Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

The Senate Human Services Committee will come to order now. Good afternoon, everyone. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference services. For individuals wishing to provide public comment today and participate, please call the number 188-808-6929 the access Code today is 736-2834 we're holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building. I ask all Members of our Committee to please proceed to the room 200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing.

We have 24 bills on today's agenda with eight on consent. Noticing the absence of a quorum, we will begin as a Subcommitee. I do see our first Member. We will be hearing measures in file order. So, Assembly Member Mathis, when you're ready, we will hear file number one. Assembly Bill 248.

All right, thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, AB 248 recognizes the dignity of all Californians by removing from California law the R word and the term handicapped. Our words matter. They are how we communicate the values we hold most dear. The impact cannot be understated. Just a single word can make someone feel uplifted or demeaned, respected or slandered because of their effects. We must always be cognizant of the words we choose.

This is especially true for the words that comprise our laws, the ultimate expression of our society's values. One word currently in our Code section, the R word, is particularly shameful. It is inaccurate. It is a slur from times past that our current society does not accept, especially when more accurate and less offensive terms exist. AB 248 recognizes the dignity of all of us in our society and in our loss.

Our office has worked with the Department of Rehabilitation and, based upon those conversations and recommendations, expanded the Bill to also remove the term handicapped and outdated Code sections. AB 248 has had bipartisan support all the way through the process. It is also supported by the Association of Regional Central Center Agencies, California Teachers Association, California CaTholic Conference, Disability Rights of California, Los Angeles Unified School District, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, Coalition for Adequate Funding and Special Education, California State Council of Developmental Disabilities.

Madam Chair, we had originally had several witnesses plan to testify in person, but with today being Juneteen th and a federal holiday, they are not able to attend and with the last minute not able to teleconference in either. But that does not change the fact that AB 248 rights serious wrong. And with that, Senators, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member. We will now hear from the audience any witnesses in support, any witnesses in the audience in opposition, any Members of the public wishing to show their support via the teleconference, we will now move to teleconference. Please note that any individual who is disruptive may be removed from the remote meeting service and have their connections muted. At the chair's discretion. I will not Institute time limits on testimony and 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. Right. Moderator. Do we have anybody in the queue?

And if anybody wishes to speak on AB 248, please press 1 and 0. And we do have one in the queue.

Thank you. Please prompt them to testify either in support or opposition. AB 248.

Okay, and we'll start with line 27. For support or opposition, please go ahead. Hi.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. Gregory Kramer, on behalf of Disability Rights. California, in strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you. And we do have another in queue, Madam Chair. We'll go to line 24.

Thank you.

Okay. And they've dropped out of queue.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. Before we bring this discussion back to our Members, we will establish a quorum assistant. Please call the role.

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

Great. Thank you. So let's bring the discussion back to our Members. Any comments or questions on Assembly Bill 248? Senator Ochoa-Bogh.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this measure forward, and I'll be happy to move the measure when it's appropriate.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much, Assemblymer Mathis. I think oftentimes we see thousands of bills come across our desk. And for me, although this Bill has unanimous support and bipartisan support, I think it's important to have the conversation so the public has an opportunity to be educated and engaged as well. I think oftentimes we take for granted that our society has evolved and has left behind some of the most vulnerable.

And your Bill is a testament to taking care of those who need us to be good stewards of our policy and our laws. So I want to thank you for bringing this forward, and I will be supporting your Bill today. And I think you have an amazing tie on. So I want to tell you that looks like a sign of a very grateful father. So happy belated Father's Day.

Thank you.

Great. Okay. All right, so we have a motion from Senator Ochoa-Bogh. So we'll please call the roll file.

Item number one. The motion is do pass, and we refer to the Senate Floor. Alvarado, Gill, aye. Ochoa-Bogh, Aye. Hurtado. Minjivar, Aye Wahab.

So the vote is 3 ayes and 0 no's. We'll put that on call.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next file is item number two, Assembly Bill 273. Assembly Member Ramos.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, AB 273 is a continuation of our efforts to combat an epidemic in Indian country. Missing and murdered Indigenous people. This Bill would accomplish three things, requiring social service workers and probation officers to notify that the child is missing from foster care, an expedited court review of the child's case, and updating definitions to maximize the protection of children missing from foster care.

The rates of missing and murdered people in Native American communities is a shameful tragedy that does not receive the scrutiny and attention it deserves. This is another step that we can take this year, and this step will address a vital and crucial pipeline towards missing and murdered Indigenous persons within the foster care system. With me today to testify in support is Angelina Hinosa from the Native Sister Circle and Christian Power, Vice President of the alliance for Children's Rights.

Thank you, Assembly Member. We will now move forward to lead witnesses in support and you'll have approximately two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and Members Kristen Power with the alliance for Children's Rights and we are here and very pleased to co sponsor this measure with the EurOC Tribe and with the California Tribal Families Coalition. As the Assembly Member noted, AB 273 will protect children by creating a more expedient, family centered and child focused process to locate, return and stabilize children and youth who go missing while they're in the care, custody and control of the child welfare system.

While current state law requires county welfare agencies and probation offices to develop and implement specific protocols to quickly locate any child who goes missing while in foster care, county practices are routinely out of compliance with federal and state laws and with the Department of Social Services minimum standards. This non compliance is most notable in rural California counties with large tribal, family or foster youth populations, where tribal representatives report that county child welfare agencies never inform them when one of their children goes missing.

Even in counties that have developed policies and procedures with aligned with federal and state directives, those practices don't require oversight of the court nor an ongoing engagement of family Members, tribes and tribal representatives. Other supportive adults, including court appointed attorneys. Ongoing court oversight until a child is found would add accountability to existing county protocols for Native and tribal children.

Going missing while or running away while in foster care is a critical pipeline to the disproportionately high rates of violence experienced by Native Americans and relatedly, the high rates of Indigenous persons reported missing. In 2021, the California Legislature enacted the Feather Alert system. Assembly Member Ramos's effort to aid in the location of Indigenous persons who have gone missing under suspicious circumstances been abducted or kidnapped. AB 273 is a continuation of those policy efforts on behalf of our children and youth in foster care. With that, I ask for your aye vote.

Witnesses in support Assembly Member Ramos yes.

Angelina Hinojosa okay.

Cynthia Mana 101 Non Kinema hello, friends and relatives. My name is Angelina Hinojosa, youth representative of Native Sister Circle, a youth group that serves and works directly with tribal youth and families in the Sacramento area. As a tribal youth myself, I'm here to speak in support of AB 273. Historically, tribal youth have been placed in foster care systems, which have been determining not only the foster child but the families and communities itself.

Often we have community Members join our circle and I hear firsthand how much our youth struggle. For example, a Native girl that we knew was in the foster care system ran away just last week. No one contacted or even knew that she was missing until she got a hold of a phone and called her sisters herself. We then took matters into our own hands to find her through the Sacramento area with no support.

The families we supported had no resources and there was a distrust between native families and the system, which is common due to the historical trauma back when the systems were throwing our kids in boarding schools where most of our Native children were also coming up missing. It is a cycle that needs to be broken. Our youth are coming up missing and no one is doing anything about it. When they have gone missing with no resources, no help, and nobody to call.

This is only the first step to a chain reaction of falling numbers of our youth, such as suicide rates, homelessness, and missing and murdered Indigenous peoples. Our people should be kept safe, especially when some of the causes of our youth running away are physical abuse, mental abuse and sexual harm. We are already dealing with at risk youth, so policies need to be set in place that can create protocols that need to be followed.

When foster youth come up missing, we should take the steps into what tribes, families and agencies need to be contacted, along with assisting tribals and tribes to work on issues where it needs additional capacity, resources and funding. Crucially needed staff time with resources and state welfare systems to devote time to finding our missing children. I respectfully ask for. aye vote thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any Members of the public wishing to express any opposition? No? Okay, we're going to come forward. Any Members of the public either wanting to express support or opposition for Assembly Bill 273, please come and state your name, affiliation and position only, please.

Hi, my name is Starla Spiritchec. I'm an enrolled Member of the Yankton Tu Tribe. I just aged out of foster care, and I'm here with Indigenous justice. I am in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hi. Rachel Libara, Tirakawa Apache. I'm here with Indigenous justice and I am in support. Thank you.

Cynthia Mana Lethesia Aguiler PinelLA Ville Pomo Nation Executive Director of Native Sister Circle, and I am in support.

Thank you.

My name is Alicia Navarro. I am Lakota, and I am in support.

Thank you.

Kim Lewis representing the California Coalition for Youth in Support.

Thank you. Rita Medina. On behalf of Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, in support. Thank you.

Pamela Lopez, On behalf of the Tule River Tribe, in support.

Thank you so much. Okay, we will now be moving to teleconference, and I need to make a correction here on the phone number for our teleconference for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Our participant number today is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 161-8051 all right, so. Moderator, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of Senate Bill AB, Assembly Bill 273 that we are ready to begin.

And if you wish to speak in support or opposition of somebody Bill 273, please press 1 and 0 at this time. And we do have four people in queue, Madam Chair.

Great. Thank you. Okay.

And begin with line 29, please.

Go ahead, Madam Chair. And Senators, Michelle Turan Wolfwork with the. California Commission on the Status Women and Girls in strong support of AB 273. Thank you. Thank you.

Line number 21, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Tiffany Fan, on behalf of California Court appointed Special Advocate Association, or CalCASA, in. Support of AB 273. Thank you. Thank you.

Line number 28, please go. Go ahead.

Good afternoon. Tyler Rindy. On behalf of the California alliance of Child and Family Services in support of AB 273.

Thank you. Thank you.

Line number Nine, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Michelle Castine. I'm the co Executive Director of the California Tribal Families Coalition in Strong Support.

