Weber Pearson aye on call was that a no? for Weber Pearson 11 is no I'm so sorry I didn't hear you say no I'm sorry about that 3 to 1 that's on call file item 12 AB 1967 do pass to appropriations committee Becker aye Echobo Laird Laird, aye. 4-0, that's all. File item 14 AB2037 Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee Becker Aye Becker aye Echobo Aye Echobo? Aye. Echobo? Aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. 5-0, that's all. File item 15, AB 2195, motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Laird? Aye. Laird? 5-0, that's all. File item 16, AB 2567, motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. 5-0. That's all, 2. File item 17, AB 2230, motion is due passed. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Perez? Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. 4-0. On call. File item 18, AB 2258, motion is due pass to appropriations. Laird. Perez. Weber Pearson. Weber Pearson, aye. 3-0, I'll call. File item 20, AB 2299, due pass to appropriations committee. Echobo. Echobog, aye. Laird, aye. Laird, aye. Perez. 4-0, on call. File item 2-3-0, I'm sorry, file item 21, AB 2-3-0-4. Motion is due passed to Public Safety Committee. Laird, aye. 5-0, on call. I mean, that's out. File item 22, AB 2314, motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Perez? 4-0 on call. File item 23, AB 2395, motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Echobo? Sorry, which one is that?

Echobo, no. Laird?

Laird, aye. Perez? Okay. Okay, three to one, that's on call. Thank you, Senator Laird. Thank you to our Vice Chair. Big busy hearing We have a brief recess Is she coming We're going to reconvene and lift the calls. File item 11, AB 1914. Motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Perez. Not voting? Not voting? Okay. Three, two, one. That bill's out. File Item 17, AB 2230. Motion is due pass. Perez?

Perez, aye. Five to zero, that fills out. File Item 18, AB 2258. Motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Perez? Perez?

Perez, aye. Okay, 4-0. That is out. File item 20, AB 2299. Motion is due pass to Appropriations. Perez?

Perez, aye. 5-0, that's out. File item 22, AB 2314. Motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Perez?

Perez, aye. 5-0, that one's out as well. File item 23, AB 2395, motion is due pass to appropriations. Perez?

Perez, aye. Four to one, that bill's out. File item 25, AB 2766, motion is due pass to appropriations. Perez?

Perez, aye. Five to zero, the bill's out. I thank you all for participating in this hearing. We are adjourned.