Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via teleconference services. For individuals wishing to provide public comment, today's participation number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 694-8930. We are holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building, and I will ask all Members of the Committee to be present in Room 2200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. So, noticing absence of a quorum, we will begin as a subcommitee, and we will hear from our first author. Senator Caballero, are you ready? We'd like to welcome you to present on item number 1, Senate Bill 37.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present SB 37, which will create a program to provide housing subsidies to older adults and adults with disability who are either experienced or at risk of experiencing homelessness. Californians who are older or with disability find it increasingly difficult to afford the rapidly rising cost of housing. Many of these Californians live on fixed incomes, having spent their entire lives working at low wage jobs, and their incomes are inadequate to cover those rising rents.

As a result, they face housing insecurity and a surge in older adult homelessness. For extremely low renters, roughly eight out of 10 spend more than 50% of their monthly income on rent. As you know, the rule of thumb is that housing should not take more than 30% of your income, and to be spending 50% means that you're at great risk.

People with disabilities comprise about 46% of those experiencing homelessness, and African American households are more than five times as likely when compared to the General California population. A key goal of the California Master Plan for Aging is to prevent and end older adult homelessness. Yet, with business as usual, homelessness for older adult Californians, those at least 65 years of age, is expected to triple between 2017 and 2030.

Targeted programs such as Home Safe Program and the Homeless and Disability Advocacy Program, or HDAP, play an important role to help specific populations of adult access housing, including those who are adult protective service clients and those who are eligible for SSI payments. However, no comprehensive state program exists that provides housing subsidy for older and disabled adults who are on fixed income.

Meanwhile, housing choice vouchers and other federally subsidized programs often take years for applicants to access, since such programs accommodate only a fraction of the eligible applicants. SB 37 will provide a rent subsidy targeted to those older adults and adults with disabilities who are homeless or at risk of falling into homelessness.

The bill will establish the older adults and adults with Disability Housing Stability Act--which is an acronym that does not work--within the Department of Housing and Community Development to administer and offer competitive grants to nonprofit organizations, continuums of care and other nonprofit organizations. HCD will select grantees with the resources, expertise, and cultural specificity to provide assistance to households that are experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Grants will prioritize communities in which a high proportion of the renters face cost burdens.

Grantees will provide subsidy to help older adults and adults with disabilities remain housed to cover the difference between 30% of a person's household income and the unit's reasonable rent. Such subsidies will be a key to prevent and end homelessness for the thousands of older and disabled adults. Providing subsidies so that they can remain housed is also much cheaper than providing shelters for low-income renters who have become unhoused, so the bill is a cost effective method for addressing our crisis.

This is consistent with the California's Master Plan for Aging's goal of ending older adult homelessness. And with me today to testify in support is Patti Prunhuber, who is the director of housing advocacy for Justice in Aging, and Sharon Rapport, the director of California state policy for the Corporation for Supportive Housing.

Thank you. Witnesses, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman and Committee Members. I am Patty Prunhuber, and we are proud to co-sponsor SB 37, creating a housing stability program to prevent and end homelessness among older adults and people with disabilities. The Senator has very convincingly told you about the rise in homelessness among older adults. Just to give you one sense of it, Cal ICH data from 2022 show that there are almost 63,000 individuals age 55 and older who are experiencing homelessness in California.

That represents more than a doubling in older adult homelessness in the last five years, with the sharpest increase occurring for those aged 65 and older. As the Senator has demonstrated, growing rent unaffordability is a key driver in older adult homelessness, and older adults are more likely to struggle with rent because as they age, their fixed incomes haven't kept up with escalating rent prices, or they have depleted their savings, lost a spouse, or have had medical costs and emergencies.

SB 37 will create a rental stabilization program to effectively address this growing crisis by focusing on homeless prevention as the most cost effective and humane strategy. It will fund housing vouchers that meet the specific needs of eligible older adults and people with disabilities, some of whom need only a small or shallow subsidy to remain housed and others who may need deeper subsidies.

And housing subsidies have been proven to be the most effective method of preventing homelessness. In a recent San Diego study of older adults who were homeless, more than half, 56%, reported that $300 a month would have made a significant difference in their ability to stay housed. The Master Plan for Aging, this year's initiatives for 23-24, have identified rental assistance as a key strategy to look at and implement.

We'll just have you wrap up.

Thank you. In sum, SB 37 will fund strategies that have worked locally, such as partnering with landlords, local aging and disability providers, and will ensure thousands of older adults and people with disabilities are able to avoid or exit homelessness first. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sharon Rapport with the Corporation for Supportive Housing. I'd like to share the story of Wallace Richardson. He was 57 when he became homeless for the first time. He had lived in California his whole life and worked in the construction industry until his father passed away in 2000.

His link to many of the construction jobs ended when his father passed away, and so at around the same time, his wife asked for a divorce and she ended up getting their house that they had purchased together. So he ended up having to move in with his mother. His mother died suddenly of cancer and he couldn't keep paying the rent. He said, "For the next year and a half, all 6'2" of me slept in a five foot cab of my truck.

It was really miserable. I suffered the humiliation of having to relieve myself in the alley and having to put t-shirts over the truck windows to get some privacy. I kept myself clean and fed as best I could, but I was depressed and lost. Trust me, until you've been there, until you've actually been homeless, you cannot begin to imagine what it's like. I was lucky because at least I had the shelter of my truck.

So many others I have encountered only had the hard, cold cement to greet them at night." He ended up meeting a case manager who helped him access a housing subsidy and an apartment in supportive housing where he's lived for the last few years. Wallace said, "Now I feel like I've been given a second chance and I'm taking advantage of all the services that have been made available to me. I'm learning keyboarding and computing and I hope to get a bachelor of science degree.

I'm making something of myself and I want to give back." At 69, Wallace admits he was the lucky one. So many older adults and people with disabilities are still living in their cars, trucks or that hard, cold cement to greet them at night. Housing subsidies have been a proven, successful model, reducing homelessness among veterans by 55% over the last 10 years. I urge you to pass SB 37 to offer tens of thousands of more older adults like Wallace, safe, decent home to sleep at night. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, if there are other members of the public wishing to express support for this bill, please approach the microphone. State your name, affiliation and position only. Thank you.

Thank you. Vanessa Cajina, on behalf of CalPACE, the statewide association of programs of all inclusive care for the elderly, here in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Amanda Kirchner on behalf of County Welfare Directors Association in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Josh Gauger on behalf of the California Community Living Network in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Steve Weiss, Bay Area Legal Aid, in support.

Thank you. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have any members? The audience? Okay. Any other members of the audience wishing to express opposition for this bill, please approach the microphone. Hearing and seeing none. We will now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Please note that any individual who is disruptive may be removed from the remote meeting service or have their connections muted at the chair's discretion.

I will not institute time limits on testimony, but I will permit an equal amount of time for all witnesses, regardless of their position. I ask that all witnesses state their name, affiliation and position only. This will be strictly enforced. So thank you. Moderator, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of Senate Bill 37 that we are ready to begin.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to testify in support and opposition of SB 37, you may press 1 and 0 at this time. And first, we'll go to line 268. Please go ahead. Line 268, your line is open. All right, we'll move on to line 295. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. This is Nina Weiler-Harwell with AARP California in strong support.

Thank you.

And next we'll go to line 265. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzales for the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter in support.

Thank you.

And next, we'll go to line 290. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Libby Sanchez, on behalf of Ultimate in strong support.

Thank you.

At this time, there's no others in queue.

Great. Thank you so much, Moderator. We will now bring the discussion back to our Members. All right. Okay. Well, I do have some comments for you, Senator. I just want to tell you how inspired I am by the bills that you bring to this committee. They are so detailed and robust in terms of solving real solutions. And I just want to thank you. You and your team have done an immense job of putting together a diverse set of support to solving this real issue of homelessness that has just continued to plague our communities, our cities and our counties. And having seen this and read through your bill, this is a real solution to help address this problem. So I want to thank you, and I will be in strong support of this.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Great. Okay. So, Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your comments. And let me just say that, you know, they say that the heart of a society is how it treats its elderly. These are people who have spent their entire life working and in their later years, just don't have enough resources, for whatever reason. The least we can do is to ensure that they don't end up on the streets. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion for Senate Bill 37? Oh, I'm sorry. We're still in subcommitee. When appropriate, yes. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Hello, Senator. We're going to establish a quorum now. Yes. So before we get to the next bill, let's establish a quorum, please. Assistant Smith, please call the roll.

Alvarado-Gil. Present. Alvarado-Gil. Present. Ochoa Bogh. Hurtado. Menjivar. Here. Wahab. Here.

Wonderful. Okay. So we are going to move on. Let's see. Do we have an author? Okay. Do we have another author yet? Okay. All right, so we will take a roll call on Senate Bill 37, Caballero. Assistant, please call the roll. Oh, we did get a motion from Menjivar.

File item 1, SB 37. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Hurtado. Menjivar. Aye. Wahab. Aye.

The vote is three ayes. We will put that vote on call. Great. Okay. Yeah. We're going to take up our bills on consent. Thank you. Assistant Smith, please call the roll.

Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Hurtado. Menjivar. Aye. Wahab. Aye.

Okay, the vote is three ayes. We'll put the consent calendar on call. Oh, great, okay. Thank you. Welcome, Senator Cortese. We'll now move on to item number 5, Senate Bill 333. Senator Cortese, when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues, I'm here today to present SB 333, a bill that we call the California SOAR guaranteed income program. Approximately 270,000 students within our California K-12 school system are experiencing homelessness today, a number that has increased by over 48% in the past decade. About 15,000 of these students are in the twelfth grade. School districts support these students by utilizing funds from the McKinney-Vento Act, a federal law, and key legislative support for students experiencing homelessness in that K-12 system.