Thank you. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Moderator. We'll bring the discussion back to our Members. Any Members of the Committee wishing to make comments? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just grateful to the author for bringing this measure forward. I'm surprised that we don't already do this. Quite frankly, it's alarming to me that we would not have already in place. But thank you for taking the lead on this effort. I'll be happy to make a motion on this measure when the time is appropriate.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Ramos, I'm always excited to see the bills that you bring forward and just the way that you engage the community and bring the voice of the Native community forward. I learn so much in the work that you do. So thank you so much. Would you like to close before we vote?

Just want to thank you for the comments and really for the testimony. You see the youth of tribal nations coming forward, that this is important for all those in the nation and in the State of California. So I ask for your Aye vote.

Great. Thank you. All right, we have a motion. Thank you, Assembly Member Senator Ochoa Bogh, for moving the item. Please call the roll.

File item two, AB 273, the motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call].

So the vote is three Ayes, and that vote will be put on call. All right, thank you so much. We'll be moving to item number five. Assembly Bill 596. Hi, Assembly Member Rayes. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. AB 596 establishes a new way to pay childcare providers based on the real cost of care. The Bill also offers relief to families in the fees they have to pay for subsidized childcare programs.

For too long, California has been subsidizing the true cost of childcare by paying early educators low wages and expecting working families to pay high family fees. These fees make what is supposed to be affordable childcare unaffordable. AB 596 will help early learning and childcare providers and families. It would transition providers to a single-cost, single-cost-based subsidy payment structure, suspend family fees until an equitable sliding scale for family fees is established, and fund providers using an enrollment-based contract earning mechanism.

This Bill is sponsored by Children Now, Parent Voices, Every Child California, the Childcare Resource Center, and the California Childcare Resource and Referral Network. Here to testify in support of the Bill are Maria Lopez, a childcare provider, and Juliet Terry with the Childcare Resource Center, who will be reading the testimony of Elizabeth Viegas, a parent who could not join us in person today.

Okay, great, so we'll move on to lead witnesses in support. Thank you.

My name is Maria Lopez. I am a parent leader, an early childhood educator, and a small business owner. Since 2016, my in-home daycare license has grown to serve 12 families with the help of two employees on payroll. My goal is to provide care to those that need it most by welcoming both subsidized and private paying families. When the pandemic forced schools to close down, many in-home daycares, as myself, took in school-aged children and made distance learning work in our limited environment.

As we continue to balance the demands of infant and toddler care while maintaining health and safety requirements during these tough periods. For the last three years, childcare providers were given stipends, retro pay, and other incentives based on enrollment rather than attendance. This is an acknowledgment that we in-home daycare providers were, in fact, underpaid and our services were essential to the working force. With these additional resources, I was able to retain adequate staff and continue to offer high-quality care.

I prepare my week with staff schedules and shop for the week based on enrollment, accounting for fresh vegetables and fruits and gallons of milk for the week. When children are absent, we don't get reimbursed or credit for those we didn't serve even though the money was already spent. To get another cut on payment because a child was absent will hurt my daycare.

In this scenario, do I charge the difference on payment to low-income families, or do I cut payment on my staff that are depending on those hours for income? As a small business owner, I understand that retaining staff can be challenging without being able to provide a stable paycheck or benefits outside of a predictable paycheck. I know that quality time is essential for families. The majority of daycares are open year-round to meet the demands of the working class.

I can't expect children to attend daycare for 52 full weeks out of the year. Let's account for illnesses, doctors appointments, holidays, and family time. As a mother and early childhood educator, I asked you to support AB 596. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Juliet Terry. I'm a Government Relations Specialist with the Childcare Resource Center. We're a proud member of the ECE Coalition.

I'm here today to present a testimony of a parent from Parent Voices who's also a co-sponsor of the Bill and part of our coalition who unfortunately couldn't attend today. Hello, my name is Elizabeth Viegas. I have a two-year-old son in subsidized childcare. My state family fee was $413 a month. I work full-time and I have two more kids. I am low-income and qualify for Riverside County Office of Education subsidized daycare.

But I do not know why the implementation of these mandatory state family fees was ever created because they do not benefit anyone but push us into further poverty. I asked many daycare providers about their thoughts on these family fees and they say they have no control over them and they know it is hard for parents to pay these fees, but they can't do anything about it. Daycare providers care about their tuition being paid and supporting us families when we fight to have these fees adjusted.

Currently, my fees have been waived, but on October 1st my fees will resume. I have no idea how I will come up with $413 a month on top of my daycare's copayments of $272 a month. If these fees remain, I will have to pay at least $700 a month for daycare or $8,400 a year. I cry when I think about what I will have to cut off of our budget to pay for subsidized childcare.

That additional $8,400 could pay for groceries for six months and a year of utilities. Will I cut off our grocery budget, gas, clothing, or utilities? I almost think about quitting my job at times because of these fees. If I quit my job because I cannot afford my family fee of $413 a month, I will have to go on welfare and become another statistic in that system which I know is underfunded and causes families harm. I don't want to struggle to keep my family moving forward.

Subsidized daycare programs help us a lot, but with inflation and paychecks lowering, family fees are hurting us. So please support AB 596. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses in opposition wishing to testify? Seeing none, I will invite members of the public wishing to express support or opposition for this Bill to come to the microphone. Please state your name, affiliation, and your position only. Thank you.

Dan Seaman on behalf of Catalyst California, in support.

Good afternoon. Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yereli Magayon, on behalf of Silicon Valley Community Foundation, in support. Thank you.

Hi, Grace Siegel on behalf of the California Alternative Payment Program Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ada Naymack with Children Now, co-sponsor of the Bill, in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Ms. Madam Chair and Senators. Rosanna Charvacho Elliott, on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium, also in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tiffany Whiten with CCPU, represented by AFSCME, UDW, and SCIU California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators. Jonathan Munoz, on behalf of First Time Los Angeles, in strong support.

Thank you.

Izzy Swindler with the City and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay, so we will now move forward to people wishing to testify via the teleprompter. Moderator, do we have any people in our queue?

We have three in queue at this time.

Wonderful. Thank you. Please prompt them to testify in support or opposition of our Assembly Bill 596, when ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you wish to testify in support or opposition of 596, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll start with line 29. Please go ahead.

Michelle Taran Wolfwork with California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, in strong support of AB 596. Thank you.

Thank you.

And next, we'll go to line 35. Please go ahead.

Hi there. Jennifer Greppi with Parent Voices California, a co-sponsor in strong support of AB 596.

Thank you.

Line 30, please go ahead.

Thank you. Is that our last caller, Moderator?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jenny Treis with County of Santa Clara in support of AB 596. Thank you.

We have five others in the queue. Four others. I'm sorry.

All right.

We'll go with line number 40, please go ahead.

Yes, Leticia Garcia from the Riverside County Office of Education on behalf of the Superintendents in Riverside County, in support.

Thank you.

Line number 12, please go ahead.

Cecilia Petty, Cite Director, Children of the Rainbow, in support.

Thank you.

Line 37, please go ahead.

Hi, Madam Chair and Committee Members. This is Justina Erpelding with Every Child California. We are proud Members of the ECE Coalition and co-sponsors of this Bill, and we're in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

And lastly, we go to line 14, please go ahead.

Yes, hi, my name is Ken Heron. I'm a provider in Selma, California. We have four centers and we strongly support this and are very grateful to Eloise Gomez Reyes for this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair. We have no one else in queue at this time.

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

Thank you. Assemblymember, thank you so much for this. As Chair of Sub Three of Healthy Human Services, this has been the bread and butter of the conversations we've been having throughout this budget process. And I know we're almost close to ensuring that we bring some relief to the examples that we heard from the witnesses. Right. $413 is not subsidized childcare, it's a federal family fee.

And I'm excited to see that we're close to getting to a negotiation here in the state to bring some relief to those families. Thank you so much for your leadership on this, and when appropriate, happy to move it.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Madam Leader Reyes. I'm just grateful for this measure as well. I want to echo the comments mentioned here on the dais, and I'm just grateful for the work that you've done on this front in moving this Bill forward.

So grateful to support the Bill today and grateful for the work that you've done in this space. Thank you, madam.

Thank you. So, Assemblymember Reyes, I feel like I've seen this Bill before. So Senate Bill 380 is nearly identical to your Bill. Can you tell us a little bit about how you and Senator Limone are working together on your policy?

From the very beginning, we've been working together to make sure that the policy is so important.

That's why we started in both houses and in the end, it'll be one Bill. We have already worked, as Senator Menjivar has mentioned, the budget is covering this and now the Assembly, the legislative budget, is covering this and we're one step closer to making this a reality.

Thank you. And I would just echo that this is an example of two houses working together on policy that benefits all of California and working in collaboration with our budget and policy committees.

So thank you so much for this and I'd be very happy to support your Bill. So did we have a motion? Yes. Thank you, Senator Menjivar Okay. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item number five AB 596. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Education. [Roll Call].

Thank you. The vote is three Ayes and we'll put that vote on call. Thank you. Right, so I think we're going to go out of file order now. Not seeing Assembly Members Burr, I'm going to move on to item number eight, Assembly Bill 372. Assembly Member Stephanie Wynn.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, it's my honor to present this Bill here this afternoon today.

Today, I think it's safe to say that all of us, as leaders in our communities and as legislators, need to do everything we can to prepare for a workforce, a workforce in every and any industry. What's happening now, though, is that we watch as, and this impacts mainly women, women with small children is what we've learned is that these individuals that go through apprenticeships and pre apprenticeships, through the trades and construction are seeing a slight increase in income.

And what that slight increase does is it makes them ineligible for CalWORKS programs. Specifically, as we talked earlier and discussed earlier about care, childcare, and we heard how expensive childcare can be. What this causes is for these individuals to have to choose between continuing this program or not going through the program because they can't risk not feeding their families or putting their kids in childcare because they become ineligible.

