Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

The Senate Human Services Committee will come to order. Good afternoon. The Senate continues to welcome public and in person and via the teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today's participant number is 877-226-8163.

The access this code is 694-8930 and I will repeat that throughout today's hearing. We are holding our committee hearing in the O Street building. I will ask all Members of the Committee to be present in room 2200 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing.

So we have 16 bills on today's agenda, and three of those are on consent. Noticing an absence of a quorum, we will begin as a Subcommittee. I do see our first author here today, so we will hear and welcome Senator Skinner, who will present on Senate Bill 348 item number one. Senator Skinner, are you ready? Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members pleased to present SB 348. I think, as most of you are aware, California now provides two free school meals a day to all our public school students, which is a great thing.

And we've also been funding changes to our school infrastructure so that they're restoring kitchens and making those meals from scratch, in many cases making direct relationships with farmers. So the meals in general are much healthier than they've been in the past. And federal guidelines have also improved their nutrition.

The one thing that, the one aspect, what we have not done in terms of our nutrition guidelines is sugar and salt. And so what this bill does is, and the Federal Government has now recommended new levels based on physicians' recommendations, new levels of what would be recommended for added salt and sugar content.

So the bill would put those into place. But why the bill is before you today is the other thing that the bill does, is it expands the new federal summer childhood nutrition programs to reduce summer hunger.

And that's another program that we would be in sync with the Federal Government. And there's some other portions that are in the bill. But what I'll do right now is move to our witnesses and support Itzul Gutierrez from the California Association of Food Banks and Andrew Shane from End Child Poverty, California.

Well, please approach the microphone. There you go. That's okay. All right. Please proceed when you're ready.

Yeah. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Itzul Gutierrez, and I'm with the California Association of Food Banks, where we have a network of 41 food banks leading the collective effort to end hunger across the state.

No child in our great state should go hungry, period. Current data shows that nearly 25.8% of households with children in California are food insecure, with deep disparities for Latinx and black households. California became the first state to implement statewide universal meals program.

As Senator Skinner was saying, so when they're in school, they're able to get those meals. However, the summer is a time when there's a loss for these nutritious school meals, and it's one of the hungriest times of the year.

At CFB, we posted a report on the impact of pandemic EBT. PEBT, as it's also known, which provided federally funded critical food benefits to children to replace school meals due to Covid, including during the summer months.

The report, compiled by Emerson Hunger fellow Rocio Perez, was based on interviews and survey responses from PEBT recipients. Over half of the respondents said that PEBT reduced their worries about paying other household expenses like rent and helped stretch their family's food budget by combining their benefits with school meals and groceries as well from food banks.

Findings showed that PEBT helps keep children nourished and healthy while also providing families with the autonomy to purchase food in convenient and culturally appropriate ways.

One PEBT recipient shared that PEBT helped us get more food on the table. I was able to cook more meals and feed my children. Another shared that PEBT helped my family a lot because we were in a position where we had to decide whether to pay for bills or buy food.

In California, PEBT has benefited over 3.8 million kids and to date, 10 billion in benefits have been dispersed. The program in its final year due to the final year due to the ending of the public health emergency. We know that during summer, when schools are out, access to food is even more critical.

During the summer months, only 47.3% of California children who receive through a reduced priced meal, school breakfast and lunch continue to receive meals through summer nutrition programs.

County level data shows that gaps in access are even greater in rural and urban communities facing transportation, safety, excess heat and other barriers to summer food programs.

Thankfully, Congress took action, and we have the summer EBT program. And California should maximize and further build upon to lead a national model by boosting benefits adequately to fight hunger over summer. Thank you and happy to answer any questions.

Hi Madam Chair and members, Andrew Shane from GRACE End Child Poverty, California. At GRACE, we dare to dream of a future in which every child is valued and free, but unfortunately today that is too often not the case. As Itzul noted, summer is the hungriest time for children with unjust disparities.

For children from low income communities of color, immigrant communities, and others who face disenfranchisement.

This reinforces the vast benefits of our school based breakfast and lunch programs and what our children miss when those meals are not available. Preventing child hunger year round has always been the vision of the healthy school meals for all coalition, and I thank Senator Skinner for her continued leadership on this priority.

The good news is that we know how to stop child summer hunger.

In addition to robust summer food programs at parks, libraries, and other partners, the research on summer EBT providing grocery funds to families with low incomes is incredibly powerful. The USDA's evaluation shows that summer EBT reduces very low food insecurity.

We're talking about the worst form of hunger, meaning children are actively missing meals starving by nearly a third, while it reduces food insecurity, a relatively less severe form of hunger by a fifth.

This is a rare policy intervention that has the greatest effect upon the children with the most need and able to reverse instead of worsen inequities. This powerful tool has long been a California priority.

The San Diego Hunger Coalition put summer EBT on the map way back in 2014 and has been championed by California Members of Congress ever since. While the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations act finally established by Congress a permanent summer EBT program, there is important work to do.

SB 348 will ensure that California draws on all available federal funds to maximize food benefits to children, as well as critical resources to CDSS and CDE to administer the program. Improve the adequacy of summer EBT benefits as Congress unfortunately established the program with benefits less than what the USDA evaluated.

Assess how to further streamline access to ensure eligible children do not go hungry because of application or other program barriers and more. It is a moral impair to prevent child hunger.

The good news is this legislation will also reverberate across our vital food economy. Every $1 in food benefits creates as much as a $1.80 for our farmers, farm workers, truck drivers, and retail.

California must continue to lead, and SB 348 positions California to do just that, establish the nationleading program that our children deserve, and shine a light for how to stop child hunger year round for good. I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to express support for this bill, please approach the microphone. I will ask you to state your name, affiliation and position only. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair and members. Rachel Mueller with Weideman Group on behalf of NextGen California in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kevin Aslanian, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jamie Morgan, proud co-sponsor of the bill, on behalf of the American Heart Association.

Thank you.

Hi there. Josefina Ramirez Notsinneh with Children Now in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Duncan McFetridge. On behalf of No Kid Hungry, in strong support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members. Andrew Antoine, on behalf of the Office of Kat Taylor and Tomkat Ranch, in support.

Thank you.

Alexis Rodriguez with the California Medical Association, in support.

Thank you.

Melissa Sagun. On behalf of the Pesticide Action Network and Californians for Pesticide Reform in support.

Thank you.

Ryan Souza. On behalf of Nourish California, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Devin Anderson. On behalf of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and California Dental Association, in support.

Thank you.

Frank Tamborello, Hunger Action Los Angeles, in strong support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair. We actually have an in between position, if now is the appropriate time.

Any other Members in support? Okay, please.

As a tweener, this is Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California wishing to express gratitude and appreciation to the senator staff for engaging with the dairy community on ensuring that dairy fluid, milk flavored, unflavored, can continue to be served given its nutritional content and high calcium and protein.

So we look forward to continuing those conversations, hopefully to get to support. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move on to any lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none, any members from the public wishing to express opposition for this bill, please approach the microphone. All right, so before we move to the phone lines, I would like to establish a quorum. Assistant Smith, will you please call the role.

[Roll Call]

Wonderful. So we now have a quorum. So we will now move on to the 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 on this item. 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 and this will be strictly enforced. Moderator, how many people do we have in queue?

We have approximately. We have actually. One moment, please. We have 15 in queue at this time.

Okay. I'm going to ask that the individuals be very brief. Name, affiliation and position only. Okay.

And to provide comments in support or opposition for SB 348, please press one, then zero at this time. We will go to line 103, please go ahead, 103.

Thank you MJDS. On behalf of Kaiser Permanente in support.

We go to line 44, please go ahead.

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

And line 38, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Mary Creasy on behalf of The Children's Partnership and support.

Okay and line 131.

Eliana Binder represents Aliana Binder representing GLIDE in San Francisco in strong support. Thank you.

Line 98, please go ahead.

My name is Stephen Eckor. I represent Hunger Action LA, and I will be brief. I am completely in support of this bill, and I want to say that I view what all of us are doing here as being in the process of a social.

I'm sorry, I'm going to need to cut you off. Name and affiliation, please only. And your position.

Said support.

All right, thank you.

Line 42, please go ahead.

Afternoon. This is Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter, in strong support of this bill.

Thank you.

Line 132. 132, your line is open. Okay, we go to the next line. Line 123.

Hi, this is Benjamin Chow with the California Immigrant Policy Center. We are in support.

Thank you.

Line 102.

Hi, this is Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network, in strong support.

Line 137.

Hi, Chair and members, this is Meg Davidson with San Francisco Marin Food bank in support of 348. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Line 134.

Good afternoon. Aether Palatine two on behalf of Alameda County Community Food Bank, in strong support of SB 348.

Thank you.

Line 114.

Jennifer Greppi. On behalf of Parent Voices of California, in strong support of SB 348.

Line 135.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. This is Kevin Buffalino with Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services calling in support of SB 348. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 128.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. This is Heidi Mchugh of Food for People, the food bank for Humboldt County, calling in strong support of SB 348.

Line 129.

Chair and Committee Members. Blake Johnson, on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurman, who is a proud co sponsor of SB 348, calling in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 133. Line 133, you're open now.

Hi, Mauricio Medina, calling on behalf of the San Diego Hunger Coalition, calling in support of SB 348. Thank you.

Thank you.

End line 140.