However, the law only applies to current enrolled students, meaning a student experiencing homelessness will only receive support up until they graduate from high school. The lack of support available to youth experiencing homelessness post-graduation significantly hinders their ability to pursue their educational or career ambitions. Just want to emphasize these are not folks at risk of homelessness. These are folks who receive a high school diploma and are unhoused the minute they walk off the stage.

While federal and state law provide extensive financial aid to youth experiencing homelessness who intend to enroll in college, the aid does not become available until the student begins attending college in the fall. And of course, that doesn't apply to those entering apprenticeship programs or making other career decisions. As a result, many of these youth become subject to a phenomenon known as summer melt, a scenario in which high school graduates are accepted into college and intend to enroll, but ultimately do not.

And we are left to the imagination as to how many are enrolled in other programs, again including apprenticeship programs that just don't show up. This problem is common among low-income students who lack the financial resources to make the transition from high school to college in the fall, and these students can often become sticker-shocked when they learn of the upfront fees associated with their next move, and even in the case of college.

Of course, until financial aid kicks in, there are other fees, summer orientation fees, housing deposits, parking passes, et cetera, et cetera. In recognition of the need to extend support to our most vulnerable students during this bridge period between high school graduation and employment or postsecondary education, SB 333 establishes a statewide guaranteed income program that will provide direct cash assistance on a monthly basis to these youth.

The bill defines an eligible participant as an individual who is enrolled in the twelfth grade, meets the definition of homelessness according to the McKinney-Vento Act, and the program will serve up to 15,000 youth experiencing homelessness statewide. It would begin April 1, 2025, and it would conclude August 1, 2025. So it's a five-month program, five five-month pilot.

The no-strings-attached guaranteed income model will empower these youth to use the funds as they see fit, whether that be entering the workforce or pursuing higher education could be buying a warm coat or a pair of shoes, or putting food on the table. As we all know, other guaranteed income programs, including the one that I piloted in Santa Clara County to serve transition-age foster youth, have proven to be successful, and their results have demonstrated that guaranteed income reduces income volatility significantly, helps people, young people find full-time employment, improves physical and mental health, mitigates homelessness, and creates new opportunities for people. SB 333 will equip youth experiencing homelessness with the financial resources to embark on a path towards stability and success. Here to testify in support of the bill, we have Kristina Bas Hamilton, Economic Security Project. Thank you very much, and it's appropriate time, I'll respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Please approach when you're ready.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Kristina Bas Hamilton, and I'm here representing the Economic Security Project Action, which is a proud co-sponsor of SB 33. On behalf of our group, we would like to extend our sincere appreciation to the Senator for his continued commitment to meeting the needs of our unhoused students.

The Economic Security Project Action has been involved in guaranteed income projects around the country and specifically helped launch the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, guaranteed income project that was launched a few years back. And the data of which is showing that the unrestricted cash payments were successful in relieving anxiety, depression. We're able to get people into better jobs, help them meet the needs as they arise day to day. Even a small dollar amount goes a long way. That is what the research is showing about guaranteed income.

And in this case, if we are very aware of the summer melt, that there is this period in which these students are extremely vulnerable. That is the period from which they go from K-12 support to higher ed support. That window of time, I would just say all around the country right now, how many high school seniors are at this moment excitedly thinking about what their semester, their future in college holds?

Never mind if that was you and you had no support systems or financial backup or anything, it would be really, actually something to be a terrifying experience because you have more questions than you have answers. And the goal of this bill is to just provide one-time support to get them through, through that vulnerable time period, unrestricted cash that we know will be transformative and disrupt the cycle of poverty. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have any other witnesses, Senator?

No.

Okay. So we will move to members of the public wishing to express support for this bill. Please approach the microphone with your name, affiliation, and your position, please.

Good afternoon. Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kevin Aslanian, Coalition California Welfare Rights Organization, in support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Josh Gauger, on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Thank you. All right. We'll now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have any lead witnesses? Any members of the public wishing to express opposition for this bill, please approach the microphone. Hearing and seeing none, we'll now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Moderator, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of Senate Bill 333 that we are ready to begin.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to testify in support or opposition of SB 333, you may press one and zero at this time. First, we'll go to line 252. Please go ahead.

Hi, Mary Creasey on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line to 298. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Gregory Cramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California, in support.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 290. Please go ahead.

Libby Sanchez, on behalf of No Kid Hungry. In support.

Thank you.

And next, we'll go to line 265. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzales with the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter, in support.

Thank you.

And next, we'll go to line 302. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Sumaya Nahar, on behalf of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, in support.

Thank you.

At this time, there's no others in queue. Back to you, Madam Chair.

Great. Thank you so much. All right. We will bring the discussion back to the members. Senator Menjivar.

Senator, I love these kind of bills. We recognize that once a child graduates high school, that's not it. They don't have all the tools to be successful, especially if they weren't given a good hand to deal with from the get-go. Right? I appreciate this pilot approach. We are a data-driven state to show, even though we have already some data to show these programs are successful. I just want to thank you for bringing this up, and I'm very happy to move this when appropriate.

Thank you. I want to thank the author for your robust discussion with the committee and with myself, helping me to understand the benefits of the program and just how much work has been done before bringing this bill forward. I'm very excited to see it roll out and to help some of our most vulnerable in our society, those transitional-age youth. I know you and I had conversations around how you came to the five months and the $1,000 guaranteed income. Can you say a little bit more about that?

Yeah. The studies that have been done, and the pilots that have been done in different places, whether it be Mountain View, California, or Stockton, or wherever. They range from $500 to $1000 in terms of what appears to be the sweet spot in terms of effectiveness, I think anything less than what we're asking for, for the short-term process might undercut the numbers that we hope to see in terms of outcomes.

But in the appropriations process, as we all know, ultimately, somewhere in that range, I think, needs to be where we land. There's always the question. That's why I said up to 15,000. In a perfect California, if we had a program like this sign into law, we would want not one child left behind. Literally, all 15,000 would get a notice that they could get the benefits, and they'd all take advantage of it.

Because of the transient nature of the population and just general opt-out reasons, we might not get that. But in the end, those are really critical appropriations issues, more so than they are programmatic issues. And I want to say, if I may, I appreciated in my conversation with you with the Chair, the excellent ideas you had in terms of implementation pathways for this.

There's always been a little discussion about that when we did foster, it's a population, as you all well know, that is directly in the bailiwick of our county social services departments, which means it's a direct pass-through, if you will, from state DSS. I wouldn't call this tricky at all, but it requires us to articulate the warm handoff from the education system into that invitation for the stipend so that each one of these young people has a clear opportunity to take advantage.

And we believe with McKinney-Vento, liaisons at the schools, combined with a localized DSS approach and just everyday help that you would get from your County Office of Education in each county, which was, I know, something that you emphasize, Madam Chair. It's abundantly implementable. Santa Clara County has currently put together a framework for their own pilot along these lines, subject to appropriation in their case.

But the beauty of that is, as we know, those local, we have to give those local agencies a lot of credit because they know how to structure the implementation on these kinds of programs. They do it all the time, and we're extremely confident on that side of it.

I hope that answers your question. Absolutely. And just to underscore in this committee, we debate and discuss policy and not appropriation. We leave that for a different committee. So thank you so much for that clarification. Would you like to close?

I appreciate the good questions today and the comments, Senator Menjivar, when you were mean, what really touched me, even on my own bill, as I get back to the roots of it, the idea that most kids, just in the next coming days, will get a diploma, and you talk about a warm handoff. They get a diploma, they circle back to a warm family home with their family, probably a nice dinner at a restaurant, a graduation party, maybe not that extravagant, but certainly they have a roof over their head.

And yet we have 15,000 kids who are going to get that diploma here. This can't be implemented till 2025. This is going to happen again in 2023 and walk off that stage with absolutely nowhere to go. Nowhere to go. Maybe the back of a van, maybe couch surfing at somebody's house, maybe worse. And that's heartbreaking. And we're going to effectively attack the overall problem of poverty and homelessness. I don't think we can wait till people are 20, 30, 40 years old. We have to try to intercept them like this at this point in time. And so, again, I appreciate your interest and engagement and very respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Do we have a motion on Senate Bill 333. Thank you, Senator Menjivar. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is two ayes, and that we will put this Bill on call might be your only option to move. Hello, Senator Skinner, welcome. Thank you. We're going to be hearing item number six, Senate Bill 343. Begin when you're ready.

Thanks so much, Madam Chair Members, in 2016, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement issued what was termed the final rule, which is the first comprehensive child support revision in 20 years. And the purpose of it was to improve outcomes for our low income families by making the child support orders based on the evidence of an individual financial, actual financial circumstances, screening for their ability to pay, especially those incarcerated parents, and ensuring an incarcerated parents are able to adjust their payment based on income.

California has till September 1st 2024 to implement this rule and to ensure California's conformity. My Bill requires child support orders to be determined based on actual earnings. It raises the definition of low and middle income, determining the child support orders, and updates the child support calculations to more accurately reflect each parent's actual income. And with that, I'd like to have my witness, Stephen Goldberg from Legal Services of Northern California present.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Stephen Goldberg, regional counsel from Legal Services of Northern California in support of SB 343. SB 343 has two primary purposes. The first is to implement the federal final rule that requires an end to orders based on presumed income and to base orders based on the facts of the individual case, and SB 343 properly does that. The second purpose is two changes to the way California does child support to right size orders.

Orders have historically been unaffordable for many Low income obligors, and this Bill attempts to right size orders in two ways. The first is to change what is called the k factor in the child support formula, something that has not been updated since 1992 to help orders reflect actual ability to pay for low income obligores. And second is to adjust the Low income adjustment to full time minimum wage to reflect what is an order that is affordable and realistic for the Low income obligore.

These are important changes both to comply with the federal final rule and to help right size orders that urge your support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We'll now move forward with Members of the public wishing to express their support for the Bill.

Yeah. Kevin Aslanian, Coalition, California Welfare rights organization, proud Co Sponsor for the Bill and please support. Thank you.