AB 372 would ensure that it exempts additional income up to 200% of the federal poverty level received as part of an apprenticeships or pre apprenticeships program from Cal Works eligibility. This Bill is a woman's caucus priority. And being that you are all women in this Committee, I think it's safe to say that us women know how to rock that tool belt really, really well.

This Bill is also aligned with both Calwork's goal in achieving self sufficiency through employment and the governor's plan to continue expanding the state's apprenticeship system. Here with me to speak in support and sponsoring this Bill is Beverly Yu from the state construction builds of California building trades of California. Welcome. Please proceed when you're ready,

Madam Vice Chair and Madam Chair Members Beverly Yu. On behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council, we are a proud sponsor of AB 372.

We would like to commend the Assembly Member for her hard work on this Bill and for moving this Bill forward. We would also like to thank the Legislative Women's Caucus for designating this Bill as a priority this year. We have heard from many of our Members that one of the biggest hurdles that they face to stay in their preapprintice and apprenticeship program is the lack of access to childcare. And unfortunately, this burden falls primarily on women.

90% of all women in California's construction industry graduated from a state approved apprenticeship program. So these programs are a pipeline for bringing more women into the trades. One of the best aspects of an apprenticeship program is that apprentice can make wage increases while they learn on the job. But these wage increases can inadvertently cause them to lose eligibility in cowworks.

So while they're gaining their footing, they have to choose when they hit the eligibility threshold whether they stay in the program and continue and pay out pocket for the high cost of services, or they drop out of a life changing pathway to the middle class. This Bill would additionally exempt from the cowworks determination income up to 200% of the federal poverty line received for work as part of a state approved apprenticeship program and preapprintorship program.

This Bill does cover all preapprintice and apprenticeship program that are approved by the state. We urge an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Ms. Yu. Do we have any other witnesses? No, that would be it. Perfect. So we'll now move on to Members of the public wishing to express their support. Unbill. AB 372 here in room 2200. We'll proceed.

Thank you. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation, also in support.

Thank you, sir.

Adanay Mack with Children Now also in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support here in room 2200? Seeing none, we'll now continue to. Any witnesses in opposition to AB 372? Seeing none, we'll now move on to. Any other witnesses here in opposition to AB 372 here in room 2200. Seeing none, we'll now move on to witnesses in support via the teleconference service.

Ma'am Chair, it looks like we have one in queue. If you wish to speak in this push plus one, then zero, and we'll go to line 45, please. Go ahead.

Anna Alvarado, on behalf of the California Edge Coalition, in support.

In just a moment, Madam Chair, we gather the line numbers. Two more queued up.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator.

Madam Chair, we'll go to line 46. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Justin Selnick from the California Community College's chancellor's office in support.

And we'll go to line 44, please go ahead.

Thank you. Noah Bartel, on behalf of ACLU. California in support.

Madam Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Now, having exhausted all the witnesses via the teleconference services, we'll bring it back to the dais for any comments or questions from our Members. None? Okay, perfect. In that case, Member Nguyen, would you like to close?

This Bill has bipartisan support and no opposition. I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, would you like to call the roll? No. zero, we don't. Okay, perfect. So we'll put that measure on the call. Thank you. We do have a quorum I can move right now. Right? Yeah. Once you establish a quorum.

Okay, so we do have a quorum. So we're able to have a motion taken by Senator Menjivar, Madam Secretary, or actually, Mr.

File item eight, AB 372. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarado-gill. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Hurtado. Menjivar, aye. Wahob.

We have two votes for this measure, and we'll put it on call for our absent Members. Thank you. So we have item 24. Quirk-Silva, 24. Do you want to take up 24 now? So we're going to go out of order for file items. We're going to proceed with item 24. Assembly Bill 1506 by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members, first, I want to thank the Committee consultant for working with my office on this Bill, and I do accept the committee amendment. Assembly Bill 1506 is a simple bill that expands a foster youth's Bill of Rights related to education.

As a teacher for over 30 years, one of the most difficult things when I had a foster youth and they had to change their home placement and their educational placement was most of the time, these students would be in our class one day and then disappear literally the next day. Often we would just receive a note from the office secretary saying to pack up their really, they're only the report card and nothing else.

As you know, many students in schools do projects, do journals, many other important items, and those students would never get those items. One of the things that we know more important to that is these students never had an opportunity for closure as they moved on. They never had an opportunity to say goodbye to their own peers or friends. They did not have an opportunity to say goodbye to their teachers.

So this Bill would actually allow them to work with a support system that would allow the youth the opportunity to return to their school in a trauma informed manner when there was a move, if they chose to, and if they were changing school. So with this, we would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Silva. Microphone. Thank you so much. Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. Do you have any witnesses here today? We don't. Okay. No worries.

Do we have any witnesses here to speak in opposition? Okay. Any Members of the public wishing to share their support or their opposition, please come up to the mic. We'll ask you to state your name, affiliation, and position only. All right. Seeing none, we will move to the teleconference service. Moderator. Please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of Assembly Bill 1506, we are ready to begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And if you wish to speak on Assembly Bill 1506, please press one, then zero at this time.

Madam Chair, we have no one queuing up at this time.

Great. Thank you so much. We'll bring the conversation back to our Members. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Once again, I'm surprised that this isn't already in place as many of our previous bills, but I'm grateful for the work that you've done in this space and grateful that you have taken a lead on this, especially for those kids who are truly in such vulnerable situations. Closure is always important for many of us in many stages of our life. So grateful for this Bill, and we'll be happy to move it when appropriate.

Thank you, Assembly Member, can you tell me a little bit about the problem that we're looking to solve here? We really have school districts that say, no, a student cannot return to have closure and collect their belongings. I mean, this is an author-sponsored Bill, so tell me about that.

Well, I've taught in the classroom for 30 years, and over those years now, I taught in elementary. So, of course, we know for younger children, it is many actual physical belongings that are left behind, but it's also their friendships. But we also know as students get older, these changing of their placements can occur more often and it does get very, very difficult for them just to move.

I mean, we do have examples that we, and I hate to say it, and I'm not being negative here, but we call them trash bags, where they literally get a trash bag and are asked to dump all of their materials, limited belongings, when they're moved, sometimes in the middle of the night. Now, that's from their home placement. But in the schools, they don't even get the opportunity to go back. And again, this would be a choice. It's not a mandate.

But I'm just thinking that as I've seen students move on many times, there's parties for them if they're moving. And for these students, they deserve to at least have the opportunity to collect their belongings and say goodbye.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Just a moment. Just catching up because I had to run from another committee. So I understand that you did accept the committee amendments. Thank you so much. Okay. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Okay. So we have a motion from Senator Mehevar. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call] Aye. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Achroa Bog. Aye. Achroa Bog. Aye. Hertato Menjivar. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Wahab.

Okay, the vote is Three ayes with no no's. We will put that vote on call. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Members.

All right, looking back at file order, I know we had some Members and other committees. All right, so we're relooking at item number seven, Assembly Bill 369. Assembly Members aboard welcome.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, today I am proud to present AB 369, which will uplift our former foster youth and ensure that we are fulfilling our duty to keep young people from falling through the cracks as they transition from foster care to independent adulthood.

With one in three youth in foster care being LGBTQ plus and a disproportionate number being youth of color, this bill is near and dear to my heart, and I thank our sponsors, Children Now, the California Coalition for Youth, and Alliance for Children's Rights, for entrusting me with this effort. If you're not familiar with it, California's Independent Living Program provides supportive services to youth who are transitioning out of the foster care system.

Through the program, youth learn about money management, housing resources and support, postsecondary financial aid, how to secure employment, and much more. Under current law, youth are only eligible for this program until they turn 21. Without family support, young adults often need more time to build critical skills for independent adulthood, and federal law allows states to increase eligibility to the age of 23.

This bill would authorize counties to raise the age of eligibility for ILP services from 21 to 23, consistent with this federal option, better equipping youth to navigate adulthood after exiting the foster care safety net. The bill would also require the Department of Social Services to plan for improvements in the program with the goal of ensuring that it is trauma informed, relevant and timely.

Lastly, the bill makes a clarifying update to ensure that youth can accumulate cash savings while in foster care and remain eligible for state and county support through the program, codifying an all county letter to this effect from the Department of Social Services. LGBTQ plus youth and children of color are overrepresented in the foster care system due to greater rates of family rejection and systemic inequities.

So this bill is about equity, about increasing opportunities and housing stability for all Californians, and about the legislator's duty to support marginalized populations, which are under the state's care. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time and with me today to provide testimony are Kim Lewis on behalf of our co-sponsors, California Coalition for Youth and Children Now, as well as Kristen Power from our third co-sponsor, Alliance for Children's Rights.

Thank you. We'll move forward, we'll move forward with our witnesses in support.

Thank you. Kim Lewis, representing Children Now and the California Coalition for Youth. Briefly, I just wanted to share the story of Jazzy, a former foster youth who received independent living program services and why we are seeking the changes in the bill here today. Jazzy exited ILP at age 21 at the same time they were exiting their THP non-minor dependent program and trying to find stable housing.

Started to attend college and holding a part time job while working at McDonald's. Jazzy said her ILP worker at San Diego YMCA had assisted them with many things while they were in extended foster care and was the only supportive person in their life.

Upon losing those services, they were sad and unsure of their future and struggled to navigate how to budget, how to enroll in general education and transfer to university, and finding and securing a meaningful job, all while navigating the stress and unfortunate ups and downs that come with becoming an adult. Obtaining their bachelor's took a long time because there were lack of awareness around the supports available to them. However, today, Jazzy is the ILP program Coordinator at the YMC of San Diego, supporting youth just like her.

By extending services to the age of 23, it will help youth navigate these domains in life with the assistance of an ILP worker. ILP services are truly making a difference in the delivery of services and in the lives of our youth. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and members. I'm Kristin Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights and we are pleased to co-sponsor AB 369. I'm going to speak just briefly on the second part of the bill.