Hi, this is Isabella Mullen calling from the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank in support of SB 348. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. No further comments in queue at this time.

Excellent. Thank you so much, Moderator. We'll bring the discussion back to our members. Do any of our members have questions or comments?

Just a comment. I'm grateful for the continued work on this space, Senator Skinner. I know, I believe it was two years ago, or was it last year that you carried the first part of the bill with regards to having universal.

And I had great conversations with the stakeholders and learned quite a bit with regards to the fact that we were leaving money at the table in the Federal Government.

And the work that you did on that bill allowed us to make sure that California received its share of the funding and not left it behind. And this is just a continued work on it. So thank you very much for the work.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Skinner, again, I also want to echo my colleague sentiment here. I'm grateful that you put this forward. And I know upon appropriation, the $80 a month additional for the youth children in the summer programs is going to be very helpful.

We'll be able to speak a little bit more later on, but this hunger cliff is real right now, given the allotments that ended. So I'm grateful for your work and I'd like to move the bill forward upon when it's appropriate.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Skinner, I want to say that this is one of the pieces of legislation that makes me so excited and so honored to be in this role, addressing some of the most low hanging fruit, if you will, of serving our kids. And we saw in the pandemic just how important universal meals are, and especially that summer bridge.

And I want to thank you also for honoring the agricultural community of California, our dairy industry, and our growers and producers through this legislation and look forward to seeing the outcome.

I also acknowledge that the issues around obesity, childhood diabetes, and even oral health care are addressed in your bill through the foundation of healthy foods. And so I'm just really excited that children in school will have that opportunity to have that relationship with wholesome foods. So thank you so much for bringing this forward.

I would support the Bill as well. Thank you. Okay, so, Senator, would you like to close now?

They're now getting over half their calories at school. And of course, in the summertime, if they're not in school, then they aren't. And which is why the portion about the summer bridge is so important.

Thanks so much with the good work that we've done. And it really was all of us, because we adopted that budget that allowed us to have the universal school meals for many of our children.

So I think both making sure that if we are feeding our kids half their calories and we want to make sure to feed them in the summer, too, we want that food to be healthy. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. I think the bill has been moved by Senator Menjivar. Senate Bill 348. Assistant Smith, will you please call the roll.

File item number one. The motion is do pass, and we refer to the committee on appropriations. Aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so we have three ayes, and we will leave that on call. Thank you, Senator.

All right. Do I see Senator Limone? No. I see Senator Wiener. Okay, Senator Wiener, are you ready to present? Okay, so we will move forward with item number three. Senate Bill 417. Begin when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 407 to strengthen protections for some of our most vulnerable youth by ensuring that they aren't placed in hostile homes. SB 407 will strengthen the resource family approval process by requiring explicit consideration of LGBTQ youth in home and environmental assessments by creating standard documentation by the Department of Social Services for these assessments to include the needs of LGBTQ youth.

By reviewing county approved resource families to evaluate if they are meeting the needs of LGBTQ youth, and ensuring that resource families have the necessary skills, knowledge, and abilities to be parents to LGBTQ youth. And clarifying existing law that conduct that poses risk to the health and safety of LGBTQ youth is a valid reason for denial of a resource family. According to the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, there are about 53,000 foster youth in California. LGBTQ foster youth are about 30%.

So approximately one in three foster kids in California identifies as LGBTQ. So this is not a tiny percentage. If you are going to be a foster parent, there is a non tiny chance, there's a reasonable chance that you will have an LGBTQ kid. And we want to make sure that we aren't placing these kids in the homes where there's hostility towards them. That's not in the interests of the kids. It's not in the interests of the foster parents.

We know that kids who have parental support are dramatically more likely to succeed and dramatically less likely to attempt suicide. California has made great strides around the needs of all foster youth. A lot of work to do, including the needs of LGBTQ foster youth. But there's more work ahead, and we need to make sure that we are creating the healthiest settings possible for these kids. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And with me today to testify is Jill Jacobs, the Executive Director of Family Builders, as well as Craig Pulsipher, the Legislative Director for Equality California, one of our sponsors. And we also, for technical assistance if questions arise, have Tyler Rinde, with the Alliance for Child and Family Services, also a sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you. We'll hear from you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Committee Members. I am Jill Jacobs, the CEO of Family Builders, a foster care, adoption, permanency and LGBT advocacy organization. I also serve as a board member of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, 160 statewide nonprofit, community based organizations that provide services to children, youth and families in foster care. We're also one of the co sponsors of this Bill. As Senator Wiener said, LGBTQ+ youth are disproportionately represented in the foster care system.

LGBTQ youth also suffer abuse in the foster care system at twice the rate of non LGBT young people. Abuse in foster care comes from caregivers, paid staff, and peers. LGBT youth often end up in foster care because they came out, were found out, or were kicked out of their family. A really important number to know is that 45% of LGBT young people seriously considered suicide in the last year. More than half of transgender and nonbinary youth considered suicide.

California has enacted legislation to prevent discrimination, including the Foster Care Bill of Rights. However, this protection is not really translated when approving resource families by foster family agencies and counties. SB 407 will strengthen and clarify the existing resource family approval process to prevent discrimination that's still occurring. To become a resource parent, there's a set of criteria that one must meet. This includes the ability to demonstrate an understanding of the unique needs of LGBTQ youth and the capacity and willingness to meet those needs.

If the prospective caregiver cannot meet those needs, they should not be approved. We don't know which youth are going to be gay or nonbinary, or which children will come out. Therefore, we must ensure that all caregivers are able to meet the needs of all children. Which SB 407 will do.

An example of the harm that happens is a young man that we worked with when he was in his early 20s had been placed in foster care in a foster home when he was four years old, and he didn't remember his life prior to that. So the only parents he ever knew were his foster parents, called them mom and dad. It was the only family he'd ever known, and when he turned 14, he came out to them as gay.

The day after he came out, he was removed from their home, and he spent the rest of his years until his 20s, and probably significantly after that, bouncing around from different institutions and different homes. Youth who perceive parental support regarding their gender identity are 93% less likely to attempt suicide. We believe this Bill will actually save lives. Thank you for your time. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Move on to our next witness, please.

Good afternoon. Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, proud co sponsor of SB 407. Chair and Members, I'm sure we can all agree that no child should ever be placed in a home where they might reasonably be expected to experience discrimination or violence, but that's exactly what's happening. And it's happening to some of the most vulnerable youth in the foster care system. We know that LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in foster care, and they are more likely to experience discrimination and violence than their peers.

We also know that sexual orientation and gender identity evolve over time, and families caring for any foster youth in this state should be prepared for that reality. Over the past decade, Equality California has sponsored numerous bills to make sure that resource families have the training and support they need to support LGBTQ youth, and all resource families are currently required to receive training on sexual orientation and gender identity.

But quite frankly, it's not enough, and LGBTQ foster youth are being retraumatized every time they are placed in a home that is not accepting or affirming of their identity. California can and must do more to strengthen the resource family approval process on the front end to better prevent discrimination of these vulnerable youth.

SB 407 will strengthen the resource family approval process and make sure that all resource families in the state have an understanding of the unique needs of these youth and that they are willing to seek out any and all available resources to help meet those needs. It will also require explicit consideration of LGBTQ youth and home and environmental assessments, and require the state to ensure that county approved families are upholding the rights of not only LGBTQ youth, but all foster youth, regardless of their background.

The Bill is in no way intended to decrease the already limited supply of potential resource families, but it is the policy of this state that LGBTQ youth have the right to have caregivers who will understand and respect them, and California must do everything it can to follow through on that promise and ensure that our resource family approval process is as strong as possible. I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Any members of the public wishing to express support for this Bill, please approach the microphone. State your name, affiliation and position only. Seeing none, we'll now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Any members of the public wishing to express opposition for this Bill, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon. My name is Kathleen Domingo, and I'm the Executive Director of the California Catholic Conference. I represent the 12 catholic dioceses of California, including 12 million Catholics in parishes and ministries throughout the state. I would like to commend Senator Wiener for his Bill seeking to safeguard the health and well being of all children in the child welfare system, as well as eliminate discrimination and harassment for children. At the same time, I respectfully oppose SB 407 as currently written.

About 10 years ago, when I was working for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, I began working on the issue of foster care. I was invited by leaders of other local Christian churches to find out what they were doing to recruit and maintain foster or resource families in their churches.

I was amazed at the level of commitment from many of these small faith communities to provide loving homes to the children in the child welfare system in LA County, which cares for more children than any other place in the country. One of the first meetings I attended with the LA County Department of Children and Family Services was at a big downtown, concrete LA office building.

I got off the elevator expecting to find an office full of cubicles and desks, and instead what I saw broke my heart. It was an office room full of cribs, wall to wall. The workstations had been pushed aside and the space was made to house infants in this sterile office building. Staff members not accustomed to caring for infants all day were being asked to take on that role because there was no one else.

It was explained to me that LA County was in a crisis and every attempt was being made to find foster families, but these tiny infants were relegated to an office building because none could be found. That experience has never left me, and at that time, I made a commitment that I would personally begin a process of recruiting foster families from within our Catholic parishes and schools throughout California and the nation.

Since then, I've helped Catholic communities become further engaged in the process of identifying and supporting loving families to care for youth in need of homes and love and families. I'm here today because I have many questions about SB 407. I commend the author and the sponsors for wishing to create pathways to provide children with loving and safe homes. No one supports families that harass or discriminate against any youth placed in their homes.