Thank you. Christopher Sanchez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and strong support.

Thank you. Mariko Yoshihar, on behalf of the Truth and Justice and Child Support Coalition and support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any lead witnesses in opposition hearing and seeing none, we'll move forward. To any Members of the public wishing to express opposition, please approach the microphone. Hearing and seeing none will now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service moderator, please prompt. Individuals waiting to testify in support or in opposition of Senate Bill 343.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to testify in support or opposition of SB 343, you may press 1 and 0 at this time.

It'll be just a moment.

Okay

We'll go to line 311. Please. Go ahead.

Hello. My name is Rachel Freitas, and I'm a Member of the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition, and I'm calling in with pastor support of SB 343. Thank you. Thank you.

At this time, there's no others in queue. Back to you, Madam Chair.

Okay, we'll now bring it back to the discussion, back to our Members. I see a thumbs up from Senator Menkovar over there. I just want to say thank you, Senator Skinner, for doing the great work and aligning our state policy with federal policy so that we can continue to serve in California. So thank you so much. I will be supporting this Bill and looking for a motion after you close.

Thanks so much and appreciate. I want to also thank the pro tem staff, Committee staff, and others who worked with stakeholders last summer and over the fall to come up with this. And it represents an agreement from both the Assembly and the Senate. So with that, I ask for your ayevote.

Thank you so much. Right. Do we have a motion? All right. Thank you, Senator Menjivar. I'm counting on you. Assistant, please call the role.

File item six, SB 343. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

[roll call]

[roll call]

Great. The vote is two ayes. We will put that bill on call. Thank you, Senator. So before we begin, just one moment. Okay, so at this time, I'm going to pass the gavel to Senator Menjivar. So I will be back. Tough cross.

It's all about the bats.

Go ahead, Senator.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. SB 805 addresses the need to access behavioral health treatment programs for individuals with autism. Frankly, there's a flaw in our insurance coverage of autism, where only one treatment is covered. And we want to make sure that other evidence-based treatments receive the same care so families can help their kids. This bill has been through this committee multiple times. I'm determined to change state law. And we're back again and would respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

Thank you, Senator. Do you have any key witnesses in support?

Jennifer Alley with the California Psychological Association. We represent the California psychologists in the state, and my members are educated, trained, and licensed to diagnose and treat autism. I speak on behalf of my members' clients who need treatment and have treatment with approach based on developmental psychology, that is, neurodiversity and affirming person-centered therapy that works with the child's individual sensory and motor differences to support their growth. SB 805 corrects a problem that is blocking families from getting the treatment that they need for their children. Respectfully ask for your aye vote and I'm here to answer any technical questions you may have.

Thank you, Senator. Any other key witnesses, Senator?

I think that's it.

Great. Now I'll open it to anyone who wants to do a meet, too in support and name who you're representing in a support. See none, moving on to any. Do we have any key witnesses in opposition? See none. Anyone want to meet to opposition? Great. Moderator, could you queue individuals who would like to give public comment on teleconference?

If you would like to testify in opposition support of SB 805, you may press one and zero at this time. First, we'll go to line 265. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzales with the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter, in support.

Thank you.

And one moment for the next one. Next, we'll go to line 242. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Dr. Andrea Davis, licensed psychologist at Greenhouse Therapy Center and Positive Development, in support of SB 805.

Thank you.

One moment. Next, we'll go to line 312. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Josh Fader from Positive Development, in support.

Thank you.

Just a moment for the next one. Next, we'll go to line 297. Please go ahead.

Hello, this is Dr. Tatiana Kura in support of SC 805. Thank you.

At this time, there is no others in queue. Back to you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Moderator. Turning to my invisible colleagues, or if anyone wants to come down and engage in a conversation with me, we welcome you here in room 2100. Seeing none, Senator, I'll have any comments for you. I am, when appropriate, will be voting aye on this bill. Thank you so much. Would you like to close?

Just thank you for this robust conversation between our.

It was very engaging.

Harvey would be very proud of us. I don't know if you know that reference, but Harvey was a six-foot invisible rabbit.

He would be proud of us. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

There you go.

Thank you so much. Going to hold that item open. Move on to the next. If there's any other author present. Jones. I turn to jokes in uncomfortable situations, so if no author is going to come, this is going to be bad.

Right on time, Senator. Yes, I'm holding it down by myself. You have a minute?

Go ahead.

Right here. Next we'll be hearing from on file item number nine, SB 618. Go ahead, Senator Rubio.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair and members of the committee. Today I'm proud to present SB 618, which will ensure that children fully benefit from the child support funds by redirecting funds from the state. That usually the state intercepts to go directly to the child. So current law provides that in child support payments, only the first 100 go to the child and the rest will go to the cost of services for the public assistant benefit.

So this puts noncustodial parents in a difficult situation. Many low income parents have reported they cannot afford indirectly to support their children, so they send money to their children other ways. In addition, when payment is not collected in these cases, California piles on 10% interest rate on top of that, and this money does not benefit the child. Once again, the egregious 10% interest rate is one of the highest in the country and it undermines the economic stability of an already struggling family.

Since the debt does not go away even after the child turns 18, the debt continues to burden the most vulnerable and low income families. Most of the parents impacted by these policies are BIPOC individuals, elderly or disabled or living only on social security. This bill will eliminate the collection and accrual of interest on child support debt. So the money goes directly to the child, which was the intent.

Joining me today are two witnesses Stephen Goldberg, Regional Counsel for Legal Services of Northern California, and Rebecca Miller, senior legislator for the Western Center in Poverty and Law. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome back.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Stephen Goldberg again, Regional Counsel for Legal Services of Northern California in support of SB 618. For over 40 years, California has used child support to repay Cal works. Before that AFDC benefits by keeping the child support that it collects on behalf of custodial parents. When parents cannot afford to pay their child support order, their debt to the state grows rapidly because California adds 10% interest each year. As a result,

today, parents in California owe over $6.5 billion in unpaid child support debt to the state and approximately one quarter of that is unpaid interest. Low income parents shouldering this debt need relief. California's 10% interest rate on child support is one of the highest in the country. 16 states charge no interest at all on child support orders. Research in California shows that as much as 95% of this child support debt is uncollectible because it is old, some of it is decades old.

And historically, child support orders have been set at an amount higher than low income parents can afford, which stacks against the deck against them from the start. This is particularly true for interest. It sometimes takes months to establish an order. And when an order is established, interest accrues on the arrearage that exists only because of delays in the court process, and that interest continues and compounds throughout the life of the child support case.

This mounting debt can leave low income child support obligors with the belief that because they can never catch up, not try paying when they can, eliminating interest on the government portion of child support orders and debt will therefore encourage payment. Most of those payments will go to families first, particularly when California begins full pass through of current support to families. Critically, this bill takes nothing away from custodial parents who will remain entitled to both principal and interest on the child support that is owed to them.

And finally, eliminating interest on future child support orders is important to racial and economic equity, because child support debt disproportionately impacts families of color. Please support SB 618. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you, honorable committee members. Western Center is co sponsoring SB 618 together with our partners at the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition. Because we regularly see the severe financial instability caused by massive amounts of uncollectible and unaffordable government-owned child support, particularly on black and Latino parents, the 10% interest rate on this debt balloons the payments to levels that are almost impossible for a parent with low income to pay.

In California, a parent with 15,000 in child support debt owed to the state, which is about the average amount owed, could pay $50 every two weeks for 30 years. And they'd actually owe more than when they started. Since the interest owed exceeds their annual payments, someone making the same payments in one of the 16 states that charge no interest would have nearly paid off their debt in 12 years. The 10% interest rate makes it harder for parents to financially support themselves and their children.

A pilot project in San Francisco found that when noncustodial parents had their governmental child support paid off, there were positive incomes all around for increased employment, housing stability, co parenting and parenting relationships, and in fact, increased payments to custodial parents. The billions of dollars of uncollected child support owed is not just a line on the balance sheet. Behind every dollar is a person struggling to get by. People like Freddie persons. Mr. Parsons is 77 years old.

He lives on his $900 Social Security check and is retired after working 36 years at a janitor in the Bayview Plaza Mall. Until recently, the government was automatically garnishing $300 from his monthly $900 check. Because Mr. Parsons had fallen behind in his child support payments years ago, he had long off paid his child support obligation to his ex wife and his children. But because of the 10% interest rate on the debt he owed to the government, his debt had ballooned.

He couldn't keep up with it, and his paycheck was garnished into his 70s. We ask for your aye vote to end this 10% interest rate on government owed child support debt and help put money in struggling parents pockets to support their children and themselves.

Thank you. Now turning to anyone in the public who'd wish to record their support. Name, affiliation.

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition, in support thank you.

Kevin Aslanian, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. Strong support. Thank you.

Steven Weiss, Bay Area Legal Aid, in support.

Anyone else in the public? Seeing none. Any key witnesses in opposition, please step forward. Seeing none. Anyone else wish to voice their opposition? Moderator if you could please queue up. The individuals waiting to comment via the teleconference.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to comment and support opposition of SB 618 and you may press 1 and 0. At this time just a moment. We'll go to line 3116. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Rachel Freitas, I'm a member of the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition. I ask for your support of SD 618. Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time, there are no others in queue. Back to you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much moderator. I'm turning it back to myself for any discussion. Senator, thank you so much for bringing this up. I think the witnesses mentioned this is uncollectible debt that is sitting on the backs of so many low income individuals who are struggling to get by. So when appropriate, I'll move. But for right now, as you can see, we can't do anything. I'd let you close.

Thank you very much. And realistically, child support is supposed to take care of the child, but in reality, it's taking care of her state, which is inappropriate. And I just do believe that it also has unintended consequences. There's many stories of people just falling off the radar, meaning they don't work with their Social Security anymore because they can't sustain themselves. Most of the funding is garnished in many different ways. So we want children to be taken care of. And with that, I ask for your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator, we'll hold that item open.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. We're going to swap here. I'm going to present to you.