Existing law states that foster youth can only save up to $10,000 and some do. But of course we want to encourage them to be able to save much more. As you know, the cost of living in California is very high and just one life crisis can set a youth back tens of thousands of dollars. State law has been interpreted over the years to exclude youth from inextended foster care once they hit the 10,000 mark in savings.

Luckily, state guidance issued in 2022 clearly states the youth of foster care can save more than $10,000. However, this important policy change has not been codified into law, meaning that busy social workers who are not aware of the policy change still cite that $10,000 cap contained in state law when advising foster youth on how much they can save. Moreover, forms and documents regularly used in case management of transition age youth foster youth also refer to that $10,000 savings cap.

AB 369 would codify the state guidance and, by aligning statute and policy, ensure greater consistency and implementation so that youth transitioning into adulthood from foster care can have the greatest financial security net possible. Thank you. We request your aye vote.

Thank you. Any witnesses wanting to testify in opposition of this bill? Seeing none, we'll move to any other members of the public wishing to express support or opposition for this bill, please approach the microphone. I'll ask that you state your name, affiliation and position only, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members. Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. In appreciation of Assemblymember Bogh's leadership on this policy change, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anne Quirk, Children's Law Center of California, in support.

Thank you. All right, we'll now move to the teleconference system. Moderator, will you please prompt individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of Assembly Bill 369 that we are ready to begin.

And if you wish to speak in support or opposition of Assembly Bill 369, please press 1 and 0. We have three in the queue at the moment. We'll start with line 28. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members, Tyler Rinde on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support of AB 369 by Assemblymember Zbur. Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll go to line 30. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jenny Treis on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, in support of AB 369. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak.

Excellent. We'll now bring it back to our members. Any questions from our committee members? All right, Assemblymember Zbur, I did want to just comment on this bill. I know that several versions have come across this committee in the past. I'm sensitive to the fact that we must have good policy for our foster youth to help support them. At the same time, I know that solutions that come out of some of our urban centers don't always impact our rural communities the same way. So just looking at your support, you have the County of Santa Clara and Los Angeles, two very large urban centers. Can you tell me a little bit about how you have worked with rural counties in developing this policy or in having conversations with them?

Well, these were recommendations that came out of the statewide group. And one of the things that I know was a concern in the Assembly side was whether or not one-size-fits-all approaches work everywhere. And so one of the amendments that we did take in appropriations was something that allows each of the counties to make this change on a voluntary basis. So this will only affect those counties that elect to extend that up, and so they'll be able to make a determination in rural counties whether or not this is something they want to put into effect.

Wonderful. So this is a policy that you can opt-in versus a one-size-fits-all requirement?

Yes.

That is refreshing. Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

All right, any comments? Okay, would you like to close?

I just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. And do we have a motion? Okay. Moved by Senator Menjivar. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item seven, AB 369. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. Menjivar. Aye. Menjivar, aye. Wahab.

All right, the vote is four zero. We'll move that to the call.

Thank you very much.

Yeah. Thank you so much. Moving on, looks like we have Assemblymember Rivas, Luz Rivas with us today. Let's see what item we are on. All right, item number 11, Assembly Bill 799. Assemblymember Rivas, when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and senators. I want to start by thanking Bridget from the committee for her thorough evaluation of this legislation. In order to combat homelessness, the state must reform its current approach to issuing funds by enacting meaningful accountability measures, promoting the use of state homelessness funds, and setting state goals to anchor local progress. AB 799 requires the state to take a more direct leadership role while setting statewide goals based on data, available state funding, and to streamline administrative burdens on local systems.

Counties, big cities, and continuums of care would work together every five years to plan specific actions that they will take collaboratively to reduce homelessness, replacing the action plans they do individually every year under HHAP. Furthermore, the bill ensures that more detailed information is made public to improve transparency and oversight. Lastly, AB 799 requires investments in balanced homeless response systems that promote equitable housing outcomes. while maintaining eligible uses. This bill is important, homelessness is the number one issue area that Californians want to see us solve.

So, according to the Federal Housing and Urban Development Department, over 171,000 Californians experience homelessness on any given night. Our state accounts for 30% of the nation's homeless population, with the mantle of the nation's highest homeless population, the state must respond with funding local governments at the scale needed to meet the scope of this crisis. California's homelessness problem is rooted in high housing prices, a lack of available housing, the state's inconsistent funding commitments, and shifting homelessness accountability benchmarks.

This lack of accountability, coupled with inconsistent funding has caused a public policy feedback loop, resulting in the homelessness response systems unable to fully meet the challenges of rising housing costs and insufficient supply. Currently, the HAPP Program grant funding, administered by the California Inter Agency Council on Homelessness, issues funds on an annual basis. Because the state has only invested in HHAP through one-time allocations, the state is unable to hold local recipients accountable under the tool of reallocating future funding when recipients fail to meet expectations.

As a result of our lackluster progress in reducing homelessness, Governor Newsom took the extraordinary step of temporarily withholding HHAP funds these year-by-year one-time investments hamper local governments from investing in long-term programs that reduce homelessness. AB 799 is consistent with both the comprehensive response that the governor has articulated that he wants to see and the regional planning process outlined by the California State Association of Counties' at-home plan.

It's time that we finally address our homelessness crisis at the scale that the public expects from both the state and the local level. Today, I have with me to testify and support Cody Van Felden from John Burton Advocates for Youth, and Mari Castaldi from Housing California.

Wonderful. Thank you. Please come forward when you're ready good.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Cody Van Felden. I am a college student at Sacramento State, Youth Advocate at John Burton Advocates for Youth, and I experienced homelessness as a teenager. I'd like to tell you why AB 799 is important. The bill focuses on fostering more accountability for reducing homelessness. We define accountability as a two-way street. We must be accountable to policymakers, taxpayers, and the people who are experiencing homelessness. AB 799 achieves this.

The bill requires counties, big cities, and continuums of care to develop a joint action plan that identifies each entity's role and responsibilities and set goals. If locals don't meet these goals, they face consequences, but not consequences that negatively impact the people experiencing homelessness. Another important component of this bill is responding to a statewide desire for real outcomes by leading with what we know works. Since 2020, HHAP has reduced youth homelessness by 21% in the state. Why?

Because for the first time, we got specific about how much funding locals had to invest in youth homelessness through HHAPs youth set aside. If we want specific results like reducing unsheltered homelessness, research shows we need to make balanced investments across emergency, interim and permanent housing. AB 799 gets at these balanced investments without changing HHAPs eligible uses.

These are just some of the many well vetted provisions of the bill, which was written by a broad coalition of stakeholders, including local government advocates, providers, and people with lived experience. When I first experienced homelessness, it was 2014. I finally became housing secure in 2018. Prior to HHAP, there were very few resources I could access as a youth. This was not from a lack of effort.

I had school counselors, teachers, therapists, and caseworkers all trying to find me housing, but there were no options or spaces for me. This was emotionally devastating for me. I felt alone and thought no one cared enough about me. HHAP created more options for youth that I would have benefited from and has made a huge difference in the lives of our youth. We know that with the right goals, accountability measures and local collaboration, HHAP can be even more effective, central to our state's response to homelessness.

I thank you for your time and ask for your support for AB 799.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Mari Castaldi, senior Legislative Advocate with Housing California. I want to thank Cody for being here today and for your advocacy and the Assemblymember for her leadership on this. And I'll just quickly highlight a few additional components of the bill. You heard about AB 799's comprehensive regional planning process. In this process, in addition to HHAP dollars. We want to ensure that DSS and DHCS homelessness programs are included in planning to promote stronger connectivity with human services and safety net systems.

Planning also is inclusive for smaller counties and cities. The bill requires a minimum allocation for smaller counties to help build capacity and requires that smaller cities are invited to the regional planning table. Critically, AB 799 also requires that people with lived experience are integrated into plan, development, and execution at the regional level, since they're best positioned to identify gaps and missed opportunities in our systems. And finally, AB 799 ensures that our definition of accountability also includes advancing greater equity.

It's Juneteenth, a day where we recognize the end of the legalized institution of slavery in the United States. However, tragically, we know that legacies of racist housing and economic policy continue to reproduce inequitable outcomes. Most glaringly through the disproportionate representation of Black and Indigenous Californians among our unhoused neighbors and rising homelessness among Latinx Californians.

AB 799 ensures that as regions set goals on outcomes, they also set corresponding goals to reduce any racial disparities in those outcomes, which will require rethinking structural barriers that still exist in our systems. Finally, AB 799 gives greater consideration to the workers who today are at the front lines of delivering services to our unhoused neighbors. Also disproportionately, people of color and people who have experienced homelessness to push us towards living wages and improved working conditions for those workers.

With that, we ask for your support, and thanks so much for your time.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses wanting to speak in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we'll now move to members of the public wishing to speak in support or opposition. I ask that you approach the microphone, give us your name, affiliation, and your position only, please.

Adonai Mack with Children Now also in support.

Thank you. Great. Okay, we'll now move to teleconference services moderator please prompt anyone wishing to speak in support or opposition of Assembly Bill 799 that we are ready to begin.

To povide public comment for AB 799 in support or opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. And first we will hear from line 50, please go ahead. Lost line 50. Line 48, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair, members. This is Zeke Sandoval with PATH, one of California's largest nonprofit homeless service providers and affordable developers. We are in strong support of 8799. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 53.

Hello. This is Christopher Bowen with LA Family Housing in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 58.

Hello, everybody. This is Deon Turner, Public Policy Advocate for Inner City Law Center, in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 17.

Line 17, your mic is open. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Sharon Raportt with the Corporation for Supportive Housing, one of the co-sponsors of AB 799 in strong support. Also on behalf of California Home.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 25.

Good afternoon. This is Megan Yao on behalf of Steinberg Institute in support.

Thank you.

This is Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties and we have a support and concept position. Thank you.

Line 19.

Thank you.

Line 57.