At the same time, it is appropriate that loving families may question the appropriateness of certain services. This may come from their faith perspective. It may be a conscience decision based on their understanding of the child and their particular needs. Or it could simply be questioning the medical soundness of certain gender affirming care.

I question the assertion that every family must demonstrate the capacity and willingness to meet the needs of LGBTQ+ and gender expansive youth, including the right to have access to all available services in order to meet the requirement for a loving resource family in California. I am here as a person of faith, representing people of faith who are or wish to be resource families for youth in California,. For me and for others, religious faith is not a purely emotional or intellectual exercise.

It's a lived experience of bringing my faith into every aspect of my life. Foundational for us is the call to love God and to love our neighbor, which in this case means loving and recognizing the needs of foster youth. It is this religious impulse that both motivates people of faith to engage in child welfare work and informs the way in which we carry it out.

Rather than reducing the number of resource families in California, I propose that we ought to be increasing the number so that the likelihood of a child finding the best family for them is far greater. I believe that we can work together to come to a solution in which people of faith with deeply held beliefs about the nature of the human person and sexual integrity can be and can remain excellent resource families to children in California.

Why can't there be many kinds of loving families, loving children and providing safe, protective homes, making the requirement- So I welcome an opportunity to work with the bill's author and sponsors to find a solution that allows for more, not fewer, excellent families to help these youth in California. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other Members of the public wishing to express opposition, please state your name, affiliation and position only.

I'll try to speak loudly. I have neuropathy. My name is Verne Teyler. I represent Hosanna Pathways. My wife and I, starting in 1975, and for roughly 37 years, have parented over 800 foster children personally. So we've experienced a lot of children, a lot of situations, a lot of circumstances. While we were foster parenting for Alameda County, we were rather disappointed to see that the very community, that the ethos of the community, the faith based community, were not coming forward and providing foster care for children.

So we thought, okay, we'll start a foster family agency that is faith based, and we'll go out to the churches, synagogues and so on and recruit families that have a faith based ethic. We did very well. We served 10 Bay Area counties, San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose. So I have personally trained hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of foster families.

And even today, our primary focus is training parents to either keep their children out of the system or if they have their children in the system, giving them the parenting skills to get them out. So we're very oriented towards the faith community and the children that go through the trauma.

One of the things that we have run into, though, and we did not renew our license in 2015 because some of the state regulations, we were just finding that the opposition, the time, the dollars, it was time that spent to having to try to defend and support our families was rather overwhelming. And I've got to sadly say Hosanna became licensed in 1985. And one of our purposes, of course, was to extend, to get good, recruit good, and train good foster families, resource families.

But the opposition, the resistance that we had, we were just spending such a disproportionate amount of time having to defend families because of their values.

Can I have you wrap up now?

I'm sorry?

Can you please wrap up your testimony?

I'm sorry, I still can't hear you.

Will you please finish up your testimony?

Okay. There's two things. Number one, I want to be specific in terms of supporting the issue in terms of its education. Everybody needs to be educated. And I think the counties are doing an excellent job with regard to that and this issue. But where I'm in opposition is why foster parents and why Judy and I have basically withdrawn is we're tired of fighting the system.

When government comes into my home and dictates to me how I'm going to raise my family and the environment and the values that I have to establish, it's no wonder we are as a nation, as a state, as a community, where we are today.

Thank you for coming to talk to us today.

The only reason I'm in opposition. Judy and I have the compassion for these kids.

We're going to open up the microphone. Anybody else? Members of the public wishing to express opposition, your name, affiliation and position only, please.

Yes. Craig Burr with the California Family Council in opposition.

Thank you. All right, we will now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service moderator, will you please prompt individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of Senate Bill 407. We're ready to begin.

Yes. To provide comments in support or opposition for SB 407, please press one, then zero at this time. And we'll go to line 38. Please go ahead, 38.

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

Thank you.

Line 132.

Chair and Members, thank you so much to the author for presenting this Bill. Michelle Teran-Woolfork with the California Commission on the Status Women and Girls in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 145.

Good afternoon. Tiffany Phan, on behalf of California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, or CASA, in support of SB 407. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 99.

Hello, my name is Courtney Thorpe. I'm a social worker in Stanislaus County, a Member of the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, in very strong support of this Bill.

Thank you.

Line 148.

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

Thank you.

Line 149.

Good afternoon. This is Joanne Spither with Children's Law Center of California in support.

Thank you.

Line 48.

Good afternoon. Esla Choice, social work student in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 83.

Good afternoon. Ed Quinones, social work student in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 142.

Hello. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Priscilla Amao, California State University, Monterey Bay, and Alianza for Youth Justice in support of SB 407. Thank you.

Thank you.

And Madam Chair, no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you so much, moderator. We'll now bring the discussion back to the Members. Any Members? Senator Ochoa.

Hello. Thank you, Senator Wiener, for bringing this measure forward. I think ultimately, we all want the proper homes, making sure that we match each child with the proper home. And I don't know the process. So I'm not sure if there's anybody here that knows how the children are matched with their families.

But are there categories where resource families can request toddlers or children of a certain age, teenagers or even LGBTQ youth, in order to match them best with families that can meet the needs of those particular groups of children?

My understanding is yes. The answer is yes. Of course, when you have a foster child who comes into a home, you may not know if that child is LGBTQ for that specific category because child may not have come out yet, especially if they're younger. But the answer is yes. But perhaps an expert can elucidate.

I think you just did, Senator. Yes. Foster parents can always make a decision about any individual child and can- emergency foster care, long term foster care, toddlers, teenagers, whatever they want. But as the Senator said, and we need to stress, we don't know. We don't know the 3 year old is going to come out. We don't know the 16 year old is going to come out.

And so that's why with 30% of the potential population being LGBT, we have to make sure that all families can be affirming.

Thank you. So the intent is, if I may, through the Chair, I just want to make sure that I finish my train of thought. We shouldn't have a system where we're going to disincentivize different cultural backgrounds in order to be able to meet the needs of each child, because children have different needs. But do you feel that we have the capacity within this Bill to make sure that we accommodate children to best?

I mean, in the category of applying to be a foster parent, you can specify toddler, children, LGBTQ families, right? Is that correct?

I just want to make sure that I understand that. Okay. And the training you have basic training for all resource families. That includes LGBTQ training, but it doesn't compel families to take, because you want to match the right child with the family that's going to be able to best meet- And I would want any child to be with a family that knows and has the ability to meet the needs of that particular child, whether it's age or identity.

So this Bill doesn't necessarily compel families to take a child that they don't have the capacity to meet that child's need. Per se, in this case, LGBTQ. There wouldn't be families who cannot meet those needs matched with that particular child.

That is true. Except to be clear, in an ideal world, we would know everything. If we had a perfect world, we would know everything about every child, everything about every family, and it would be like you'd have perfect matches. In the world we live in, that's not always the case, particularly here, because we don't always know, and for younger kids, may not know at all.

And so that's why we have the screening process for foster parents, where we have a whole variety of things that we screen for to make sure that we don't create dangerous, volatile, bad situation and that we don't exacerbate the problem we have right now, where foster kids are so much more likely to become homeless or in the criminal justice system than other kids.

And so the more we can do to try to screen and make sure that kids are going to be in safe homes, the better it's going to be. So with LGBTQ kids, two things. This is a large chunk of the foster youth population, right? It's not just like a few kids. So we're just trying to make sure that they're in the right homes, and it's really straightforward. It's a huge number of these kids. But the second thing is there are so many kids we don't know.

So they're being placed in a home when they're one or three or seven or ten or twelve or whatever, and we have no idea if they are LGBTQ. And at some point they come out, and that if that parent is hostile, that's a huge problem. And I want to be clear. In terms of the opposition, this isn't about people's opinions. People can have whatever opinion they want. This is about how you are going to raise a child and treat that child.

So if you have your own opinions about LGBTQ people, and that means that you can have those opinions, but if that means you're going to try to put your child in conversion therapy, and by the way, the California Catholic Conference has opposed every effort to get rid of conversion therapy in California, which is psychological torture. So we want to make sure that you are not putting kids in the homes where they are literally, potentially going to have violence committed against them or torture. That's all this is. It's a screen.

So let me expand a little bit just so I understand and I get the overall goal that you're trying to achieve, and I am completely in agreement with you on that front. But I also want to make sure that this Bill will not discriminate against families who don't have the capacity to meet the needs of LGBTQ kids from coming and becoming a resource. Or will it actually discriminate against them being apart? Because potentially they could be the type of parents-

We don't know. Maybe eventually their heart changes, and they decide that they want to have further understanding and training or whatever it may be. I don't know. I want to make sure that we know that this Bill does not discriminate against people who don't have the capacity to be able to meet those needs from entering the system.

What do you mean by the capacity?

Just the capacity of meeting the needs of LGBTQ kids in wherever those children are, because I get the point that you have. I'm just trying to make sure that I understand that we're not discriminating against people who don't have the ability to meet those needs.

So, to be clear, existing law already bans discrimination.

Sure.

And requires that they receive information and training. This Bill seeks to assure that that has actually sunk in. They already can't discriminate. We're simply strengthening that because the implementation is not working that well right now, and so that's why we are strengthening it. But the prohibition on discrimination already exists under California law.