We-re adapting and overcoming good thing I'm chair of sub three. This would have been wild.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Senator, I'm here to present to you on SB 499, the Cool Schools Act. First, taking a moment to thank the committee staff for working with my staff on this, I will be accepting the committee amendments, as noted in page nine of the analysis. I would also like to raise that our office has been meeting with stakeholders and receiving input, and we are continuing the conversation.

So SB 499 is looking to address the issue of hot ground surfaces on school campuses, the impact of health and safety of our children. Specifically, this bill is looking to create an extreme heat plan, extreme heat action plan, stating that by the earliest time or the next time schools will resurface or surface, they will offer a cooler solution. They will install green barriers that have been shown to mitigate the impacts of extreme heat and pollution.

This bill is looking to require the Department of Education and Department of Social Services to develop a template for an extreme heat action plan that could be used by school sites, as well as a model program guidebook available to school sites. Additionally, this bill requires the Department of Social Services to identify a liaison that is trained in extreme heat mitigation efforts climate change has led to an average temperatures rising in the United States, disproportionately impacting our black, indigenous, people of color, low income communities.

Research continues to show that communities with the fewest resources usually have the least access to nature within and surrounding their school grounds. The students in my district specifically were highlighting in a recent LA Times article that showed that on a 93 degree weather day, our schools reached 145 degrees.

A statewide coalition of nearly 50 EP experts, including doctors, medical and environmental health researchers, educators, youth and community groups, recently released a call to action report just last month, and amongst their recommendation is this very specific thing that this bill is looking to do, and that is the need for climate resilient master plan to serve as a guiding light for California's K through 12 system. I want to make sure that our kids are able to go outside and thrive.

We understand the combination of academic and outside learning is important for our youth to be successful. And this bill also aligns with the governor's extreme heat action plan that was released in April of last year that calls to support climate smart planning in heat vulnerable schools. With me here to testify are two witnesses, Sharon Danks, CEO of Green Schoolyards America in support of SB 499 and Fatima Iqbal-Zubair, legislative fair managers with California environment borders. Sharon Sharon is not here we'll go to Fatima.

So, the first lead witness. I will say, you have two minutes and you will be timed.

My name is Fatima Iqbal-Zubair from California Environmental Voters, and our organization is in support of SB 499. I'm speaking today also as someone who is a former public school teacher and a current youth mentor from South LA in a school with 100% low income and students of color with severe environmental justice concerns, one of which are more days with extreme heat where students can't go outside. And this heat affected how students studied inside the building as well.

I'm also a mother of a son with special needs that goes to a public school who struggles with many similar issues. So I've seen firsthand the health impacts that come with schools that aren't built to be resilient to heat and other consequences of a climate. The Senator mentioned San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles and other areas of the state as well. We've seen health impacts of extreme heats extreme heat.

SB 499 will require schools to create an extreme heat action climate plan to offer essentially cooler schools while their individual school districts taking the lead. The health impacts show that the change towards climate resilient schools that can respond to extreme heat and other climate impacts is simply not happening fast enough. It's up to our state to set the precedent so that youth across California are protected not two decades from now, when their health will already be impacted, but right now. This bill will be great for all kids, including those, like my son, with special needs. Because the truth is that climate change affects those in the margins more. This bill is not one that'll downplay or ignore the work that is already being done to protect students. In fact, it'll add to adaptability measures that students, like my son have schools that are even more responsive to their needs. SB 499 ensures that our youth and teachers win.

Children spend significant time on their school campuses, and by adding green spaces, it has been proven that there will be significant changes in recess classroom behaviors such as increased physical activity, attention and social collaboration, higher academic achievement, decrease in stress, anxiety, and disruptive behavior. This directly impacts students daily experiences, mental and physical health, and learning outcomes. It is for these reasons, we urge all committee members vote I on SB 499. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Sharon Danks, and I'm the founder of Green Schoolyards America, a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to transforming asphalt schoolyards into green spaces. I'm here today to express strong support for SB 499. In California, over 10,000 public schools serve almost 5.9 million students on 130,000 acres of land. That public land is paved. Most of that public land is paved and lacks tree canopy. Our research shows that millions of California students do not have any access to shade at school.

We know that 10% of California's public schools have less than 2% tree canopy, and the majority of schools have less than 10% tree canopy. Unshaded asphalt and rubber surfaces on school grounds reach high temperatures that are hazardous for students health. Unshaded asphalt can be 140 degrees or more on a sunny day when temperatures air temperatures are in the 90s, rubber safety surfaces can reach 165 degrees. Even on a mild day, asphalt and rubber are hot, and children's smaller body size makes them more vulnerable to heat than adults. This problem affects all students in California. There's a disproportionate burden on communities with the lowest income in communities of color, though, since they also have the fewest shade trees and the least green space. Schoolyard forests and green schoolyards address the climate crisis in a way that directly protects children from heat.

They're also a critical strategy to closing the equity gap in access to nature, improving health and wellness, providing opportunities for hands on learning, climate literacy, and work force development, and school grounds are public lands that are efficient and strategic places to invest California's scarce water resources, since the shade produced by schoolyard trees has the potential to cool millions of students every day. Green Schoolyards America, in partnership with CAL FIRE, CDE, and 10 Strands, launched the California Schoolyard forest system last year with a mission to shade and protect students from rising temperatures and to help bring equitable access to schoolyard forests to scale across the state. Our work supports the unprecedented investments state government has made in schoolyard greening and nature based climate solutions.

Time. Thank you. We'll now move on to support witnesses. Please state your name, organization, and that you support.

Christina Hildebrand of Voice for Choice Advocacy. We're the proud sponsor of this bill, and we're in strong support.

Thank you.

Piper Primrose, non toxic schools in strong support and so is Cupcake.

Thank you.

Megan Kaun, Sonoma Safe Agriculture Safe Schools in strong support.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition? Witnesses lead opposition. You have two minutes.

Madam Chair. Mr. Chair and members. Ian PadilLA with the Coalition for Adequate School Housing. My colleagues couldn't stay, but also representing the California School Boards Association, the Association of California School Administrators, Riverside County Office of Education, and the county School Facilities Consortium. We do, unfortunately, at the present, oppose the bill. We are working with the author's staff to see if there are some improvements could be made.

Let me just say that schools definitely for sure realize the significance of heat, right, both in shade outside and the need to green as well as inside. There's other bills talking about interior temperatures and so on. So schools right now are trying to do this. And so we agree with the recognition of the issue as well as the attempt to try to make it better, basically. But we see this as a one size fits all approach that won't work in all areas of the state.

Some are hotter, some are higher, some are, you know, it's a big state. And so we don't think this works. An example is in its current form. We don't think that, for instance, some of the issues about turf, some folks don't even want to do turf, but of course, they were incentivized at other times to do it because of drought. So the California building code has regulations on shade trees. So that's all to say. We definitely want to keep working right now. But we see the cost impact and the size, the one size fits all, the kind of prescriptiveness of it right now. And for those reasons, we oppose the bill, but we'll continue to work with the author. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses seeing none. Any opposition or support witnesses in the room? Seeing none. We'll move on to the teleconference. Anybody waiting to testify. Moderator, please prompt the first individual.

Okay. One moment, please. Lime 313, go ahead.

Hi, Mary Creasy, on behalf of the children's partnership and support.

Line 317, go ahead.

Christy Sapol with Educate Advocate in support. Thank you.

Line 278, go ahead.

Hello. This is Elizabeth Mosley with North County Climate Change Alliance, and I strongly support SB 499.

Line 320 go ahead. Line 320 your line is open.

Hi, Aaron. Aaron Burchtt in support.

Thank you. Line 322 your line is open. Line 322 your line is open.

Ron Aspen, Sierra Club strongly support.

Line 301, go ahead.

Cynthia Fan, I'm a parent in Santa Clara County in strong support. Thank you.

Line 264, line is open. Line 264, your line is open. Now. Go to line 321, line is open.

Suzanne Hume cleanearthforkids.org strongly support.

Line 308 line is open.

Viviana Hilario cleanersforkids.org strongly support.

Line 319, line is open. Line 308.

Yes. Hi, Viviana Halario.

Are you in support again?

Yes, in support. I already went. I thought.

Thank you. Line 319, go ahead.

Good afternoon. Tasha Williams calling on behalf of California Parents union in support. Thank you.

Line 291, go ahead.

Hello there. Madison Dolane on behalf of Prevention Institute, calling in support of SB 499.

Thank you. Line 294, go ahead.

Diane Wolkey, safe, healthy playing field, a national 501 in strong support of SB 499.

Line 275, go ahead.

Good afternoon, this is Jillian Rodriguez Embarky calling on behalf of 10 Strands in strong support of SB 499.

Thank you. Last 1323. Line is open.

Yes, this is Will Brieger and I'm calling to support 499 on behalf of climate Action California, 350 Sacramento, and the Los Angeles and the San Fernando chapters of Climate Reality. Thank you.

That was the last one.

Thank you. We will now move on to committee comments. Committee members, do you have anything? No. Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you so much. When the time is appropriate, I ask that we support and align ourselves what the Governor has called for, what the recent study has called for, and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. I can't move them. Would you like to move the bill yourself?

Okay, Dan. Okay, so we'll move on. Can we lift the call for the other. Okay, so Senator Menjivar will be moving SB 618. Senator Rubio, can we call roll.

File item number nine, SB 618. The motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] 2-0 on call.

All right, so the bill is on call. Senator Menjivar, I'm assuming you're moving for SB 805?

Yes, I'll move item number 10.

Can we call roll.

File item 10, SB 805. The motion is due, pass and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, Senator Menjivar, can I have a motion on. I'm sorry, there was already, SB 85.

No, we haven't heard it.