Good afternoon. My name is Reba Stevens. I am a person with lived experience of 21 years of being unhoused on the streets of Los Angeles and I am a strong supporter of AB 799. I'm also a proud member of Bring California Home Coalition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 51.

Voleck Taing with Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a business trade association serving the Silicon Valley region. We are also in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 43.

Alex Vasotsky with the National Alliance to End Homelessness. Proud sponsor and supporter. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Line 54.

Hello, this is Anne Miskey from Union Station Homeless Services, one of Los Angeles's lead homeless agencies in strong support.

Great. Thank you.

And we have no further comments at this time.

Great, thank you, Moderator. We'll bring the conversation back to members of the committee. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, assemblymember, thank you so much. You're absolutely right. This is a huge crisis. And I know, I thank you, your leadership on this topic over the years. Just a quick question regarding the bonus, the bonus funds. I know we're going to be hearing a bill later on by your colleague. I believe you're a co-author on that's looking to move bonus funding to create another round, but yours is looking to amend it. Can you talk to me a little bit more about how that collaboration is going?

I assume you're talking about Assembly Member Ting.

Yes.

Okay. Yeah, we've been working together and in the past, I've worked with him through the budget process when we first created that bonus round. And now we've gotten some feedback from local jurisdictions on whether that's effective or not. And so we're willing to change that too. So him and I are working together on that and are discussing.

Great.

To be aligned on that.

Thank you.

Thank you. So, assemblymember, I did read your bill and it's very exciting. And one of the things that I really appreciated is the way that you included the smaller counties and smaller cities, because I think there's so much to learn by that collaboration and that partnership. As I've gone through my district, I've heard over and over again how the HHAP funds have not been allocated in a way that our smaller communities can even sustain a program. So looking at your bill really spoke to the answer that I was looking for.

So I'm glad that you've been leading on this, and I feel very comfortable supporting your bill.

Yeah thank you. After I introduced this bill, I did hear a lot or received meeting requests from smaller cities, rural counties all across the state. And like I said in my comments, this is a statewide issue, not just the big cities. Even though I'm from a big city, I've learned a lot about how other parts of our state are also working towards ending homelessness and want to be part of the process. And this regional planning that we're proposing allows the smaller cities to participate in that process.

That's right, and we have 27 rural counties in California, so roughly half of all of our counties. And we have to address homelessness as one California and trust that our local communities can use those dollars to solve their problems at the local level with the guidance and the structure parameters at the state. So thank you so much. All right, any other comments? Okay, do we have a motion? Would you like to close? I'm so sorry.

No. Thank you for this discussion. And I agree with you that this is a bill that can lead us into that direction where all of our counties and local jurisdictions will be involved towards ending homelessness. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you assemblymember, do we have a motion? Alright. Moved by Senator Wahab. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item 11, AB 799. The motion is do pass, and we refer to the Committee on Housing. [Roll Call]

All right, the vote is four ayes and zero noes. We'll put that vote on call. Thank you so much. All right, we'll move on down the agenda. We have item number 14, Assembly Bill 867, Assemblymember Friedman. And then we also have item 15, Assembly Bill 1377. So we'll start with 867.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, AB 867 supports the successful transition to adulthood of young people enrolled in California's Extended foster care program for transition age foster youth. The law explicitly requires that county welfare agencies provide protections to ensure that young people leave foster care with a concrete plan for discharge that provides safety, stability, and the opportunities to survive. However, that's far from a reality. 35% of youth in foster care report experiencing homelessness while actively enrolled in extended foster care.

When a county fails to provide assistance to secure housing, these youth are often exiting the foster youth care to homelessness. These are our foster youth that we've taken the responsibility for as a state, and yet we fail them in ways that parents and family members wouldn't if they had access to them. We've taken the responsibility and we're leaving these kids to be homeless. It's not acceptable.

AB 867 will ensure that foster youth retain access to services and support regardless of their housing status and ensure accountability with current law and suggest successful discharge planning by clarifying that a court may keep a case open past age 21 if the requires to terminate jurisdiction have not been satisfactorily met. and reinforcing that the county Welfare Department has a responsibility to make intensive and ongoing efforts to ensure that youth have housing before they exit the system.

They can't just discharge them onto the streets, which is what far too many counties are doing. California was one of the first states to establish an extended foster care program and over the course of 12 years we've heard from foster youth and providers that serve them about successes but also shortcomings of the program. This is a step towards bridging some of the gaps in the safety net. The Bill has had bipartisan support and there's no opposition.

I would urge an aye vote today we have Anne Quirk with the Children's Law center of California to testify in support.

Great. Thank you. Please approach the microphone when you're ready. Thank you.

I'm Anne Quirk, policy attorney at Children's Law Center California, the nation's largest children's legal service organization. We represent over 25,000 children and youth of Los Angeles, Sacramento and Placer County. Over 1000 of our clients turn 21 each year, aging out of the system. We're proud to co sponsor AB 867. I'm grateful for Assembly Member Friedman's Partnership in ensuring youth exiting foster care can succeed. The transition to adulthood and self sufficiency can be challenging for any young person.

But for youth in foster care, the transition can be overwhelming. Many youth in foster care lack the natural supports that other youth their age have. They can't go back home to mom and dad or rely on them for financial supports, and it makes transition challenges even greater.

Unfortunately, we see too many youth between the ages of 18 and 21 exiting the system into homelessness, educational employment instability and food insecurity because they were not provided the necessary documents or connected to the appropriate supports and services as required by law. The odds are stacked against these youth and they are at significant risk of commercial sexual exploitation and involvement in the criminal justice system. AB 867 seeks to better support youth aging out of foster care, both dependents and wards, in two important ways.

First, it requires verification that certain documents, information and services have been provided to youth prior to aging out of foster care. And second, this Bill requires a court if the youth agrees to maintain jurisdiction over the youth after they turn 21 until they have been provided with those required documents, services and information.

This short term extension of jurisdiction to young people who have not yet received the support they should have received will help prevent some of the worst outcomes that are too often experienced by former foster youth, including dire poverty and homelessness. Thank you again to Assembly Member Friedman for authoring this important legislation, and we respectfully request the Committee's aye vote, thank you.

Do we have any witnesses choosing to testify in opposition of this Bill? Seeing none, I'll ask any Members of the public wishing to share their support or opposition of this Bill to please come forward. I ask that you state your name, your affiliation and your position only. Thank you.

Hanai MacquitolJo. Now we're also in support.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll now move to the teleconference services. Witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference moderator. Please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of Assembly Bill 867 that we are ready. If you would like to provide public comment for AB 867 in support or opposition, please press 10 at this time and we'll hear from Lion 21. Please go ahead.

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

Thank you. And we have no other comments at this time. Wonderful. Thank you so much. We'll bring the discussion back to the Members. Senator Wahab, thank you.

As a person who grew up in the foster care system, I do appreciate this effort. I wanted to ask, would you guys be willing to include emancipated youth and those that are in kinship program?

We can certainly consider that.

Okay.

And the reason why I say kinship programs is because oftentimes a loved one is taking care of that child. But the moment that they turn 18, also, they're kind of left to fend for themselves. So they have maybe family that took care of them, but it was maybe a grandma who isn't 100% able to. Just like cost of living.

A lot of different struggles that they have, they face, they share with the foster youth and then emancipated youth who are under the age of 18 have a difficult life as well, but they may be seen as an adult in some capacity, but still obviously a little bit more support from the government. These populations are not large populations. I think in California there was about 60,000 foster youth. Kinship as well as emancipated minors is a little bit more than that.

Right.

So overall, it's not a big investment from the state, and the state does, to your point, need to kind of step it up for these individuals. More programs, more services, more accountability from the government, the State of California in particular. So I'm very supportive of it, but I'm hoping that you would include an amendment, and I'm not sure if that's possible, that you would include kinship and emancipated youth.

Your point is very well taken. We'll absolutely look into it. We have to see procedurally as well, whether, now that we're in the second house, if we have the ability to do that, but certainly open to it.

Okay.

And if not, if you could let me know so we can just do this next year. But I do appreciate it. I'll move the items when appropriate.

Thank you. Thank you. Other comments, questions? So, Assembly Member, I do have some questions and just frankly, some concerns about the Bill that hopefully you can clarify for me. So, I, too, believe in accountability, and I feel that if we are giving the counties more time to produce things that they should already be producing by age 21 of the youth, that they're essentially getting a blank check to keep this child in limbo or this young person in limbo.

So I'm wondering, what is the time frame that counties have to do all these verifications and screenings under your new Bill?

So we believe that right now, under law, the county is supposed to already provide these documents to the youth. It is already on the county to do that. These young people should not be discharged from county care without having the documents that they need to get an apartment to get a job. So the county is not doing that.

So just because it's taking them longer, they really should have to have that obligation and fulfill it because they're setting these kids up for failure by releasing them without it. And also within the Bill, it provides discretion for the courts to decide what the amount of time is for any sort of extended care. So it's not prescriptive in terms of every child or every young person gets X amount.

It's letting the court look at them case by case and saying they need more time in this particular individual case. But we're hoping that this will push the counties to get the documentations, the documents that they need and the materials they need before they're releasing these young people from their services.

Yes, I agree with the intent of the Bill. I'm wondering where the accountability to the county is in this situation, because ultimately our young people are looking for a time to kind of a marker. Right. And if we are giving a longer rope to the county to do the job that we expect them by law to do by the age 21, I'm wondering how that helps the child in this situation.

Yeah, our intent is not at all to give the county more time. Right now, what's happening is that the county is releasing the young people out of their care without the proper documentation and really the foundation for them to succeed. What we're saying is if you choose to not do that, if you're not fulfilling that requirement that's already law, you're going to have to continue to be responsible. We think that that's a disincentive, actually, for the county.

They don't want to be paying longer for the support of these young people. We're hoping that that will make them actually provide the documentation that they need and get everything in order before this time. But the current situation, as I understand it, where they're still stopping their services and they're releasing the young people without what they're required already by law to do, that's just not tenable.