And I get that. I guess I'm trying to see how that's going to work. I'm trying to understand how that's going to work with families who, because you can learn, you can be given the classes and know, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you're comfortable or have the ability to enact them. We can teach teachers how to be teachers, but some of them will be good teachers, and some of them will not be good teachers.

And we want the good teachers to be able to meet the needs of those particular kids that need that specific training. Same thing with the parents. We can teach all these parents and have them have their classes, but some will be better apt to enact those understandings, and some may not feel as comfortable or not be able to have the ability to do that.

So I just want to make sure that when we're matching the kids, one, we have them with parents who have mastered the ability to enact those lessons learned from the training, and those that don't feel comfortable or don't have the capacity to do that are matched with children who meet their ability to meet those kids. And I think we have room to have a variety of households with a variety of abilities to meet these children's needs.

And I want to make sure that we're moving towards that end and not disincentivizing people from entering the system and becoming foster parents. I'm trying to be as delicate as I can, if that makes sense.

I'm going to ask to make sure that your question was answered, because I want to make sure we can move forward to Senator Menjivar, but I don't want to take away from your thought here, but I want to make sure.

And I want to make sure. Do you understand where I'm coming from?

It's always case by case. Right. So if you have someone wants to be a foster parent who's like, okay, because of my background and my beliefs, I'm trying to learn, but I need to figure it out. But they're going to do everything they can to be good parents to these kids and not torture them and not push them to suicide.

Just to be blunt, that's one thing. If you have parents who are like, well, I believe in conversion therapy, and I think that any LGBTQ kid needs to go into conversion therapy to get on the.

We shouldn't have that match.

Right. But that's one of the extreme examples. But that is real. And so I think that's why there's a spectrum, and that's why we have a system that evaluates each family. If that helps.

So once again, the question is, will this Bill be allowed to accommodate those parents that have not mastered or don't have the capacity or even the ability to meet these children and can meet the children, other children's needs?

They will have to, in addition to having the training, have to affirmatively assure that they have the ability to raise an LGBTQ child. Because there is a one in three chance that the child being placed in their home is LGBTQ. We will need to be assured that they have that ability, because otherwise a kid could get placed in their home.

The kid comes out, and it just goes south, and that is so traumatic for that kid, in addition to being a bad situation for the parent.

Okay, so then follow up question. Do we have the ability to have private entities that can match families who have the capacity to meet children who are not LGBTQ? Do we allow that in our state?

You're talking about private.

The reason I'm asking is because such an organization, such as the gentleman that just mentioned, I want to make sure that we have families who are willing and wanting to foster children have the ability to do that. And I think it's unfair for our state to say, you have to think this way and you have to act and you have to support this.

And I get it if we're trying to do it as a state, but if we do that as a state, then we have to allow different agencies to be able to meet the needs of their ability or their capacity to be able to meet those needs. So do we have the flexibility in our state to meet everybody's need as far as resource families go?

And to be clear, it's not about what people think. It's what about people do and how they're going to raise these kids. And perhaps you're asking a broader question about the foster care system. Yeah, I would have preferred.

Sorry. I just want to make sure that we have- Because I want to support your Bill, because I want children that are LGBTQ to be met with families that want them and are willing to care for these children and their specific needs. But I also want to make sure that we have accommodations for families who haven't mastered that ability or it's not within their forte to have the ability to foster other children as well.

So first of all, the set of standards.

I'm going to stop you right there just to want to make sure that your question got answered. Because I want to make sure that we can move on because I kind of feel like we're going back and forth with the same question. So can we take a pause? I'm going to move it to Senator Menjivar and then I'll come back. Senator Menjivar?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's important to know that a kid may not have came out.

So if a 10 year old is placed and then a year later they come out as LGBTQ, what do you do then? Right. If we're looking to set aside, we're going to put the straight kids with the straight family, gender is on a spectrum. It could be straight right now, and then they'll figure out their true identity and come out.

I mean, in LA, we saw that LGBTQ+ foster youth were times two more at risk or reported times two that they received poor behavior or treatment by their foster parents compared to non LGBTQ+ youth. That's a staggering number.

And when you have one in three possibility of getting an LGBTQ+ kid in your home, that's when we have to reimagine how we approach and how we put foster youth into these homes. And to witnesses who are saying that we're further bottlenecking the amount of available foster homes. If you have 10 foster homes and seven of those are not friendly for LGBTQ+ individuals, you don't have ten foster homes. You have three foster homes. Those are the only options you have.

So this at a time, we're having the highest rates of anxiety, depression, suicide, suicidal ideation amongst our queer kids. This is pressing and very much needed to ensure that we protect and invest into these foster youth, because then California is going to have to come back and then pay for services, because they're going to fall into the homeless categories, because they also are disproportionately represented in our homeless population.

And then we're going to have to figure out how to build even more housing, which we're already struggling with, and provide even more funding into our safety nets programs, which we're already struggling with. This is a preventative issue. This is an important issue. And kids lives are literally on the line because they're committing suicide at rates that we've never seen before. I would appreciate a little bit more time because my colleague.

I will definitely give you more time. I just want to know, is there a question for the author?

No, this is a comment because I feel that the author who's presenting this needs some support. And as the only queer person on this dais, I want to make sure my voice is heard. Where we're weighing right now are people's lives and people's comfort level. That's what we're weighing right now. And I think that's what I want my colleagues on this dias to remember. These are kids.

This is a human life because they will commit suicide if we don't place them in safe home. That's it.

Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your comments. I want to bring it back to Senator Ochoa. Make sure that you've got your technical questions answered, and then we can have our witness answer the technical questions.

I guess you were next about trying to answer the question.

What I was going to say is that the criteria to become a foster parent or resource parent is the same across the board. It's the same or relatives or caregivers from the community, regardless of whether they come through the county program or a private agency's program. But one thing I want you to know, we don't take this lightly. The ability to assess a family's ability to meet the needs of an LGBT youth is not taken lightly.

And those of us that do those assessments with the caregivers spend a great deal of time when the family is hesitant or outwardly not able to do that, and they'll say that, I'm not willing to do that. You'll have to remove the child. We work with them significantly to see if we can help move them along, see what's behind that, see if we can help them understand, see what resources and support would help.

But sometimes we get to a place where we kind of hit a brick wall and there's nowhere else to go. And as the Senator just said, we don't have seven families. Then we have three because we don't know which. The example I gave you was of a four year old. We didn't know that little boy when he was four and placed with that lovely family was going to come out when he was 14. We didn't know that, but he did.

And I completely understand that. A lot of our LGBTQ foster youth, it's my understanding that they get kicked out of home because parents find out that they're LGBTQ and parents are not willing to work with that child. With their child, actually, and I commend many faith, many religions right now who are actually coming out and talking to their people with regards to making sure that we love that child, because every child needs to be learned, every child needs to be loved.

But with regards to the children that come out, who are LGBTQ and are kicked out of home and placed in homes, I want to make sure that those children are placed in homes that want that child, that really want to care for those children. But I also understand, and I think that's the point that I want to make on that end, that I think we need to make sure that they are placed in homes.

I think no one knows what child is going to do when they're babies, and when they're little. And it's something that it's probably easier to accommodate or to accommodate any child when they're little. But I think when we're older, when they do, when they're coming into the system, knowing that they are. That they are matched with the right family that can meet their needs.

And I just want to make sure that we have considerations for everyone who has the ability, because I really do believe that in this society, we're all different. I mean, it's America. We have different philosophical, ideological, spiritual beliefs, religious beliefs. And I think in a society where we want to make sure that children are cared for, we also have the capacity to accommodate families as much as we have the differences in families as we do with our children.

And I just want to make sure that we take that in consideration. And I'm not sure whether or not your Bill is actually going to do that on that end or that we have a private system. Do we have a private system where families of?

Private agencies are held to the same standards that the counties in the state are. Those are state.

So this would impact those private entities.

We are all held to the same set of standards and requirements.

That means that they would have to get the classes and accept the fact that they're. And I cannot believe that we would have any foster parent forcing a child to do any type of conversion. That happens frequently. And that's when I would probably go in and say, we need to remove that child because it is within that space.

But you made it. This is difficult. It shouldn't be difficult, but I want to make sure that we have different families with different capacities and our children with the different needs being matched correctly. And I'm not sure we're accommodating all of those families. Do you think we are, Senator Wiener? Because you know my heart.

I do know your heart. I also know that, tragically, there are families that destroy the lives of their LGBTQ kids. It pains me to say that. I'm lucky. I grew up in an incredibly loving family with amazing, amazing parents. I know plenty of people who were LGBTQ people who were kicked out of their homes, some of whom were homeless for periods of times because of hatred directed to them by their families, people who have not had contact with their family for 30 years.

And those parents that did that, they have every right to have whatever opinion they want. They do not have the right to bring a kid into their house and make that kid homeless and destroy that kid's life. That's what this Bill is about. They don't have a right to do that to anyone.

I agree. I agree on that point. All right, thank you.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Senator Menjivar, any other questions or comments? Want to make sure I open the time for you. I'm going to just take a few minutes here, Senator Wiener. One, I have been listening to all the testimony, the questions, and one thing for sure, I have felt this in the most visceral part of my body.

One, because I come from the foster care system, but also because I have fostered LGBTQ youth in the past and for precisely the reasons that you mentioned, is that for whatever reason, they have been ousted from their homes as young as age 13. And I've always made a space for them in my home. I've been mother to some, auntie to others, and was able to walk in that journey with them.