Lets call the roll on SB 333.

File item number five, SB 333. The motion is due. Pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations, with the chair voting aye. [Roll Call] 3-0 on call.

Bill is on call. Can we lift the call?

File item six, SB 343. The motion is due. Pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations with the chair voting aye. [Roll Call] 3-0.

No. You will if you're willing to move it.

Okay. Handling.

Thank you. Can I get a motion to move file item number 12, SB 499.

File item number 12, SB 499. The motion is do pass as amended, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Perfect. Senator Durazo, I know you've been waiting, but I have to put the chair in order, so we have to go to Senator Ash-. Senator Durazo, you're up. Moving on to file item number eight, SB 491. Welcome, Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the Committee for working with us, and we commit to continue to work with your staff. SB 491 is a Bill that will provide an option for unhoused Californians to receive and pick up all government-related mail at a county Department of Social Services office. Currently, some governmental agencies have relied on the US Postal Service to deliver important mail to Californians through general delivery. For people without a reliable mailing address.

General delivery is a free service and provides access to mail delivered to that local post office. As an alternative, Californians without a permanent address have also relied on receiving their mail at county social services office, shelters, nonprofits, friends, or family members if their residents are offered. Californians without a permanent address have used these services to maintain access to critical government forms of IDs, election ballots, prescriptions, and public benefits.

Californians who receive public benefits receive notices and access of these services through mail, including electronic benefit transfer cards, recertification of public benefits, and notices of housing programs. Notices for these documents often require people to respond in a timely manner. If not, their benefits or services can be interrupted or cut off. Unfortunately, none of these services are proven reliable and they contribute to people who are experiencing homelessness to lose access, even extreme delays, and disrupted services, according to the Department of Agriculture.

The US Department of Agriculture participants not receiving mail was a key reason they lost food benefits, especially people facing housing insecurity. The impacts of not having a reliable mailing address are detrimental to Californians who need access to critical social safety net programs. SB 491 provides assurance for unhoused Californians to receive government related mail, requiring those counties to develop programs to ensure residents have a designated place to receive and pick up their correspondence.

With me to testify are Stephen Weiss, regional managing attorney for Bay Area Legal Aid, and Christopher Sanchez, Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. This Bill would ensure access to mail delivery services for people without a reliable mailing address, including people who are experiencing homelessness to receive government related mail at a county location, as outlined in a recent report from the Western center on law and poverty.

Return to sender how an unreliable mail system harms Californians living in poverty the US Postal Service does not provide adequate access to timely and reliable mail delivery, particularly for people who are experiencing homelessness, and this got worse during the pandemic. Some county social services agencies will hold mail for clients who receive county administered benefits, but the scope of services varies widely by county.

Some will only hold mail that was sent by the county, may not hold mail that was sent by a state, by the state, federal agency, or some other program that's administering government benefits or housing assistance. For example, in early 2020, Contra Costa County stopped holding mail for clients and directed all client mail to the US Postal Service through general delivery.

By July of 2021, the USPS no longer allowed the county to request general delivery on behalf of customers and returned all that mail back to the county, causing confusion and delays in people receiving their mail and benefits. In San Francisco, to this day, all county mail for people who are without a reliable address is sent to one USPS general delivery location in the Tenderloin neighborhood, where mail is only held temporarily.

So if someone on general assistance in San Francisco wants to get their mail, they have to go to this tenderloin location at least once a week, wait in line, often for over an hour, and our clients report being solicited by drug dealers while waiting in line, putting some at risk of relapse. Other clients have reported being assaulted while waiting in line or having fear of stalking by abusers who know they have to go there to get their mail.

This Bill will ensure that all counties have to provide the same level of service to make mail delivery available for those with no reasonable alternative so that people can get timely notice of decisions regarding their access to government benefits and housing assistance. Thank you for your support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Christopher Sanchez, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, here in strong support and as a proud co-sponsor of SB 491 that will provide an essential service for accessing government mail to unhoused Californians. For decades, we relied on the United States Postal Service to provide us mail. However, in recent years, the post office has had to reprioritize its operations to ensure they're still able to meet their federal obligation of delivering mail in a timely manner.

One of those services, as mentioned here, is general delivery, a service that is free of charge and is provided to unhoused individuals without a mailing address. As mentioned by my colleague, the service has become unreliable and in some instances. It's just not being provided at all. For this reason, USPS only requires certain post offices to provide this service, but even then, they still don't. That's why some nonprofits and shelters and churches already provide this additional service to those that they serve.

But even then, they're already at capacity. That's why some counties like Los Angeles, San Bernardino and San Diego, allow for certain forms of government mail to be picked up at their offices. SB 491 seeks to ensure that an alternative option, but not a requirement for mail, is available to those who are in house. Because the reality is, without access to mail, Californians experiencing poverty will only go further into poverty if they're not connected to these services. It is for these reasons we ask for your vote.

Thank you.

Hi, Kevin Ezna and CCD. Strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Rita Medina with Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of LA, and strong support. Thank you.

Right. Thank you. We'll now hear from witnesses in opposition of this Bill. Please come to the microphone. Hearing and seeing none. Any other Members wishing to express opposition? All right. We'll now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Moderator please prompt individuals waiting to testify in support or in opposition of Senate Bill 491. We are ready. Thank you.

Line 264. Go ahead. Line 264, your line is open. No answer. Let me go. Line 265. Line is open.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzalez of the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter in support. Thank you.

And that was the last and the only person.

All right. Thank you. Moderator we will now bring the discussion back to the Members. How you doing, Senator? Thank you for covering me there for a while. All right. So I just want to say thank you, Senator Durazo, I know you and your staff worked very closely with me and my team to bring this out. I just wanted to make sure we clarified so number nine, participation in this program does not establish residency for purposes of elections or school districts.

Was that one of the changes you made? Yes. Great. Thank you so much. And then I know in this Committee we talk about policy and not appropriations, but can you outline in terms of this program, are you feeling like this would be something that the local jurisdictions would be able to implement at a reasonable cost? Are you foreseeing that this is something that the state would help with in terms of some type of resource, financial backing?

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the question. I think it's really important for the local areas to know that they could have a backup plan. We haven't gotten that far yet in terms of a conversation. But I certainly would be willing to have that conversation to see what the need is and what we can do at the state level. Thank you for asking. Of course.

Well, policy wise, I really applaud this Bill in terms of giving people an identity, giving people that opportunity to have a place where government issued ids and their benefits of one place to be able to collect that. I know that when you're in transition or you're unhoused or just dealing with everyday life at an exponential rate, having one place to kind of connect with the outer world is really important. So I appreciate the purpose and intent of this Bill, and I'll be supporting it today.

Thank you. Thank you. Senator, would you like to close? I think we have a motion when you're ready.

Just thank you very much for your help and your conversation, and urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. All right, I have a motion from Senator Menjivar. All right. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item eight, SB 491. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

The vote is 20 or two ayes, and we'll put that Bill on call. All right, thank you. Thank you. Mcguire is here, too? He. Is. She playing games with me over there? Mr. Mcguire. Senator Mcguire. All right, we'll now hear item number three. Senate Bill 307. Senators Ashby and Mcguire, welcome. I love the color coordination. I just have to say that, because that is. Yes, and you have the orange folder and he has the blue folder. I'm going to take it. We're really on Denim Day.

We're really dedicated. All right, whenever you're ready. All right, well, thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee for Entertaining Senator Mcguire and I today and allowing me to sit at the table like he does. So let me get used to that for a second. Today we are here to present SB 307, the Fostering Futures act, which we're both really excited about. This Bill seeks to make debt free higher education a reality for foster youth in the State of California.

I want to thank the majority leader for all of your work and your staff's work and for allowing me to work on this Bill with you. It's been a fantastic opportunity, and I'm really honored to be in front of this Committee today, particularly because this Committee has three of my freshman colleagues on. I love that so much. Okay. SB 307 is sponsored by the John Burton Advocates for Youth. They're an amazing partner in this space.

We have 17 co authors and bipartisan support on this Bill so far. SB 307 will give foster youth the agency to attend community college, trade schools, or a four year University with 100% of their unmet need covered by the State of California. This includes food, books, and, most importantly, housing. Foster youth are, by definition, housing insecure, and this instability makes it extremely difficult for them to attend higher education. The rate of homelessness among former foster youth is 43%. It's more than double that for other students.

More than double of other students. The state does a great job of helping students with their tuition, but unfortunately, it just isn't enough for foster youth. In California, 93% of foster youth say that they would like to attend college. 93. But only 4% of former foster youth actually obtain their bachelor's degree by the time they're 26, compared to 50% of their peers.

SB 307 seeks to fill the gaps of need by establishing the Fostering Futures program within the existing middle class scholarship program to support foster youth and cover 100% of their remaining unmet need after other aid is applied. Completion of a four year degree. While a major milestone does not mark the end of foster youth scholars journey, but rather a new beginning, SB 307 will help ensure foster youth can reach their educational goals and better prepare them to enter the next stage of their lives debt free from higher education. We do have a couple of support witnesses, but if it's okay with the chair, I'd like to offer the mic to Mr. Mcguire, please. Majority Leader, proceed. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

And first and foremost, Madam Chair, I just want to say thank you for your sincere engagement and to your staff's engagement on this critical Bill. We are truly grateful and for your advocacy. Also want to say thank you to Senator Ashby. It's very personal, the Senator Ashby, as her dad, committed his life to this cause, and she's carrying on that tradition. And just want to say thank you and grateful for the partnership.

And also to John Burton, who has just been outspoken and tenacious in his focus for foster youth across the state, here's what we know. Foster youth have a high school dropout rate, three times higher than any other Low income student. The vast majority don't go on to a two year degree, even less for a four year degree, it's about two to 6% accomplish an AA, three to 4% accomplish a BA or BS, and less than 50% even accomplished their first two semesters in college.