Yeah. So it's against the law, what they're doing, and it's hurting the young person. Right.

It's already supposed to be the law that before they release them, they're supposed to provide all of the documentation that they need to. They're just not always doing it right.

So can you see where my concern is, though? By allowing them more time to not fulfill their obligation, we're not changing the.

Amount of time that they're supposed to be doing this. So we're not saying that you have more time. We're not touching at all. Whatever they're statutorily required to provide to young people, we are not changing that. What we're saying is that the court may say, you're going to have to keep supporting this person because you haven't given them what they need.

Right. Okay. And what have your conversations with the counties been on this situation? What are they saying is the reason that they're not able to provide these documentations to our young people so that they can be successful by age 21?

As far as I know, I haven't been given any specific reasons. I think counties do always point to costs, but this Bill does not change any of their obligations in terms of what they're to provide. It could be that our witnesses have maybe a better answer. I'd like to ask them to maybe give their perspectives.

Certainly I would say that right now what happens is if due to staff turnover or for whatever reason, one thing I will say in child welfare, you have an incredibly long to do list.

That's right.

And sometimes that just gets at the bottom. Right, like you never can get everything done. And right now what's happening is a young person turns 21 and the court is saying, my hands are tied, I have to close this case. And so they never get those documents. This would say, this case is open until we get those documents. And I will say that before AB 12, before extended foster care, the court still had jurisdiction until age 21. And so we saw this rarely happen.

But there were those times where a young person turned 18 and I had a social worker show up at the hearing with the birth certificate so they could get the case closed. So it's really just giving that extra so that the court can ensure that the obligations get met so it gives.

Them the extra time. But what's the assurance? Where's the accountability? So if we know that currently it's not working and what this Bill proposes is protection to our young people, but with no accountability measures to the county, are we just kind of kicking the can down a little bit further down the road or are we actually solving the problem?

The accountability is the courts now will say, we're going to keep this case open until it's resolved, whereas before they were closing it, and then they might have no guarantee of getting the documents.

That they needed and that would be under if the young person actually says that they want the case to stay open, is that correct? Correct.

I mean, if they really want it closed, the court, I think under the Bill they wouldn't be doing it, but normally they're going to want to get their birth certificate, they want to have material found for them because it's really hard to go and have a life without it.

Absolutely. So currently, what is the opportunity for the young person to give voice to this situation? So are they able to give agency to a county welfare agency and say, I'm going to be turning 21, I need these documents or I need this? Where's the power struggle here?

I would say that in most cases, things are moving along and there is a 90 day transition hearing before they turn meeting before they turn 21, where we talk about all this. And by 21, they hopefully have had these documents or have had these services and referrals. And at any point, I mean, they're adults, they can walk away at any point. But what is this is hoping to address is those situations where for whatever reason, this youth is not getting what they need.

And so I can certainly say that things jump to the very top of your to do list when a judge is telling you, why hasn't this happened? And so it's really giving them the court the ability to enforce the obligations and say, this case is open and this young person is staying in extended foster care and county, you're going to put that Bill until you get them these documents and the services.

That's the accountability. Is that what this does? Is it sets up a process where the court will actually ask for a report, can, through the law ask for a report showing that they provided all of this, the county will have to show to satisfy the court before they'll close it. Whereas now it doesn't happen. The courts, they just close it whether or not the information has been given to the young person.

So you're really getting the court now involved to make sure that the young person gets what's entitled to them by law.

So let me repeat, what I think I hear you saying is that your Bill will allow a judge more authority to be able to make that decision to keep the youth, keep the young person on this program and put more pressure on the county to fulfill their obligations that currently they don't have the ability to put that pressure on the county to say, for a judge to say, I need you to do this, even having a 90 day transition hearing, they don't have that ability to do.

That right, because now they'll keep the case open.

And again, in most situations, hopefully, young people are getting what they need. And there are some child welfare where help youth even after the case closes. But for the other ones where they're not getting what they need, where for whatever reason the worker is not doing it, we oftentimes come back two weeks before a young person turns 21 to say, do they have everything? And if they don't.

They're ordered to.

Make sure it happens. The county is ordered to make sure it happens. We get to the 21st birthday and the court, it's not there. And the court just is like, sorry, there's nothing I can do.

The case has to close.

So this would allow them to say, we're coming back every week until this happens, or we come, et cetera, like young persons staying in extended foster care till they get what they need.

Thank you. Thank you for answering my questions. I do hear the intent of the Bill, and I am going to support it today. I do want to see more accountability measures for the counties. I don't want the counties to get off out of their obligation. Right. And I also know that judges have the discretion to kind of put the gavel down. Right. Ultimately, what this is about is helping our young people.

And if we adults, we as professionals, cannot protect our young people, and we must create more legislation to do that, then something's wrong with the system that we have in place. So I urge you to not only hear Senator Wahob's proposed amendments, but also to have something in here that ensures that counties are being held accountable and not just be given a longer runway to do what they should be doing already. Okay? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes.

If I understand the Bill correctly, I think the accountability part lies in the financial incentive to ensure that these documents are in place in order to close the case, because otherwise, it's a financial responsibility. Or I could say, you could put another word in there as a penalty to keep the financial responsibility on the county for not having these documents in place.

Would you say that that might be a consideration as far as the accountability part of it is that there is a financial incentive or penalty on those counties for not having the required documents in place for these youth as they turn 21?

Well, it does provide the mechanism for the courts to potentially order that to happen, for the extended foster care to continue. But really what it does is it provides for the courts to now be involved to make sure that the counties are held accountable, whereas before there wasn't a mechanism for that. So this clarifies that and puts that into law and gives it now to the courts to basically ensure that the counties are meeting their responsibilities.

And you're right, you would think that the county would not want the courts to continue to put requirements on them in any particular case. What they would like, of course, financially, it's better for them for the child to emancipate out, become an adult. They're no longer under their jurisdiction. They're not in their file anymore. Their case worker is not working on the case. All of that comes to their bottom line. So it's a disincentive for them to have the judge still keeping the case open.

So that is absolutely the mechanism to try to ensure that accountability.

Your comments or questions. Okay, fellow Members, would you like to close?

Thank you. I really appreciate the questions, and I think all of us want to see that accountability. We want to see these young people being taken care of and getting what they want. And it's really a shame. It's a shame on all of us that it's just not happening in some of these cases. So we're hoping that we've been working on foster youth issues every year that I've been in the Legislature.

We work hand in hand with the stakeholders and the providers, and every year we say to them, what can we try to fix now? This was what they have come to us saying they think would be helpful in this case. So I do appreciate all your questions, and we'll continue to look into the good Senators suggestions and recommendations as well.

Thank you so much for championing. All right, thank you. Do we have a motion? All right, Senator Wahab, thank you for your motion. Assistant we can call the roll file.

Item 14 AB eight, six, seven. The motion is do pass and refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Alvarado - Gil? Aye. Alvarado -Gill, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye.

The vote is four ayes, zero noes, and that vote goes to call both. Who's on call? All right, we'll go to item number 15. Assembly Bill 1377, please present when you're ready. Thank you.

This Bill came out of us hearing many anecdotal complaints from constituents, particularly in Los Angeles, but also in the Bay Area, from transit writers talking about the impact of the number of homeless we're seeing on our transit systems.

Certainly when people are just trying to get to work, try to use our transit system, having the feeling of being unsafe or just feeling your heartstrings pulled by people having to sleep on trains and on buses, living in train stations, crowding at the edge of the train station to get in as soon as the gates are open so you have a place to stay is really heartbreaking for people.

And what we found out was that some of our homeless providers were not providing homeless services or homeless counts on transit, whether they felt that it wasn't their jurisdiction or they were having trouble coordinating. We were hearing from our transit agencies that services were not being offered and counts were not being done on and in transit systems.

Now, if you're a homeless provider and you are not counting people who are living in your train system or adjacent to your buses, you're not going to provide services to those people. You're not even recognizing that they exist or that they're there. So I think that all of our constituents are sick of hearing that it's someone else's job or someone else's jurisdiction.

And as well, I personally, as chair of transportation, don't expect or want to see my transit agencies trying to pivot and become a homeless provider. We have homeless providers who do that. That's their job. I want our transit agencies running trains on time, having buses that are safe for riders and for their drivers. And I want to make sure that there's coordination between the agencies that do homeless providing and rehousing services and our transit operators. What this Bill does, it's very simple.

We've been working with our transit agencies to say that we want to see a report back from our homeless providers on how they are coordinating with transit agencies to provide services to homeless individuals on those agencies.

It is our hope that this rather gentle touch, I might say, will encourage our transit agencies and our homeless providers to work hand in hand and make it clear to our providers, our homeless providers, that we do expect them to offer services in and around transit that that is also part of the county and that, yes, they need to coordinate and of course, they need access and everything else from the agencies, but we do expect them to make the effort to provide those services.

Testifying in support on behalf of our sponsor, LA Metro is Deputy Executive Officer Madeline Moore.

Please come forward. Thank you. Thank you. LA Metro is very proud to sponsor this, Bill. California transit agencies like Metro do not receive direct funding to address homelessness that impacts our system. Locally funded city and county outreach teams often do not include transit public spaces like courtyards, stations and onboard vehicles in their planning and delivery of resources to areas where people experiencing homelessness are known to congregate.

AB 1377 would provide for the additional accountability measures needed to ensure that local agencies are closely coordinating with transit operators to address the needs of people experiencing homelessness in transit public spaces. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And thanks again to Assembly Member Friedman. Thank you so much. Do you have other witnesses?

Not that I know of.

Madam Chair and Members, Michael Pimentel, Executive Director for the California Transit Association, statewide organization representing California's transit agencies, here in support and urge your aye vote.