I also consider myself a person of faith and understand that when it comes to kids, when it comes to loving thy neighbor, there is no sweeter love than to love a child and to help that child through the journey of whatever it is that they are battling with, whether it's gender identity or sexual orientation or just finding out who they are.

So this Bill for me not only acknowledges that we have love in all different forms, but that we as adults, must take care of our children. And that's the soft point for me on any Bill or legislation is how are the children doing? So for me, this hits home for me, and as I'm hearing the testimony today, I just can't wait to be a foster parent and check the box to send me LGBTQ children. I would be honored to do that.

So I want to make sure that there's no other questions. I will call for a motion. All right. Moved by Senator Menjivar. Senator Wiener, would you like to close, please?

I think you've closed for me. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Right.

Thank you.

All right, so on behalf of Bunny, Angel and Ladybug, Assistant, will you please call the roll.

File item three, SB 407. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]. 2-0 on call.

Okay, we have two ayes and no noes. We will put this on call and move forward. Thank you so much, Senator Wiener.

Thank you, colleagues.

We do have some time constraints on witnesses here today, so I have two that will need to be out of here by 05:00. So, Senator Menjivar, I know you have two. Oh, you have one Bill today, right? One Bill. Okay. And then, Senator Limón, you have one as well?

Okay. We're going to move forward with Senator Limon, and then we'll go to Menjivar. Thank you. So we will hear Senator Limon, item number two, Senate Bill 380. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Chair and Senators. Childcare is essential to a functional economy. Without affordable and available childcare, parents cannot work. Since February 2020, the childcare workforce has lost 88,000 jobs nationally. Childcare workers are some of the lowest paid across the country. They are currently empty early childcare classrooms because providers cannot hire teachers to staff them.

This bill will help early learning and childcare providers and families by transitioning providers to a single cost reimbursement rate, suspending family fees until an equitable family fee schedule can be established, and make reimbursement based on enrollment rather than attendance. With me today, I have Luanda Wesley, Director of Government Relations for the Childcare Resource Center, and Heidi Keiser, Public Policy Officer representing Child Action, to speak in support of the bill. And I would just ask that we make remarks very quickly because we're on a time constraint.

Okay. I'll try to be really quick. Thank you, Chair Alvarado-Gil, for hearing SB 380 today and for your service as an educator. I'm also an educator. I am Dr. Luanda Wesley, the Director of Government Relations for Childcare Resource Center. And we serve over 50,000 children in San Bernardino County, as well as northern Los Angeles County.

And what we're asking for today, just to be sure, is that we want to address the equities in the rate reform bill and the rates that we provide to childcare workers. Right now, many of the childcare workers are earning as much as 13.22 an hour, which is really low. And what we're trying to increase is those wages so that, as mentioned today, we're losing them by the thousand.

And just in the month of February, 2023, we lost over 2,000 workers in the field across the country. So with that said, what we're asking is for SB 380. It will require the state to develop a new rate system that is based on the true cost of care. Many providers are only earning as much as half the cost for the actual true cost of care, which is causing dark classrooms and family childcare providers to have to close.

And so because we know it's a fragile system that is staffed by women of color and also providing that same care to women who are on subsidy systems. And so with that I just want to ask respectfully for your aye vote. I had to go fast, so there's a lot more to be said.

Thank you. Thank you. Do we have another witness in support?

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Heidi Kaiser. I'm the Public Policy Officer for Child Action. Honorable Committee Members, I'm here on behalf of the California Resource and Referral Network and Child Action. We're Sacramento County's childcare subsidy program and resource and referral services.

Just want to let you know that around 80% of the families that we serve on our program are single income houses. Thirty-four percent of these will start paying a family fee in July. This will almost certainly lead to many of our families making the decision to terminate their services. On the other end of the equation, there is a small childcare center that was operating in one of Sacramento's most hard to reach areas. It opened right before the pandemic and closed within a year.

It offered non traditional hours. It accepted a lot of subsidy children. Unfortunately, the financials just didn't work because of the antiquated reimbursement rate. Many of our parents don't have the luxury to work nine to five jobs. The antiquated reimbursement rate, it would be appreciated if it was changed. And we're in support of this bill, SB 380. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other members of the public wishing to express support, please approach the microphone with your name, affiliation, and position only. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair--or Madam Chair, excuse me--and Senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of KinderCare in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there. Josefina Ramirez Natsana, proud co-sponsor on behalf of Children Now, proud to support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. Brendan Tuig, on behalf of Ed Voice, in support.

Thank you.

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for Santa Clara County, in support.

Thank you.

Devin Anderson on behalf of Silicon Valley Community Foundation, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Brian Suzon on behalf of First Five Association of California in support. Thank you.

Andrew Shane on behalf of Grace and Child Poverty California, in support.

Thank you.

Molly Sheahan with the California Catholic Conference, in support. Thank you.

Jose Vargas with United Ways of California in support.

Thank you. We'll now move on to witnesses in opposition. Any members of the public wishing to express opposition for this bill, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, we'll move forward to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Moderator, please prompt individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of Senate Bill 380.

Thank you. To provide comments in support or opposition for SB 380, please press one, then zero at this time, and we'll go to line 37. Please go ahead, 37.

Good afternoon, Chair. Karina Laigo on behalf of Childcare Law Center, in strong support of SB 380. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we'll go to line 124. 124.

Sam Nasher with the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

And line 132. Go ahead.

Good morning, Senators. Michelle Teran-Woolfork with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. Thank you to the author for bringing this forward, in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 44, please go ahead.

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

Thank you.

Line 114.

Hi, this is Jennifer Greppi with Parent Voices California, a proud sponsor and in strong support of SB 380.

Thank you.

All right. And line 163, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Teja Stevens on behalf of Catalyst California, in strong support.

Thank you.

Okay, line 119, please go ahead.

Raquel Morales on behalf of the Education Trust West in strong support.

Thank you.

Okay, and Madam Chair, no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you, Moderator. We'll bring the discussion back to our Members. Members, any questions or comments for our author?

I just want to thank the author for this bill. I think it's a great bill, and I know when I sit on, I had the privilege of sitting on budget one, and I realized early on how we're still not up to par in paying and meeting the pay requirements based on studies that we've done in the past. So thank you for moving this forward. I'm happy to support the bill and happy to move it when the appropriate time comes. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Menjivar.

Also really excited about this bill. In Budget Sub Three, we just went over this this past Thursday. Really excited about it being prioritized. And thank you again for taking us on.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Limon, I am in support of your bill, and I'd invite you to close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Oh, thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Senate Bill 380. Assistant Smith, please call the roll.

File item two, SB 380. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Education. [Roll Call]

Okay, we have three ayes, and we will keep this on call. All right, thank you. Thank you, Senator Limon. Right. Senator Menjivar, we're running on time.

Great. I'll be really quick as well, but I don't think I can talk as fast as my colleague.

If you would like to open and allow your witness to testify, we can come back to you as well if you'd like to do that?

That's so perfect. Oh, thank you so much, ma'am.

Of course. All right, so we will open and hear Item Number 12: Senate Bill 600: Menjivar. Would you like to introduce your witness?

Yes. Thank you so much. We're here to talk about SB 600, and my witnesses are Frank Tamborello, the Executive Director of Hunger Action Los Angeles and one of the cosponsors of SB 600, and Trinidad Luna, a CalFresh recipient who can attest to what the end of the emergency allotments mean for communities across the state.

Welcome. Whenever you're ready.

Okay. Good afternoon. I'm Frank Tamborello, Executive Director of Hunger Action Los Angeles. California should pass Senate Bill 600 to increase the minimum CalFresh benefit from 23 dollars to 50 dollars per month. Our state is in a hunger crisis as CalFresh emergency allotments ended this past month. One in eight Californians are enrolled in CalFresh. Many one in two person households saw a drop from 281 dollars monthly to the minimum of a mere 23 dollars monthly. 13 percent inflation of food prices has already diluted the value of CalFresh.

Statewide, half a billion dollars per month will be lost from all the reductions, which will wreak havoc on our food retail industry and possibly lead to layoffs and even higher food prices. As an example, in the State of Georgia, these reductions have resulted in a 34 percent increase in visits to food banks, which cannot meet people's needs either in volume or nutrition. The one in two person households impacted by these deepest cuts are chiefly older adults, people with disabilities, and low wage workers.

A startling article in Salon yesterday states that deaths from malnutrition in California seniors more than doubled to roughly 1,400 in 2022, according to data from the California Department of Public Health. We can't let low benefits contribute to this tragedy. To mitigate this, we need to raise the minimum CalFresh benefit to at least 50 dollars per month. The federal government can't do that now, as it would require congressional action.

We should do this because first and foremost, it is the moral thing to do, as hundreds of thousands could be thrown at a lifeline from dire food insecurity. Second, raising the benefit will boost the economy as each dollar in CalFresh generates between a dollar 50 and a dollar 80 in economic activity. Third, by increasing the CalFresh minimum, households will have increased funds for other basic needs like housing, which is significant, as rental protections have expired and homelessness is an emergency.