So what this Bill is going to do is redirect approximately $28 million to be able to cover the cost of it. A complete attendance at a community college, CSU, or UC. The reason why this is so economical is that foster youth already receive funding through the Cal Grant Chief grants. But one of the biggest stumbling blocks of actually getting through college is the holistic cost of college, housing, books and food.

And what we also know is, unlike most youth, there's no support system for these young people. This is the question we get a lot. So how will this impact the remaining students who get a middle class scholarship award? $79 by redirecting $28 million to be able to cover the holistic cost of college for a foster youth. Under this Bill, the average awardee, it will be $79, less than $80. But we also know that 28 million will help change that life.

Thank you for the opportunity. Do we have any witnesses in support?

So at the appropriate time, would respectfully ask for an aye vote. And again, Madam Chair, we're really grateful for your advocacy and partnership.

We do, Madam Chair. We have a couple of witnesses with us. We have, I think, Jessica Petrus from John Burton, Advocates for Youth. And we have Cody Van Felden, who is a current SAC state student. Wonderful. We'll hear each of the witnesses for a total of two minutes each. Great. Good evening.

My name is Jessica Petrass I'm with John Burton, advocates for youth, and I'm here to share our support of SB 307. In today's Society of Postsecondary Education, it's key to financial stability, job security, not just surviving, but really thriving in a meaningful career. However, despite foster youth dreams and aspirations, most enter adulthood in extreme poverty, with college affordability found to be the most common reason foster youth choose not to attend college or attend and then must stop due to the need of work.

While many of our youth with experience in foster care attempt to balance school and work, there is evidence of a direct relationship between the number of hours worked and the likelihood of dropping out of school for students with foster care experience. More than any other student population, youth with experience in foster care often lack a financial and emotional safety net to support them through young adulthood.

In addition to the long term impacts of abuse and neglect that brought them to the foster care system in the first place, in onesome care, they experience higher rates of school mobility and k 12 education by no fault of their own, with one third of students changing schools during the school year, which is four times the rate of Low socioeconomic status or General populations, often leading to academic challenges and postsecondary education as well California has a unique responsibility to continue to care and invest for the future of its children in foster care, and SB 307 is an acknowledgment of the potential that these youth have to succeed in college when the necessary resources are provided.

Fostering futures can make college possible for our most vulnerable students across all postsecondary pathways by creating debt free education. And we know that financial aid access is key to degree completion. For these reasons, I am respectfully requesting your aye vote on SB 307. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Cody. I am a graduate from Consumers River College and a current student at Sacramento State University. I began my college education at the age of 17.

Although I have made it far in my higher education, my journey to get here has been long and difficult. At 16, my adoptive parents abandoned me. At 18, my foster parents kicked me out, leaving me homeless. The only means of survival I had was through financial aid, but this wasn't enough. The aid I received didn't cover all of my basic needs. I often experienced the stress of not knowing when I was going to be able to eat.

I was forced to stay involved in social groups that were not healthy or safe environments, but those were the only groups willing to let me sleep on their sofas. In high school, I was an AB average student. When I experienced financial and housing instability, my grade average quickly became Ds and f's. My experience with financial and housing insecurity is not unique among foster youth. Foster youth have some of the highest rates of homelessness.

At the age of 23, my life finally took a turn for the better, but this isn't the case for many of our foster youth. The hurdles I faced as a foster youth impacted my academic performance and took me several extra years to finish my associate's degree and will take me about nine years to earn my bachelor's, resulting in reaching my financial aid limit on several grants and loans.

I now wonder if I'm going to have enough money to cover the cost of my last year in school. When I do graduate, I will then have to start paying the $50,000 in debt I have accumulated since I began college. I'm here today because SB 307 would change the course of our foster youth life in California.

Thank you. Any other Members from the audience wishing to share their support for this Bill, please come forward and state your name, affiliation and your position.

Not only would SB 307 give foster youth a debt free education, it would also allow eligibility for up to eight years, which is so critical given the unique barriers many of us face throughout our college journey. For all of these reasons, I urge your support for SB 307 to give our foster youth in California a brighter future. Thank you.

Thank you, Amanda. Right. We'll move on to witnesses in opposition. Lead witnesses in opposition. Any Members from the public wishing to express opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, we will move to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference moderator. Please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or in opposition of. Thank you, ma'am. Bill 307, we are ready to begin.

Good afternoon. Kim Lewis, representing a Spiranet, in support.

Thank you. Amanda Kirsten. On behalf of county welfare directors in support.

Line number 284, go ahead.

Hello. Rachel Carr, social worker at Sonoma county families and Children's Services, in strong support. Thank you.

Line 288, line is open.

Sharon Senators Adam Keigwin, on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, in support. Also here in support. In support is to be here.

Thank you. Thank you.

Line 270 line is open.

Good afternoon. Tiffany Stan, on behalf of California court appointed special Advocate Association, or Calcasa, in support of SB 307. Thank you. Thank you.

Line 265, line is open.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, in support. Thank you.

Line 279, line is open.

Hello. Corbin about to charge you on behalf of the California alliance of Child and Family Service in strong support of this Bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Line 286, line is open.

Hi, this is Jen Rexroad with California Alliance of Caregivers in strong support. Thank you.

Line 246, line is open.

Thank you so much.

Hello, my name is Valeria Alvarez with voices on the move, and I support SB 307

Line 283, line is open.

Zoe Corwin from the University of Southern California Pulia Center for Higher Education in strong support. Thank you.

I'm sorry. Line 305, line is open.

Hi, this is Matthew Moore with Unite LA, and we're in strong support of SB 307. Thank you. Thank you.

Line 326, line is open.

Hello, this is Julissa Castillo with Foster Love and Strong Support of SB 307. Thank you.

The last one. Line 273, line is open.

Hi, this is Megan Eaton with Pivotal. And I support SB 307. Thank you.

That was the last one.

Manager all right, thank you so much. Moderator we'll bring the discussion back to our Members. Questions or comments, please.

Thank you so much, Senators. Senator Mcguire, you mentioned I had that specific question of how much it was going to take away. Just for my clarification, I was trying to figure out those eligible for the middle class scholarship program that also include homeless youth unhoused youth.

Does that include homeless and unhoused? Yes, it does.

100% on board for that. I think the holistic approach is the way to go. I guess I'm just wondering if the $79 is also being taken away from the homeless youth who are.

I apologize. It is $79, all in all awards.

But right now, the dollars go directly for direct academic costs, for paying for units, and this would expand it to housing. Let me get you the exact housing, books and food.

So whoever would receive the middle class Scholarship act scholarship, would see a reduction of $79 per award, 100% supportive of moving this forward. I guess some hesitancy was like taking foster youth and unhoused youth. I mean, they go hand in hand. They do, right? That's where I had a little bit of hesitancy. These are the most vulnerable youth in California. I hate when we have to pit. Not that we're pitting, but it just seems like we're kind of choosing one vulnerable population over the other.

And like you had just said, they do. Many times they are one. Right. But Senator Ashby has been very focused on getting additional funding into the scholarship fund. So if it is a status quo approach, it would be $79 less per recipient. Senator Ashby, take it away, because that's something you're very focused in on to ensure that we don't have to do that. Yeah.

So I think also, the first part of your question, when you asked if it included homeless youth, I think he thought you meant, does this Bill include homeless youth? Yeah. I always like to say this award. Yeah, the award. So, Majority Leader Mcguire's giving you a worst case scenario. If the budget stayed exactly as it is and there was no increase to the middle class scholarship, we believe the people who are currently receiving awards, which are middle class students, they come from middle class families.

It's meant to reprieve costs on middle class families. They would each receive an annual reduction of around that $79 mark. But as you all know, the Governor proposed an increase in the middle class scholarship Fund. We'll see what the Legislature chooses to do.

Got it. And I just sent you a note saying, so sorry, I did not mean to talk around your question. I completely misunderstood. No, you're okay. So I apologize.

Our goal is to hold all students in the middle class scholarship whole. But should we fall short of that and this still passes, and the budget stays where it is. It would be a net reduction,

it sounds like maybe. And this is, again, just me. My knowledge here, so unhoused youth aren't probably even.

No, absolutely.

I've been advocating heavily for at least a slight increase in this scholarship Fund specific to this reason, because I think it is part of the progress, protecting the progress that this Senate has done to get one group, and I can think of no group more deserving than foster youth across that final finish line for debt free college. So that's the goal?

What he meant is they would be included in the foster youth category.

So what I heard is that you're solving problems. That's what I heard. And taking care of our kids,

Senator Ashby, is solving problems as. I completely misunderstood Senator Menjabar's question. Again, Senavar, I did not mean to talk around you. So thank you so much for bringing in the clarification.

Perfect. Thank you so much.

So sorry.

I think he thought you meant, would they be included in this Fund? And the answer to that would be yes, but not necessarily in the middle class scholarship without being a part of this.

I also want to note that this Bill was dubber referred, and it passed unanimously through the education Committee. This Bill, for me, was one of the first ones that I was able to put my name on coming in as a freshman Legislator. Very excited to be able to see this in front and how it's developed. And I just say the partnership here on this Bill has been phenomenal, and I'd love to see more of this.

This is like the model, not just because you're both wearing each other's colors, but this is really the model of us working together in this house to solve problems, bringing forward our experiences, rural communities with urban centers, and really saying, this is good for our kids. So thank you so much for bringing that forward, and thank you so much. Would you like to close? Before we take the motion?

We definitely just want to say thank you. We talk about this a lot that we just appreciate so much. The tremendous level of support from our colleagues and the leadership of the State Senate. We've been officiates as new folks to the hard work of the folks who've been doing this before us. He didn't have to let me sit up here with him. He could have done this by himself, but he let me. And I'm really grateful. And for all of you who've been so amazing on this, too.

file item three, SB 307. The motion is due. Pass and re refer to the Committee on appropriations. [roll call]

All right, so let's take this motion from Senator Menjivar. Assistant. Please call the role

We're really happy to be here in urge your aye vote. Thank you so much.