Okay. All right, we'll move forward to witnesses in opposition. Okay. Seeing none. Any Members of the public wishing to express support or opposition for this Bill, please approach the microphone. Please state your name, affiliation and Position. Only.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support and urge an aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Ok, we will now move to the teleconference service. Any Members of the public wishing to share their support or opposition for Assembly Bill 1377, we are now ready to hear.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And if you wish to speak on this item, please press one, then zero at this time. And we'll start with line 23. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, this is Steve Wallach. On behalf of the California Association for Coordinated Transportation, CALAC and the Napa Valley Transportation Authority in support. Thank you.

And we'll go to line 56. Please go ahead.

Alex Walker with the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District in support. Thank you.

And we'll go to line 60. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Zella Knight, representing residents United Network and strong support of AB 799. Thank you.

And Madam Chair, we have no one else in queue at this time.

Right. Thank you so much. zero, did we have another comment? Madam Chair Members Michael Pimentel again here, on behalf of the San Mateo County Transit District, Samtrans and Caltrain in support. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, we will now bring the discussion back to our Members. Questions or comments? All right, seeing none, would you like to close?

Just. I appreciate you listening to all the witnesses and I hope that you can vote aye. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have a motion? Thank you. Senator Wahab has moved the item. Please call the roll file.

Item 15, AB 1377. The motion is due. Pass and re refer to the Committee on Housing. Alvarado-Gill? Aye. Alvarado-Gill, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Wahab? Wahab, aye. All right, so the vote is four ayes and zero nos. That vote will go to call.

Great. Thank you so much. All right, moving right along, let's see here. We have Assembly Member Alvarez is here. And we have item number 16, Assembly Bill 1005. And then, Assembly Member Alvarez, you're also going to be presenting on item number 19. Correct for something? Okay, wonderful. So we will start with item 16, 105 when you're ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to come before your Committee. I want to thank you and your staff for your work on this Bill today.

I wanted to present this Bill because I've had a personal experience with someone in my family that went through a terminal illness and as a primary caregiver, which I was, which was my father, certainly that experience helped shape this legislation before you today and hopefully more in the future to make it possible for our loved ones who we want to care for in our homes, that we are able to do that so that we can give them the compassionate care, particularly at the end of life, that we all think that they deserve.

Receiving a terminal diagnosis is a challenging moment for patients and the friends and family. That only gets more difficult as a patient prepares for the end of life. Recognizing this difficulty, the state offers resources and support to ensure that patients'end of life care makes them as comfortable as possible, including having IHSS caregiver services. However, despite having radically different lifetime expectations, terminal and nonterminal patients are put through the same process in order to receive those services from IHSS.

AB 1005 resolves this by creating an expedited process to become an IHSS recipient for patients that are eligible and receive a terminal diagnosis. The Bill does this in two critical ways. It initiates the process earlier upon the diagnosis, and it asks the counties to prioritize the applications of these individuals who have received the terminal diagnosis. SpecifIcally, AB 1005 requires that healthcare providers who have diagnosed a patient with terminal illness provide IHSS caregiver information to the patient, including that a loved one can register as their provider.

It also requires that counties, to the extent feasible, consider expediting these specific applications. The origin of this Bill, as I shared with you, comes from my own experience dealing with this issue. AB 1005 seeks to ensure that those who receive a terminal diagnosis are eligible for IHSS services and are given priority so that the process does not outlive them. We will continue to work with stakeholders to refine language that the Bill has the intended effects without creating unnecessary burdens on healthcare providers, counties, or on workers.

As a result, we are currently working with CMA and CHA Hospital Association and Medical Association on a set of amendments that will make clarifying changes to section one of the Bill to make sure that the appropriate staff will be in charge of providing this information to the patient. I appreciate your time and respectfully ask for your support, and I'd like to introduce witness to who's here with me today. We have Richard White from the California Senior Legislature.

Richard is incoming chair of the Advisory Council to the Napa Solano Area Agency on Aging and lives in Vacaville. Thank you for being here, Richard.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Richard White. I'm a Member of the California Senior Legislature and the incoming chair of the Advisory Council to the Napa Solano Area Agency on Aging. And it's kind of serendipitous that I was asked to come here today because we just completed a study on congregate meal attendance. So we visited all of the senior centers in both Napa and Solano counties and spoke with the folks who were joining us for meals there.

And basically the common theme, which probably won't be surprising to any of us, is that most older adults want to age in place. They want to spend their twilight years in a comfortable home, safe, secure, and living with dignity. AB 1005 requires particular patients that have been diagnosed with a terminal illness to receive expedited care to receive IHSS services as soon as possible, should they be eligible. So we at the California Senior Legislature strongly support this Bill.

The mechanics, I understand, are still being worked out, but the intent is to make sure that those folks that have been diagnosed with a terminally ill disease have access, receive information, and have their applications processed as expeditiously as possible so they can tap into those services that are available. So with that, we certainly humbly and respectfully ask for your support on this particular AB 1055 Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any Members of the public wishing to testify in opposition? Okay, seeing none. Any other Members of the public wishing to express either support or opposition for this Bill please come forward. Please state your name, your affiliation, and your position only, please.

Good afternoon. Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association and CHA does not have a position on the legislation at this time. However, we'd like to thank Assembly Member Alvarez and Committee staff for working with us over the last few weeks to work on the proposed amendments to address our questions and concerns and make some technical clarifications. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other Members? All right, we will now go to the teleconference service. Any Members of the public wishing to share their opposition or support for Assembly Bill 1005? Moderator we are ready when you are.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And if you wish to speak in support or opposition of AB 1005, please press one, then zero at this time.

Madam Chair, we have no one queuing up to speak at this time.

Okay, we'll bring it back to our members. Questions? Oh, I'm sorry.

I apologize. I missed the me too. Lisa Coleman. I'm with the California Commission on Aging, and we are in support of this Bill.

Welcome. Thank you so much. All right. Any other Members of the public. Okay, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Member, could you explain, are we saying. Because usually the social worker, the hospital social worker, is the one that goes in before being discharged to a patient and reads them the options of what's available is the case manager, if you will. Are we saying this Bill is necessary because that's not happening?

I'll just share with you in my personal experience, and this only happened two years ago to me. So when the diagnosis and the decision was made of hospice care due to his terminal illness, we were handed off to the hospice team, which is where you often find the social worker and then the team that surrounds the work that needs to happen in hospice care.

The service of IHSS was not something that was offered to us immediately or at that moment and something that we did pursue, in our case, for our family, unfortunately, because as I stated earlier, what happens is the process is kind of lengthy, and it requires interviews and home visits and things like that. And oftentimes for people who have a terminal disease, they actually outlive the process. And so that is not what is happening.

We'd like that to happen at the moment that that decision is made so that you can start and also what the Bill would do, not only that notification, but to the extent I want to use the right word from the language, I think it's to the extent feasible, we're asking that the county prioritize these applications over other applications, not to.

Not to take away anything from your experience. I guess I'm just a little worried. The social workers of the hospitals, they spend a little bit more time with the patients to walk them through. If we're asking for healthcare providers, the workforce is already really bottlenecked to spend a lot more time with a patient explaining IHSS can be a very long process. You're going to have a lot of questions. Usually the social worker does that because you can spend more time there.

In conversations with healthcare providers, what concerns are something that you're working on to address the shortage of workforce and asking for more time with patients?

And we have heard that. So I appreciate your comments and the question, because we have heard that feedback. Initially we had talked about the Doctor providing that. Then we talked about other nursing staff. But I think your point is well taken.

And as we go through this, one thing that I'll definitely take back from this Committee and from your questions is can we somehow make it be so that the social worker who ends up becoming kind of like the person who guides the family around all the sorts of decisions that happen, that might be the place where it's better placed. But in addition to that, again, we want to really get the counties to move these applications a lot sooner.

So we want to accomplish both of those things. Now if we go and we do our research further and it's already a requirement, maybe we drop that part of the Bill. I don't believe that's currently a requirement in terms of a notification, but if that is found and that could be done more administratively or through some other method, that's fine. We'd still really like, and we would like your support in urging counties that they should prioritize these cases above other cases.

And I think I'm going to hear it again in Health Committee. You're probably going to take more potential amendments there. I agree with prioritizing. I think that 100% makes sense. I'm still on the second provision having some difficulty, so I'll vote it out today, but will reserve my right just to give you more time to work on it.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Comments, questions? Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I do appreciate your commentary about IHSS workers. So I'm actually very supportive of this because I do think that it actually helps a significant amount of people, especially low income individuals. Right? A lot of people that I talk to and I represent a largely immigrant community, they don't know that IHSS is even available to them, number one. Number two, the barrier to entry for IHSS is extremely low and I want to keep it that way. Right?

Because it allows for families to select somebody that is a loved one that, let's say is semi retired or is already doing the work in itself. Right? Taking care of the individual, so forth. And they can get paid through the county, the local counties. Right? So I'm very supportive of this. I think that it should be streamlined. It should be highlighted as a significant need.

I will say the one thing that I wanted to clarify, when it's a terminal illness, how does it work if that individual is in a hospice? Because usually IHSS individuals are not going to be utilized if the main client is in the hospital, which I think is actually a problem because they're still working. They're still doing a significant amount of work. So how does it work when you have terminal illness and so forth? I just want to understand that a little.

I'll just thank you for the question. And first of all, thank you for your passion on these individuals who really, again, should have these services. I hope to work with you on more. We wanted to actually be a little bit more aggressive with this legislation to streamline the whole process for the caregiver and the recipient because I think it's a drawn out process. We have more work to do on that.

On your question specifically, though, this was more intended for those who get cared for at home. In home hospice, as you stated, people still devote a lot of time to caring for their loved ones, whether they're at hospital or in a hospice setting. This was more intended for those who come back home. And that is definitely something that requires, especially if you're in a situation of a terminal illness, round the clock care without really a professional.