New Jersey and some other states have raised their minimum benefit. It's a tough budget year, but California should recognize both the short and long-term benefits of this bill from preventing human suffering to supporting our vital food economy. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Trinidad Luna. I am 55 years old. I live in Los Angeles. I was born and raised in Pomona. I've always worked as a chef. I worked in Beverly Hills and did catering and delivery for weddings and other special events. I also managed Farmers' Markets in Long Beach. But diabetes seems to run in my family. Both of my parents had it and three of my brothers had it. In 2020, I got a wound in my leg and got gangrene.

They had to amputate. I was approved for SSI due to my disability. We were told we would get an SSI cost of living increase of 100 dollars in January of this year, but they started charging me higher rent in December before I even got that raise and so I never really saw that 100 dollars. I started getting CalFresh during the pandemic. I received the CalFresh pandemic supplement of 215 dollars. Then this past month they cut my CalFresh to 24.

When I got the higher amount, I was able to get a lot of vegetables, which are good to lower my blood sugar. Then I would buy fish, lean meat like salmon, which are healthy but cost more than most things. Even then, I was only able to buy a big flay for the month. I would buy a lot of stuff that didn't have sugar and I would read the labels and watch the carbs. Now that it's only 25 dollars, that doesn't buy much of anything.

The 9th of April, I got a gallon of milk, bread, peanut butter, and I have eight dollars left. I do have some cash to put into food, but I need that cash to pay for rent, electric bill, gas bill, phone bill, Internet, transportation, and I owe other people money so I have to pay them back every month. The rest goes to food. I remember before Covid, I could go to Food 4 Less and spend the 250 on food to last the whole month, but now four bags for 80 dollars and it's sad.

That's the cheapest price I can make it to and back. I'm asking you today to please raise the minimum CalFresh benefits to 50 dollars so that me and almost one million other people in my type of situation can get the help we need. Thank you very much.

Thank you both. We're going to continue on with the presentation before we hear from members of the public.

Perfect. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. As you heard, we're here to talk about SB 600. The previous presenter talked about the emergency allotments that ended with family fees. This is another program that was cut post-Covid, and that was the increasements of the emergency allotments that people were getting. People were getting around 250 and 280 dollars. Now, families one to two are only getting 23 dollars a month. You and I 100 percent know that we cannot survive for a full month on 23 dollars a month.

And that's why I'm here to ask that we increase it to 50 dollars. And that's nowhere near where people need, but it's a good starting point, and to get the conversation going. Right now, this bill would impact one in seven Californians, one in seven CalFresh recipients. Excuse me. That's about 700,000 Californias who are going to be impacted by this. This disproportionately is impacting our seniors. It's our seniors who are often living alone, who we know are disproportionately falling into homelessness.

And this is an area where we can help them avoid that risk. We've heard from the witnesses and we've seen in the past couple of months things like eggs have drastically increased. People can no longer afford this. And according to a 2022 report from the Public Policy Institute in California, kids or California's young children, are participating in CalFresh by the time they turn six. That's roughly half of California's children that are participating in CalFresh.

So again, this is going to be very impactful for our students, our young kids, and our senior population. And we wouldn't be the first state to do this. New Jersey, where the cost of living over there is way less than California, has just increased it to 95 dollars a month. Other states, like Massachusetts, Maryland, and Virginia, are following suit because the federal government has not taken action on this. So with that, I'll close and turn it back to, not witnesses, but yes.

Well yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much, Senator Menjivar. I do want to allow members of the public wishing to express support for this bill to approach the microphone. Please state your name, affiliation, and your position, please.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members. Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and we request your aye vote.

Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. Amanda Kirchner with County Welfare Directors Association, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Rachel Mueller with Weideman Group, on behalf of NextGen California, in support.

Thank you.

Kelly Brooks, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, the County Health Executives Association of California, and the Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County, in support.

Thank you.

Ryan Souza, on behalf of Nourish California, as a proud cosponsor in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan.

Andrew Cheyne, GRACE End Child Poverty California, a proud cosponsor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Melissa Sagun, on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Becky Silva from the California Association of Food Banks, proud cosponsor, and in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kevin Aslanian, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, Kevin. Okay. We'll now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Any members of the public wishing to express opposition for this bill, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Moderator, please prompt individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition to Item Number 12: Senate Bill 600.

Thank you. To provide comments in support or opposition for SB 600, please press one then zero at this time. We go to line 132. Please go ahead.

Chair and Senators, Michelle Teran-Woolfork with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, in strong support of SB 600. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 38.

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

Thank you.

Line 168.

Hi. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Kathy Van Osten, on behalf of John Burton Advocates for Youth, in support.

Thank you.

And line 170.

Eleana Binder, representing GLIDE in San Francisco, in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 169.

Hi. This is Meg Davidson with the San Francisco-Marin Food Bank, in support of SB 600. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 175.

Good afternoon. This is Sam Greenlee with Alchemist Community Development Corporation, Sacramento, calling in strong support of SB 600. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 123.

Line 123, you're open.

Hi, this is Benyamin Chao with the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 177.

Hi, this is Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

And line 173.

Hello. Mauricio Medina calling on behalf of the San Diego Hunger Coalition, calling in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 171.

Hi, this is Cassidie Carmen Bates with the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 165.

Jenny Miller with Towards an Internet of Living Beings. And I support the Bill with amendments because $50 is really not enough and we should have the same amount of $95 that it was raised to in New Jersey.

Thank you.

Line 176.

This is Heidi McHugh with Food for People, the food bank for Humboldt County, calling in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 167.

Hi, Tish Rylander. On behalf of Instacart. In support.

Thank you.

Line 140.

Hi, this is Isabella Mullen calling from the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 122.

This is Vicky Gold in Mount Shasta in strong support, but with amendments as stated by Jenny, it should be at least 95.

Thank you.

Thank you. And Madam Chair, no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you so much. Moderator we'll bring the discussion back to our Members. Welcome, Senator Wahab.

Thank you.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Just want to thank the author for the Bill. I'm grateful for the work that you're doing in this front. And as someone who's an advocate for healthy choices and healthy food, I'm very supportive of your Bill, and I be happy to move the Bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you so much. I just want to commend you. Looking at the list of support you have, both urban centers and rural centers, both public, nonprofit. I get very happy to see a list that's so diverse of support. So thank you for doing that hard work to ensure that you have widespread support and diversity in the support of this Bill.

Thank you. I think my staff is excited for you to say that.

Yes. Menjivar staff team Menjivar. Good job. All right, so Senate Bill 600 moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Assistant Smith, will you call the roll.

Her close?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Her close?

Oh, sorry. Senator Menjivar, will you please close?

Yes. Thank you so much. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote to help address this hunger cliff.

Thank you.

File item 12, SB 600. The motion is do pass and re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Great. 4 to 0 and we can. So the vote is four ayes, and this vote is out. Thank you. All right, Senator Ashby, we have two for you.

Senate Bill item number five, Senate Bill 824, and item number four, Senate Bill 408. Are you prepared?

Which one would you like me to take first?

Whichever one you would like.

If you'd like, I think 824 might be faster. You want to do the fast one first?

Well, they're both yours.

All right, let's do it. Let's do 824 then, if that's okay. Thank you so much.

Item number five, Senate Bill 824.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Today I'm here to present SB 824, a crucial expansion of Senator Skinner's SB 354 from 2021. California's foster care placement processes have been improved in recent years due largely to the Legislature and this Committee in particular. Unfortunately, it still excludes far too many individuals who are both fit and willing to foster a child. You've heard a lot about that today already, but do not qualify under current law due to previous criminal convictions or non familial relation to the child.

SB 824 grants counties and courts the ability to consider and approve family-like individuals as potential foster caregivers, and it allows individuals with a criminal history to be considered as a potential foster caregiver so long as there are no health or safety risks to the child. Studies have shown that foster children in kinship care are far more likely to be employed or enrolled in higher education later in life, and less likely to need public assistance to become homeless or to become incarcerated.

Kinship care also promotes school stability, increases the likelihood of siblings remaining together, which we know is tough and really important, reduces the reliance on congregate care, and leads to better outcomes for children in foster care. SB 824 would ensure that nonrelative family members, extended family members, tribes, and those with criminal histories are no longer automatically disqualified from fostering a child, so long as there is no health or safety risk to that child.

Additionally, this bill expands the eligibility for the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment Program for caregivers who choose to become a guardian or to adopt a kiddo. Senator Skinner's SB 354 has already led to heartwarming stories across the State of California. It's clear that Kinship care provides a more stable and nurturing environment for foster youth. SB 824 further guarantees that loved ones who can foster a child in their time of need will be able to do so and create a stable home for kiddos. I urge an aye vote. Madam Chair, I have two support witnesses here today. When you're ready.

Okay. Please proceed.

All right. First up is Amanda Kirchner with the California Welfare Directors Association.

Hi. Good afternoon. Amanda Kirchner, County Welfare Directors Association. We know that there's about 18,000 children in California's Child Welfare Wystem that are currently placed with relatives or non related extended family members.

There's also about 185 children who are in tribally approved homes, and research shows that children that are housed with family members and relatives in their communities have better attachments to their caregivers and suffer fewer behavioral and educational challenges. Under the California's continuum of care reform, California really tried to prioritize keeping kids in family and home paced placements. But we know that we've had particularly challenging times with families and communities of color because they have historically been over surveilled and over policed.