So I do want to say that we are nearing the end of our hearing. And we do have bills on call and a few more to hear. So I'm going to ask Members if you can return to the hearing, room 2200 immediately. We would love to finish up our hearing. zero, yes. I love this. Thank you, Senator Benkovar. Item number 12 or item number 131313. Okay. Thank you so much. We'll now move forward. Item number 13. Senate Bill 635. It's.

Been an interesting Committee here.

It always is, right?

All right, Madam Chair, thank you so much. I'm presenting SB 635 as it relates to giving providing access to developmental screenings. Thank you, Committee staff, for your work, your continued work with my staff on this Bill.

We are meeting with stakeholders on this Bill and do have amendments and that would author amendments that would extend this to any validated developmental screening tool in place of restricting it to the ages and stages questionnaire who want to make sure the entities utilize a validated developmental screening tool that they are comfortable with.

SB 635 would provide tens of thousands of children who are currently being served in subsidized childcare programs with access to early childhood developmental screening and other appropriate developmental and other appropriate developmental screenings. We're seeing high rates of children. You'll see high rates of autism increasing right now across our state. And oftentimes these developmental delays are not being caught until later in life losing and the children are losing now on years, months, if not years on access to assistance.

So specifically, this Bill would direct all subsidized childcare programs, such as the alternative payment, general childcare, CalWorks, and family childcare, home education network, and home visiting programs, to screen all children following family consent with the appropriate screening for children zero to five. It would also ensure that children ages zero to five who need additional services following the screening, following the recommendation from the ceiling from the screening, are referred for further assessment intervention at no cost to the parent.

So not only are we going to have the parent fill out the screening, we will not leave the parent hanging in that moment. We will provide them the resources and make those referrals to the necessary services to obtain those services. We will also direct the California departments of education and social services to set up a centralized billing point to draw down federal funding to pay the subsidized childcare programs for providing the screening.

Madam Chair, I know you've mentioned this is not where we talk about how we're going to pay this, but I have been thoughtful in that and ensure we have a stream of funds we can pull down. We finally would also direct the California Department of Education and Social Services to work with the Department of Healthcare Services and the Department of Developmental Services and the Office of the Search in General to establish processes to ensure identified children are receiving needed intervention services in a timely manner.

We all know the early years of child's life are pivotal points for future success when we provide these screenings and we provide early interventions and we provide these programs that our children are able to that, we're able to promote the growth and prosperity of youth, families, and communities. I do want to commend legislators. Madam Chair, you and I have not seen this, but the legislators before our time did a lot of work in this space.

In 2009, there was a Bill that ensured that Medicaid beneficiaries ages zero to three could access early periodic screening and services. But despite this entitlement, a report recently, last year found that California still lags in providing these screenings with only a rate of 26% being able to provide. And we all know that that number goes down when we're talking about our black and brown and communities of color.

Additionally, we found a report found that in the past year, 36% of families above low income reported that their children had received a screening, compared to 27.2%. Again, we're seeing that huge disparity when it comes to communities or families of color. Research continues to show that early intervention treatment services are significant to improve a child's development. This is personal to me. My child, my niece who has autism.

Her screening was delayed and we lost out approximately seven months in providing some services to her, seven months that we can't take back. So here with me to testify in need of SB 635 is Maria Jose Romo, a government relations specialist with the Childcare Resource Center, followed by Justina Erpelding, advocacy organizer with EveryChild California and one of the co-sponsors.

Thank you. Please proceed when you're ready.

Hi. Thank you. Maria Romo with the Childcare Resource Center. We're the largest family and child services nonprofit in California. We represent San Bernardino County and northern Los Angeles County. Before my current job, I used to work as an administrator for an after-school program that serviced around 300 children in nearby schools in East LA.

In my role, I was the main point of contact for parents and children who were in need of support, and I often received parents who would confide in me that they needed services around developmental screenings and mostly needed help in being referred to other places that they could receive these supports. They mostly asked if they could have help with getting their kids screened for autism or learning disabilities.

Recently, the Center for Disease Control states that one in six children ages three to 17 have one or more developmental or behavioral disability, such as autism or learning disorders, or attention deficit or hyperactive disorders. Many children with developmental disabilities are not identified until way later in life, and by then they receive significant delays and missed opportunities for treatment that may have occurred. As Senator Menjivar stated, researchers show that black and African American families have the lowest screening and response rate due to affordability and insurance issues.

SB 635 will make a pathway for developmental screenings to happen in safe, familiar environments for both parents and children, with the focus being that the screenings are parent led and the process is family focused. As you all know, the first five years of a child's life are the most important, and it's so hard not to miss them. You don't want to miss them. So that's why we really need any help that we can get in terms of screening for them in the first five years of their life. Thank you.

Hi, Madam Chair, my name is Justina Erpelding, and I'm the advocacy organizer at EveryChild California. We are an Association that advocates for ECE professionals of subsidized care programs and the families that they care for every child California is a proud sponsor of SB 635, and we thank you, Senator Minjabar, for authoring it.

We support this Bill because it aims to provide developmental and trauma screening for children ages zero through five who are currently in subsidized childcare. The screening would cover areas such as communication, motor skills, and social emotional skills, and it promotes a parent led system with collaboration between ECE professionals, parents, and medical professionals to understand the child's need and to provide support at home and in childcare. After the screening, the families will be referred to further assessment and intervention at no cost to the parents.

This Bill directs relevant departments to establish processes to ensure identified children receive intervention services in a timely manner and in their home language. The Department of Developmental Services currently oversees services for over 400,000 individuals with developmental disabilities in their families. Screening programs for children at risk of developmental disabilities already exist for zero through three. Expanding these services to children, zero through five, through existing providers, is necessary to provide a clear pathway for families to access services in their home language, accessible locations, and convenient hours.

A little bit of my story. I have three children, ages 13 through 23, and have experienced the school system in Iowa and in California. Two of my children were diagnosed with add relatively late as teenagers. By this point, their anxiety levels were difficult to manage. They were struggling in school and with relationships. Early intervention could have minimized or prevented their struggles.

So, on behalf of our membership, we respectfully ask that you support SB 635 so families have earlier access and can avoid the struggles that come with undiagnosed developmental issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other Members of the public wishing to share their support? Okay, seeing none, we'll move now to witnesses in opposition. Any Members of the public wishing to share opposition? All right, so we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference services moderator. Please prompt individuals. We are hearing item 13, Senate Bill 635.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to testify and support opposition of SB 635, you may press 1, 0 at this time. We'll go to line 313, please go ahead.

Mary Creasy, on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 265. Please go ahead.

Rebecca Gonzalez, National Association of Social Workers California Chapter in support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 268. Please go ahead.

This is Raquel Yafi with the California Alternative Payment Program Association in support. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 289. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Angelina Gutierrez on behalf of LA County Office of Education in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 277. Please go ahead.

Thank you. This is Nina Spiegelman, Disability Voices United in strong support. Thank you.

At this time, there's no one left in queue. I'll turn it back over to you, Madam Chair.

Great. Thank you so much. Right, I'll now bring it back to discussion, Members. All right, Senator, I do want to have kind of a heart to heart discussion with you about this one. I know the intent of where this Bill is coming from, and I expressed some of my concerns to Committee, and I'm hoping that you and I can talk about this a little bit. So when it comes to family daycare homes, there's two different models.

There's the licensed facilities or licensed homes, and then there's kind of like the friend family neighbor. And in many Low income families, immigrant communities, migrant communities, that friend or family neighbor model tends to dominate. And that does not require home licensing. It's a home based setting, and it has lower ratios. Right. So when I look at this Bill, I wonder, are we doing a disjustice to those friends and family home settings by imposing this mandate on them?

And the reason I bring this up is because of differences in literacy in language, in understanding, a tool as sophisticated as the ASQ. So can you say a little bit about that?

Absolutely. So they're excluded from this Bill. The provision of this only is going towards contractor and licensed childcare programs in California preschool. So no family, friend or neighborhood care is going to fall under this Bill.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Happy to hear we can make sure we're very specific. But yes, that is the intent of the Bill.

Excellent. Because I think that as we're looking to expand childcare seats in California. We want to 100% agree. Right. So you get me there. So the other thing I just wanted to ask you about, the ASQ tool is new to me, but when I was looking my research on it, in terms of how it works on their website, it says it's very simple, accurate, easy to use. It kind of walks you through it. There is a fee associated with it. Right.

To order the tool, but it does say when someone who uses it, it says dedicated professionals who work with young children, educators, pediatricians, specialists and more. So why wouldn't a family be able to just get this through their community clinic, their family Doctor, their pediatrician? Why mandate it in a care setting?

So the ASQ, we have amended, I have amended my Bill to remove the ASQ as the only questionnaire. This is going to be any questionnaire that entities are familiar with. Previous legislation has opened developmental screenings for medical beneficiaries. So if a child goes to their Doctor, they're eligible. But what's happening is not actually being implemented. So even though medical recipients between the ages of three are allowed by law, they fall under to be covered. It's not happening.

It's not a checklist for a provider to do the screening. So we are looking to expand and close that gap through this Bill to not just make it as a Medicare recipient when you go see your Doctor, because you don't always go, but what you do do is go to your daycare center almost every single day because you need to go to work, and we're looking to close that gap in those facilities.

Okay. All right. So in terms of interpreting results, and I wasn't able to do the ASQ because I don't have an account in terms of interpreting the results, typically when we look at developmental disabilities or we look to diagnose a child, that is done in a clinical setting. Right. So what are some of these assessment or early screening tools? How do they help bridge that gap between a childcare provider and a clinical provider?

Right. So these individuals are not going to diagnose. The screening is done by the parent. So it's not the child, and the parent is going to know things. There are certain symptoms that you can start seeing if they're not falling within the regular ages of developmental. You can say, hey, let's stop right now in the tracks and get this child to the proper entities to get properly diagnosed.

So in the moment, if they see the developmental score is not up to par to the age of the child, then we're going to redirect them to see if there's something that we need help there. So that person is not going to provide a diagnosis right then and there. It's just going to say, hey, we see some developmental delays. We're going to reroute the child again. Yes, you're right. There are specifically trained individuals who can diagnose someone.

And these aren't going to be the individuals either are the individuals who are going to be trained, which is why I took out the ASQ screening tool, because not everyone is trained in this. And there are entities that have been trained in another validated screening that their employees can go in and do. So once that happens and you reroute to the services, it's those services that are trained who can give that diagnosis to better support the family. Our only intent here is to stop it in the tracks and get the resources, the correct resources right then and there.

All right. Thank you for that clarification. Right. Would you like to close, Senator?

Madam Chair, I really appreciate, I think this is the only discussion we were able to have today, so this is really great. I respectfully ask for your aye vote when appropriate, to move.

Okay. Thank you so much. All right. I see another author in the audience. Welcome, Senator Wiener. As you can see, we're running a lean Committee today. All right. We're going to move to item number two, Senate Bill 85. Senator Wiener, when you're ready.

Thank you, and as a former Chair of this Committee, I do remember. So thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, I'm here today to present Senate Bill 85, which will extend case management service for refugees and asylums who are settled in California. Some of our most vulnerable residents who are not currently receiving enough support. Currently, case management in California is funded by the Federal Government for 90 days under the US Refugee Admittance program.

In these 90 days, an assessment is made of the needs of an individual and goals are set to best assist that individual or family with integration and settlement into their new homes. Case management is incredibly important. These are folks who have come from another country. They may not speak the language. They may not have any family connections here. It's hard to even imagine putting it as fleeing your country, being in another country, and having to start all over again.

And they receive a grand total of 90 days of case management to help them integrate. That is not enough. And case management can be the difference between integrating and succeeding or not succeeding. There are other states that go well beyond California. For example, Utah and Oregon extend case management to up to two years. Other states also go beyond California, but we don't. We just stick with the federally funded 90 days. And frankly, that's not adequate. And so this Bill will extend that to 180 days.

So California would add an additional 90 days of case management beyond the federal 90 days. And there will be an option to extend up to 360 days if, case by case, an additional period of time is warranted. California is a state that really embraces our immigrant communities, and we embrace and welcome refugees who are coming here like my great grandparents did more than 100 years ago, to flee oppression, to flee chaos, and to make lives for themselves. And we should be supporting them.

That's what this Bill will do. I understand, of course, we are in a budget deficit, and there are fiscal implications. We have a parallel budget request, and we know that this will be a process and we're committed to working through it. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today to testify are Jessie Tientcheu, the CEO of Opening Doors, Inc. a resettlement agency here in Sacramento, and Hashmatullah Habibi, an Afghani refugee and former client of Jessie's who resettled in California in 2021.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. So we'll have the lead witnesses in support approach the microphone, and you have a total of two minutes each. Thank you so much. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here with you this evening. My name is Jessie Tientcheu, I'm the CEO of Opening Doors. We're a Sacramento-based nonprofit that supports immigrants, refugees, and survivors of trafficking on their path to stability, self-sufficiency, and belonging.

As the Senator said, the Federal Government provides funding to organizations like ours to provide 90 days of case management services to newly arrived refugees. So during that time period, we are helping folks get access to benefits, enroll their kids in school, secure permanent housing, get on the pathway to ESL classes or employment services to integrate into their new communities. But there are challenges along the way.

While refugees are immediately authorized to work, there can often be delays in receiving the Social Security cards and other documentation, which can result in delays in securing employment. There's enrollment in medical or employer sponsored insurance happens in that 1st 90 days, but actually accessing care through a primary care provider or a specialist can often take longer. And as we all know, one of our biggest challenges in California is housing, and that impacts refugees as well.

It can be very difficult to secure adequate permanent housing for refugees. By extending case management, we, organizations like ours, will be able to fully support refugees as they establish lives in their new communities. We've seen evidence from other states that extended case management can support the successful integration of refugees. For example, as the Senator mentioned in Utah, there was documented results in improved outcomes in well being and integration, as well as improvements in employment.

We have a long history in our State of being a place of refuge for those seeking safety and a chance at a better life. We consistently welcome some of the largest numbers of refugees resettling in the US, including in recent years, significant numbers of families fleeing Afghanistan and Ukraine. And we see that overall, refugees better our community, they better our economy. They have higher entrepreneurship and homeownership rates than other immigrant groups.

California's refugees have a purchasing power of over $17 billion annually and in their 1st 20 years in the United States, refugees pay over $21,000 more in taxes than they use in public benefits. When refugees thrive, we all thrive. Through SB 85, we can continue to lead with our values of welcome while creating a pathway for some of our newest neighbors to settle in their new communities. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Hashmatullah. I'm a recent immigrant from Afghanistan. I want to tell my journey shortly. I was a Savakis holder and my journey to United States has been filled with difficulties. My flight booked on August 2021 but unfortunately, my government filled because of gas and insured at the airport. I lost all my fans and package at the airport and I vacated to Sacramento with nothing. I have no penny, no money, no clothes, not everything. So I stayed at hotels around 2 miles.

Welcome.

That was really trouble. My family, my wife, my children became sick, they was in a depression and it was really bad for my family because we just from about stabilization to the safely. But it was a trouble for us to be in a hotel around two months. Additionally, my agency closed my case process after three months. It was really short time and delivering me like applied man in a feminine community with dermis problem and issued.

Overall my experience as an immigrant has been full of challenges like applying for Social Security number, legal document, school enrollment, learning English, getting medical job fair, obtaining driver license, learning community rules and connecting with the public services and some of government processes. It was really bad. After rent a home I was not able to work because I don't receive any Social Security ID and I was not able to receive a travel license. So I was left in behind.

So I have to borrow some money from my friends and family to pay for my rent. It was a lot till now. I pay for my money that I received from my friends. Honestly, I respectfully asking for vote to this Bill to help like refugees as me and other Ukrainian and Afghanian to stand on their foods. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Any other Members of the audience wishing to express their support, looking for your name, affiliation, and your position only, please.

Hello. Cynthia Gomez, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Sri Lanka, proud co-sponsor and strong support. Thank you.

Hi, Christopher Sanchez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support.

Thank you. All right, we'll move on to -.

Nasiru Larithin, represent, Opening Doors in support of the SB 85.

Thank you so much. Now we'll move on to lead witnesses in opposition, seeing none. Any other members of the public wishing to express opposition, please approach the mic. All right, we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service moderator. Please prompt. Individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of Senate Bill 85. We are ready to begin.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you like to testify in support opposition of SB 85, you may press 1 and 0 at this time. We'll go to line 265. Please go ahead.

Good evening. Rebecca Gonzalez of the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter and support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 332. Please go ahead and support. Thank you. Thank you. Next. I'll go to line 334. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Jonathan St. Bruana, and I'm with International Rescue Committee, Calling. In support of SB 85.

Thank you. Next, I'll go to line 333. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Joe Goldman from Highest, roud co-sponsor in support.

Thank you. And this time, there's no others in queue. Back to you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much. We'll bring the discussion back to our. Want to. Okay, Senator, I want to thank you. One of the things that really stood out for me was your list of support, and you did everything from urban centers to rural centers, Central Valley, up and down California. So, as a Senator from San Francisco Bay Area, you didn't have to do that, and you did it to help represent the voice of all Californians. So thank you for that. I have a motion from Senator Hurtado. Hey, assistant, please call the roll.

File item two, SB 85. The motion is do pass re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, so the vote is 4-0, and that goes on call. Thank you, colleague.

All right. Thank you so much. All right, so we have. Hello? Okay, so do I have a motion on Senate Bill 635. Thank you. Please call the roll.

File item 13, SB 635. The motion is do pass and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you. Okay, the vote is 4-0, and that bill's out. Oh, where is Wahab? I thought she was just here. Did she get out of here again? Senator Wahob calling. Senator Wahob to room 2200, please. Okay, all right, we'll put that on call. All right, so we're not going to do Consent Calendar. Hey, there she is. Come on back. Yeah. You don't even know what I have. Okay, we need you back so we can close up. All right, we're going to go back to the consent calendar, please. Assistant, can you call the absent Members?

[Roll Call]

Okay, 5-0. Consent calendar is out, and we'll move now to the items on call. Do we need a motion? Okay. All right, we'll call the roll.

All right, starting with file item number one, SB 37. The motion is due. Pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

Thank you. 5-0 that vote is out.

File item two, SB 85. The motion is due. Pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations with the Chair voting aye, Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] 5-0.

Hey, the vote is 5-0. That Bill is out.

File item three, SB 307. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] 5-0.

Vote is 5-0. That Bill is out.

Moving on to file item number five, SB 33 the motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations with the Chair voting aye. [Roll CAll]

Vote is 5-0. That vote is out.

File item six, SB 343, the motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] 5-0.

Five to zero. That Bill is out.

Moving on to file item eight, SB 491. The motion is do pass and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] 5-0.

Vote is 5-0. That Bill is out.

All right, moving on to file item nine, SB 618. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations [Roll Call]

Vote is 4-0. That vote is out or that Bill is out.

File item 10, SB 805 the motion is do pass, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll CAll]

5-0, that Bill is out.

Moving on to file item 12, SB 499 the motion is d opass as amended, and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out.

File item 13, SB 635 the motion is due. Pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations with the Chair voting aye, Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] 5-0.

5-0 that Bill is out, and that's a wrap. Hey, look at that before 06:00. Thank you so much to the Committee staff for today's hearing. For all of you who came to testify today in support and opposition of our bills, we will now close today's hearing of the Senate Human Services Committee. Have a great evening. All right. oh, we did.