And SB 354 by Senator Skinner in 2021 made sure that certain convictions that were no risk to the child could be looked over when otherwise in the law, they wouldn't have been exemptible. Unfortunately, that bill did not extend out to our non extended related family members and some of our tribally approved homes. So ABA 24 fills those gaps. It promotes stability and connections by ensuring that kids are placed with those nerfums and can receive the financial support when the case closes to permanency.

It expands the provisions of SB 354 to include family members for Indian children, and it ensures that the criminal record exemptions and allowable funding for extended family members can also be provided to relatives seeking to become tribally approved homes instead of resource families. These changes will help us place children in home based settings with family and community members that care about them and where we know that they'll be able to do better overall. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Second up is Kristen Power, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy for the Alliance for Children's Rights.

Good afternoon, Chairman Alvarado-Gil and Members. I'm Kristen Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights, and I just want to extend our gratitude to Senator Ashby for continuing the work that Senator Skinner started with SB 354 and as a co-sponsor of that measure, I just want to give you a brief story about a family that one of our attorneys helped and to explain how that will continue with the work that we're doing here.

While SB 354 was moving through the Legislature, a little girl that we'll call Sarah was removed from her mother and placed with her aunt and uncle. The aunt and uncle had always been a loving presence in Sarah's life. She thrived in their care. But when the aunt and uncle applied for resource family approval, the uncle's felony convictions from 30 years previous resurfaced. He was honest about the situation and provided all information requested by the county. The resource family application was denied.

And while Sarah remained in their care, they had to pay all costs out of pocket, and their future with Sarah remained uncertain. But after 354 went into effect, things changed for Sarah and her caregivers. The alliance assisted the family in requesting that there be granted resource family approval under the new provisions allowable under SB 354. Five days after 354 went into effect, the uncle's conviction was exempted and the approval process was able to move forward.

We can bring that stability and support to even more children in the foster care system who would thrive in the home of a non relative extended family member. We can also ensure that if Sarah's aunt and uncle wanted to adopt or become a legal guardian, they would receive the financial support to continue the caregiver funding that they've stepped up to provide. We appreciate Senator Ashby's leadership on the issue, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. So we will now hear from any members of the public wishing to express support for this bill. Please approach the microphone, and I'll ask for your name, affiliation, and position only, please.

Molly Sheahan, with the California Catholic Conference in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair. Jeff Neal, on behalf of the County of San Diego, also in support.

Thank you. Okay, we'll now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Any members of the public wishing to express opposition for this bill, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, we will now move on to the witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Moderator, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of item number five, Senate Bill 824.

Thank you. To provide comments in support or opposition for SB 824, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll go to line 149. Please go ahead. 149. Actually, your line is open now. Please go ahead. No response from 149. Madam Chair, no further comments in queue at this time.

Okay, thank you so much. We'll bring it back to the Members. Members, any questions or comments? Senator Wahab. And then Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I did have a concern regarding the language that was utilized here, and I heard it here a couple of times, utilizing the word Indian. Would you be willing to amend that to Native American?

Senator Wahab, that's because the document that rules over that is called ICWA and refers to this Indian Child Welfare Act. So it's just a consistency with law.

Okay. Are we able to kind of.

I would defer to legal counsel on that one, but it's okay with me. But I think this has to do with the fact that you need consistency of terms and law for it to apply to ICWA, which is the Indian Child Welfare act, which oversees what happens to tribal kiddos.

Okay. And the only reason why I bring it up is because in my district, we have actually a big focus on Native Americans, because obviously, the lonely natives and so forth. So I would just like just a follow up on that. Otherwise, I support this bill, but I just want to also be a little bit more respectful in language. So just thank you.

Sure.

Senator Ochoa Bogh, when you're ready.

Just want to thank you for the work on this bill, and I am in full support and will be happy to move the bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you so much.

I just want to share that I had very similar feelings of Senator Wahab. I don't know if ICWA has reached a level of wokeness in California, but that was a confusing term for me as well.

So I will say that I have heard from many tribes, not only from my district, but from throughout California, looking forward to having the Kinship care and availability to be able to foster and care for the young people of their tribes. So I appreciate you bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

I urge an aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Do we have a motion? Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Assistant Smith, will you call the roll?

File item five, SB 824. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much. We'll move on to next one, which is item number four, Senate Bill 408. Senator, whenever you're ready.

Slightly more complicated on this one, colleagues. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, today I rise to present SB 408, which will support highly traumatized foster youth with complex needs. And I, just, as we go through this conversation today, need my colleagues to understand this is about highly traumatized foster youth. It's not about all foster youth. It's a very specific subset. SB 408 will create an intensive care and treatment program for youth with acute trauma-based needs, named the Short Term Assessment, Treatment and Transition Program.

As of January 2023, there were approximately 52,000 children in California's foster care system. Over 17,000 of those are youth between the ages of 11 and 17 years old. Since 2014, California has been implementing the Continuum of Care Reform to reduce the use of congregate care and focus on keeping children and youth with families or family-like relations, like the Bill we just talked about.

Through the CCR, California required former group homes to convert into higher-level centers with more treatment options, known as Short-Term Residential Therapy Placements, or STRTPs, work that this Committee has done in the years past. Complex-needs youth have needs that cross systems of care, education, occupational therapy, mental health and substance, just to name a few. Trauma these youth have endured oftentimes compounds underlying needs, making it increasingly difficult to find appropriate placements.

The existing system does not work for some youth because they are highly traumatized. Unfortunately, many of the STRTPs, which is our existing program, are under equipped to provide the necessary services and statewide gaps that exist in serving the needs of the highest-need children. The STRTPs, which is the existing program--this is really important--can deny a placement if the child's needs are too great. This Bill addresses that. That's what we're talking about today.

As a result, foster youth with the highest and most complex needs are often rejected from those programs, and as a result, they experience over stays in shelters or overnight stays in motels. And many of you saw the recent Sacramento Bee article where some of these kiddos were even in jail cells or in the waiting rooms at intake facilities. And that is what this Bill is trying to get at. None of these are appropriate for children, not even for one night, much less an overstay.

To address these problems, SB 408 will establish the STAT Program. Licensed by the California Department of Social Services. It will provide intensive stabilization, assessment, therapy, and direct services for highly traumatized foster youth--not all foster youth, highly traumatized foster youth--before they transition to yet another placement, which is what happens over and over for our highest-need foster youth.

STAT programs are intended to be very small, four to six bed facilities that will take in all youth--meaning they cannot be rejected--who need placement, and build upon existing standards to include additional onsite 24/7 staffing. STAT programs will include dedicated care teams where youth can receive direct care from multidisciplinary teams, get assessed across multiple systems of care, and therefore start treatment.

And that means get to a better place of stability sooner. STAT will also provide family services, including caregiver respite, during the six months after care period. SB 408 also creates 10 regional health teams across the state that will go directly to youth and their families in crisis to provide diagnostic, assessment, direct care and support. For the first time ever, having a foster youth in your home will mean a benefit to the full family in terms of access to regional health teams.

These are multidisciplinary, trauma-informed teams that prioritize referrals from child welfare, probation and tribes. These teams can help risk, help youth who are at the highest risk for suicide and for entering our foster care system. There is an opportunity to prevent that from happening. When children are removed from their homes and placed in the protection of child welfare agencies.

We owe them the best care and treatment that we can possibly provide in the State of California, and we are not doing that right now. For those youth with complex needs, too often we are retraumatizing them when their placements fail, again and again and again. SB 408 attempts to address these gaps in placements and services so that our highest-needs youth can receive the treatment they deserve.

To do nothing, or to not accept SB 408, is unacceptable because it leaves in place the alternative, which is sending young people to inappropriate locations. They are not treatment facilities, they are not receiving services and they are not receiving care. The argument that we do not like institutions does not work here because the children right now are being placed in inappropriate institutions instead of being placed in locations where they can receive trauma-informed care. And I will leave you with these statistics because they're incredibly important.

Senator Ochoa Bogh, you often ask about data. Is there data to show what is going on locally? The answer is yes. Based on recent surveys of county child welfare agencies and probation departments during the calendar year of 2022, here's what was reported: 1000 incidents of child welfare foster youth residing overnight in an unlicensed setting. Over 260 stays in a hotel or motel, for a child in a hotel or a motel. 660 child welfare-served youth were detained in a juvenile hall setting.

They didn't break a law. They were detained there because there was nowhere else for them to go. Over 1000 child welfare foster youth experienced a hospital or psychiatric inpatient stay. More than 1200 incidents of child welfare foster youth and 141 probation foster youth had two or more unplanned removal notices. And lastly, over 1200 foster youth and 65 probation foster youth experienced three or more placement changes within six months. That's every other month.

We're moving them around because we don't currently equipped to deal with their high needs. I would ask my colleagues to please put this Bill through today so that the child welfare directors can work with all of the providers who need to come to the table to be a part of providing our highest-need kids with the services they need to be successful in the State of California. Madam Chair, I have two lead witnesses when you're ready.

First up is the Executive Director of the California Welfare Directors Association, Cathy Senderling-McDonald.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Cathy Senderling-McDonald with CWDA. What we've had over the past several years is a reduction in placements and a reduction in the prioritization of the children and youth that we serve in foster care. And what we're seeing now is, unfortunately, the results of that.

As you heard, the statistics from Senator Ashby related to the more than 1000 youth last year who were in an unlicensed placement for at least one night and in some cases, many more throughout the state. It's not just a problem in the headlines. Counties are struggling as a result. What has happened is that the available placements for our Short-Term Residential Treatment Programs, those STRTPs that were created as part of the Continuum of Care Reform, have gone down. Number one, there are fewer of them.

This is because of changes in state policies and changes in federal policies as well. And so a number of the programs went out of business. They downsized, or they decided they no longer wanted to take children and youth out of child welfare and instead would take children and youth from private placements, the education system or the healthcare system as an alternative, all of which they are licensed to be able to do. They don't have to take our kids.

And as you heard, they also don't have to take our children and youth in that they can say no. There are a lot of reasons that it is difficult to have a policy in which providers cannot say no. There are liability concerns. There are, "do we have enough staff and enough treatment providers" concerns. And so we are not recommending with this Bill that we change that across the board.

But what we're in need of is a place where when a child or youth comes into the system or is ejected from one of the programs, we get a placement change, a request to come and get a child, which could be from an STRTP. It could be from a home, a family-based home where they're placed and something has happened due in large part to that trauma that the Senator talked about. There may be acting out.

That is not because that's a bad child but because they have gone through a lot, just being removed from your home and placed in foster care is an absolutely traumatic experience. And the services that they need do not always come as quickly as we would like. These are things that are often out of the control of child welfare.

How quickly can they get in to see behavioral health, to see a healthcare provider, to get the Regional Center to get services in place if they have a developmental disability, delay or other intellectual needs, the education system, getting a special education plan in place if that's needed. These are things that, where there can be lags and in the meantime, things can disrupt and go south. We end up with the child and no one will say yes.

We have staff whose job it is to send requests, packets of information about a child which can be very traumatizing to the children and youth because they're having to essentially audition for a place in these facilities that often say no and that is within their ability and that can retraumatize them as well. Feeling like everyone has failed them and there is nowhere to turn.

I'll have you wrap up your thoughts.

Thank you so much. So where they are now is they're in the offices. And what we would like to do is be able to have them in a safe, service-rich, licensed environment where we can work with them, that can't say no while we're finding that next best placement and make sure they're not just sitting in an office or in a hotel. In addition, making sure that help.

Have to have you wrap up.

Okay, I'm available for questions.

Great. Thank you. I'm sure there'll be some. All right, thank you. Next witness, please. Have you under two minutes, please.

Chair and members, Danielle Sanchez, on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California, pleased to be a co-sponsor, and appreciate the Senator's leadership on this and our ongoing work with our child welfare partners and many other stakeholders. Probation chiefs, along with all of the entities I just mentioned, our child welfare partners in this Legislature, have done a significant amount of work to really develop the supports stability to help foster youth thrive.

Part of the lens in which we certainly look at our work is how do we best serve youth that probation works with, but also how do we mitigate and prevent youth from coming into contact in the juvenile justice system in the first place. And so we see a lot of these efforts through both of those lenses, making sure that the supports are necessary for the youth that we work with and also providing them supports that they aren't coming into contact with the system.

As the Senator said, I think we have identified that the level of acuity in many of the foster youth that we work with has risen. And there's a number of the youth have very significant mental health needs, substance use needs, and certainly complex medical and physical health needs that this Bill seeks to address. So we see this as filling a very specific gap and a larger part of the continuum. We know this is one component that is necessary for youth specifically in crisis.

And I would just add that I think we also see this measure as something that will allow for those crisis responses while at the same time looking for how do we find stability in the longer term, sustainable, home-based solutions that we all want to see. So for those reasons, we're pleased to be a co-sponsor of this measure today and ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now move on to members of the public wishing to express support for this Bill. Please approach the microphone.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members. Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, requesting your aye vote.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Paul Yoda, on behalf of the counties of Humboldt and Kern and also the City and County of San Francisco, I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Jeff Neal, on behalf of the County of San Diego, in support.

Thank you so much. We'll now move on to lead witnesses in opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You'll have two minutes for your presentation.

Thank you. Deb Roth, with Disability Rights California, we protect and advance the rights of people with disabilities. We oppose institutional settings when there are other options. We were as horrified as Senator Ashby was by what's happening in the old Juvenile Hall in Sacramento. We are using our authority under federal law, our mandate as the state's protection and advocacy agency to investigate that. And I think either yesterday or today, we had people on site there.

Just last year, new legislation was enacted to provide a new licensure category for youth in crisis, and there's nobody in those settings yet. And here we are with another institutional setting being put before you. Prevailing research shows that there's no evidence that residential settings are effective and plenty of evidence that there is harm. Now, having said all of that, I do want to acknowledge that we were able to meet with the Bill sponsor and the author's staff this morning. We still oppose the Bill.

We think there are better ways to do this. We want to work with them, with all of you, and we respectfully oppose the Bill.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition, please approach the microphone.

Hi, Tyler Rindy. On behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, we have a tweener position. We appreciate the conversation with the author and the sponsor. So far, we represent the nonprofit, community based organizations that would run the SDRTPs. So continue the dialogue with the author and sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jordan Sosa here on behalf of California Youth Connection. We're a youth led advocacy organization with the membership of current and former foster youth. Do want to apologize for not submitting a letter on time to the committee due to the change date of the bill, but we are in opposition of SB 408.

Thank you for that. Okay, we'll now move forward to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service moderator. Please prompt individuals who are waiting to testify in support or opposition of item number four, Senate Bill 408.

Thank you. To provide comments and support or opposition for SB 408 please press one, then zero at this time. Hey, line 145, please go ahead.

Tiffany Fan, on behalf of California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, or CASA, in support of SB 408. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, line 38, please go ahead.

Mary Christie, on behalf of San Bernardino County and The Children's Partnership in support.

Thank you.

Line 125.

Hello, this is Jody Dang calling on the behalf of San Diego County District Attorney, Summer Stephan in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 70. Okay. Line 70, you're open right now.

Harley Myers, on behalf of the National Health Law Program, in opposition.

Thank you.

And Madam Chair, no further comments in queue at this time.

Great. Thank you so much. We'll now bring the discussion back to our members. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And the author and I, we've had conversations regarding, know there's been some work done in this field in the past two years, year and a half, and the SCRTPs have grown in capacity where right now there's more beds than youth inside of them.

And the counties have some tools in their toolbox to be able to respond to. If an SCRTP does deny a youth entrance, they could potentially create an SCRTP for that one youth where they get care 24/7 for just that one youth.

Talking with the author. I will be supporting this bill out of the Policy Committee, but I do have some concerns that the work that we put into it hasn't been given the chance to be implemented fully.

We've invested a lot of money into previous efforts that I think we should give it a little bit more time or perhaps see if we can get some reform within those Korean programs.

I'm not going to take away the travesty of what Sac B showed here in Sacramento for the author represents. That's terrible and we need to fix that. But I believe there could be some reforms within the programs now further implementing reforms there besides creating a whole new program that takes some time to kick off, that needs a budget request associated to that.

So I would ask the author to continue having those conversations and for me to continue having conversations with the sponsors and finding perhaps that middle ground there to move forward.

Because some of the questions I have is what's the data behind how these are not going to be retraumatizing our youth, given that's where we moved away from these congregate living facilities because it was traumatizing our youth. What's the data showing that the other programs aren't working and why this one is needed?

And then my last thing is. That was it. That was my last thing.

Thank you, Senator. Any other comments, Senator Wahab? And then we'll move to Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you. I really do appreciate what you're trying to do with this. And I think that the reference in regards to the Sacramento situation is terrible. I read that. I highlighted it to other Senators and obviously our Chair, who we obviously need to do something with it.

I think that this, at the same time is a little bit concerning just because of the fact that I did want to ask, where does Jbay kind of sit in this? Do they support it? Do they oppose it?

They have not taken a position.

Okay, but you've had conversations.

No, I have as far. I know you know, they're the lead author on my other bill, so I can commit to you to talk to them.

Okay, perfect. And then my other concern was the fact that, what is your response in regards to having more conversations and more collaboration with the folks that oppose that have obviously highlighted some concerns.

Yeah. As at least three of you are new like me, but you know me well. I do not like to deliver a bill with this level of opposition to you. I like to make your life as easy as possible, but this is a complicated, tough one.

And I tried really hard to use my comments on the front end to tell you where we need to land, but we're not there yet.

I mean, we need you to advance this out of your Committee so that the Welfare Directors Association and probation folks can continue and all these counties and all these cities and CASA and all the people you hear calling in can continue to have conversations with the two or three organizations that are opposing.

And I really appreciate The Children's Alliance saying they're a tweener because they're the providers and they understand right now, as it's currently set up, these kiddos can be denied.

The thing that we're proposing would not allow the kiddos to be denied. So we have to get to that point, whether it's by modifying what we already have. This bill is the only vessel in play right now to do that. So I got to keep it in play.

But absolutely, yes. I don't expect it to look the same the next time we see it, because they're working on it all the time.

The CASA individual that called, are they representing themselves as a CASA advocate or are they representing the organization?

Do you know if CASA's taken? They were from a specific county, Senator Wahab. So I'm not actually sure if they were calling on behalf of themselves or that county.

Okay. And then, I think you and I have chatted about this a little bit. I do plan on laying off of this particular bill. I won't vote no because I do believe that there is potential to all bills.

But I do also want to circle back with some of the other social services agencies, especially in my district as well, that have not actually responded on this. But I do appreciate your support, and I think that this is very fruitful, but it's not there yet. So thank you.

It's a tough one.