If you're an IHSS recipient, you don't have the means to pay for someone, and you certainly don't have the type of insurance to cover that kind of care. And so it's meant for those who want to bring their loved ones home, who want to make sure that those final days or maybe weeks, they are lived out with the amount of dignity and care that is when you are cared for by a loved one. And so that's the intent.

I'll just say I'm not familiar with whether or not someone can go into a place of care and devote those hours and be an ISS worker. I'm not familiar with that, but definitely, we'll look into that.

Definitely. I don't believe that they are compensated for that, but obviously they still do the work at the residence, potentially. They buy groceries. They do a lot of other stuff that still needs to be done, cleaning the surrounding and the environment. I do want to highlight why this is important.

Our senior population is growing, and it's not just seniors that can benefit from this program, but the benefit out of this is also that there is going to be potentially a lack of isolation, and we need to reduce the isolation that many, many people are facing. So I fully support this and we'll move the item when appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Assembly Member. So I am pretty familiar with IHSS and have seen it benefit families, and I want to share my compassion for you bringing forward this legislation. As you had mentioned, this has impacted you personally. I'm still trying to unravel in my head the implementation, and I think you're working on that as well. I was happy to see that you're working with the hospital Association and California Medical Association to really unpack how implementation would work.

I also know that diagnoses can come from a variety of places. Sometimes it happens over the phone where test results come in and you're having that conversation with your medical provIder. So how do you see this requirement playing out with various models of health care? You've got inpatient, you've got outpatient, you've got telemedicine. How do you see that playing out so that we're also protecting or protecting our patients, but also creating an implementation system that's not broken.

So to your point of unraveling this all situated when we initiated this in our first language, we really wanted to make it pretty basic and simple that if you get diagnosed with someone who needs hospice care, that you would just automatically be enrolled into IHSS and become eligible as a recipient. That, to me, is the cleanest way to do that. Along the ways, as you all carry legislation, you run into issues and you run into questions from folks on whether that's the right pathway forward.

I still think that's the cleanest way to do this, to avoid who does what and when do they tell them. Most often, in the case of hospice, you get a call if you are the primary caregiver, as I was for my father, from the Doctor, from the medical professional. And so once we couldn't make it an automatic enrollment, then we said, okay, well, the Doctor is the one who sort of makes that determination for the patient.

So then the Doctor should be the one that should acknowledge that. Then we heard there's complications with that. We're getting now this feedback that, well, should it be like a discharge nurse, or should it be more the social worker who then that does get assigned to you? Once you are in hospice care, which I think that's probably, given where we're headed, that's the most likely scenario where this would make most sense.

But again, I was hoping that it would be much more simpler and that the person would just like, when you are determined to be in hospice, a lot of other things open up for you as a hospice patient, including things like beds and all the other equipment that go along with someone living at home in hospice, all of that gets sort of freed up once, I like to say, the switch gets flipped on that. I was hoping that that's what we would do with this.

IHSS program, we couldn't get to that, but that's the intent. So going forward, we're hoping to unravel that, as you said, and make it just as simple and as clear as can be.

Okay. Did you have any consideration of moving this into a two year Bill, or is this something that you wanted to really put forward this year?

Well, we think we've been taking all the amendments along the entire way, which has made it clear as a Bill, I want to continue to do that. If at some point we really hit a roadblock and it doesn't make sense, I'm absolutely willing to do that and hold it back. We'd like it to be, again, a little bit more aggressive, to be honest.

We want it to be a little bit more of an automatic for, because as Senator Wahab said, it's difficult, and as you know, to get recipients to go through the process, it's a challenge, especially if you're lower income or if you are not bilingual or monolingual. Those are all challenges for people. So we'd love to make it easier, and we're hoping that that's what this accomplishes.

Okay. Yeah. And I know you can appreciate IHSS services, or the program is different in that the employer is actually the recipient and gives them the dignity and respect of being able to choose their caregiver of their choice. It's also a program that's very, the salary is quite low. It's not a livable wage at all. And the county tends to be the facilitator of the program. Paperwork. Right? And training for the caregiver. So there's some complexities in this that I'm not sure come across in the Bill.

I do want to see you continue to work on it, so I will support it. But as Senator Menjivar mentioned, I also want to Reserve the right to change my vote as things move forward. But I encourage you because I know that the intent of this Bill is you're in the right direction on the intent. Now let's figure out how to make this system that's so complex work for the families that need it. Right?

Yeah. Thank you.

Okay, so I have a motion from Senator Wahab. Assistant, will you call the roll, please? I'm sorry, Assembly Member Alvarez, would you like to close?

Thank you. I appreciate all the feedback from all of you. Certainly, the intent is to make this work work for more Californians and more Californians who currently, for some reason, don't have access to this important service. And so whatever we can do to make sure that this clarifies, simplifies and provides access, that's what we're going to work towards. And thank you for your feedback.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Wahab. Assistant please call the roll.

File item 16, AB 1005. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Health. [Roll call vote]

The vote is four ayes, zero no's and that will go to call.

Thank you very much.

We are going to jump out of order here. Item number 19, Assembly Bill 1285 from Assembly Member Wicks and Assembly Member Alvarez will be presenting.

Thank you very much. I'm proud to present this Bill on behalf of Assembly Member Wicks. AB 1285 responds to an issue in the City of Berkeley that highlights the complexity of coordinating our homeless response system among cities, counties and continuums of care. I think you heard a little bit about that today already. The City of Berkeley used Home Key funding to buy the Golden Bear Inn and convert it to 42 units of supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness.

The City intended to move people living in the People's Park encampment into the Inn. However, Home Key requires that units be filled using the local Coordinated Entry System, or CES. CES is administered by the continuum of care and is intended to match homeless people with the right housing and services based on their need. The system is an important tool that we should encourage the use of, but it does not always take into consideration how to prioritize people living in encampments for permanent housing.

So Berkeley is hampered in their ability to move the People's Parks residence directly into this project. Home Key Project. We are also providing funds to cities for encampment resolution and requires cities receiving funds to have a strategy for matching people with permanent housing. However, this is also difficult in the context of CES for the same reason, AB 1285 responds to this issue by requiring continuums of care to develop a process for prioritizing people living in encampments for permanent housing in the CES.

Continuums of care applying for HHAPP or HHAPP round four funding and future rounds would be required to develop an MOU or policies that prioritize people and encampments for permanent housing in the CES. This would only apply if a city or county was using state funds from HHAPP or the encampment Resolution program to support encampment resolution. We have Nicola DeLuca representing the City of Berkeley who'd like to testify.

Absolutely. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, My name is Niccolo De Luca. I'm here on behalf of the City of Berkeley, the sponsor of the Bill. I want to thank Assemblymember Wicks for all of her leadership, and Assembly Member Alvarez for that great description of this Bill. You've had a long day. I'll be short and sweet. Over the last few years, the state has made a substantial investment to address homelessness and to decrease those living on the streets, and we're very grateful. Cities, counties, continuums of care.

We appreciate all the actions of the Legislature and of the Governor. Unfortunately, though, at times, some of the local jurisdictions, like the Member said, continuums of care, or cities or counties don't always collaborate on solutions to address homelessness, despite the overlay or the overlap of the geographic boundaries. So, as the Member said very clearly, what this Bill does is bring all those parties together and has us all work together to ensure that when we're getting state funding, we're coordinating and we're partnering.

This also helps a better use of the funding from the state and is a great accountability measure. So thank you very much for your time and respectfully answer your aye vote. Thank you.

Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, any Members of the public wishing to express support or opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing none, we'll move to the teleconference moderator please prompt. Members of the public wishing to speak in opposition or support of Assembly Bill 1285, we are ready.

And if you wish to speak in opposition or support of AB 1285, please press 1 and 0 at this time. And, Madam Chair, we have no one coming up to speak at this time.

Okay, thank you so much. We'll bring the discussion back to the Committee Members. Any questions or comments? Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I do want to appreciate you bringing this forward on behalf of Assemblymember Wicks. Obviously, I trust her leadership in her own district, so I will be supporting this and moving this when appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you. Appreciate the consideration on behalf of the Senator Wicks and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Wahab. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item 19, AB 1285. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee of Housing. [Roll call vote]

Okay, so the vote is three ayes, zero no's, and that vote will move to call.

Thank you very much.

All right, we're going to jump out of order just a bit here for courtesy for Assemblymember Calderon. Assembly Member Ortega, I have you presenting three, so you'll be coming up right next. Okay. All right. Thank you. So we'll be hearing item number 18. Assembly Bill 1015. Assemblywoman, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Assembly Bill 1015 would create a statewide diaper and wipe distribution program administered by the Department of Social Services to serve low income families.

Diapers are essential for the health and well being of babies and toddlers, yet they are the fourth greatest cost burden on one in three families in the United States. They are also currently not a benefit covered in safety net programs like Calfresh and WIC. Purchasing diapers can cost up to $200 per month for each child. There are currently eight local diaper bank programs in California, serving less than half of the counties in the state.

To address inequities in unmet diaper needs, AB 1015 would expand the department's diaper distribution efforts to all 58 counties. I've been working with the opposition and will be taking an amendment in Senate Appropriations Committee to include nonprofits as entities eligible to distribute diapers. And I'd like to thank the Committee staff for working with my staff on this. I appreciate it. This is a Legislative Women's Caucus priority Bill, and I'd like to thank you.

Thank you so much. Do you have any witnesses testifying today?

So my witnesses are off for the holiday. Just me.

Okay. All right. Well, you represent well. All right. Any Members of the public wishing to testify in opposition? Any Members wishing to share, express their support or Bill or support or opposition for this Bill, please approach the microphone with your name, affiliation and your support only, please or your position only. Sorry, I don't mean to bias the crowd here.

Pamela Lopez on behalf of Supply Bank we had an opposed, unless amended position to amend the Bill to allow nonprofit groups that are already doing this work to continue doing this work. We're so appreciative to the author for her work with us, and with the amendments, we'll be able to drop our opposed position. We absolutely support the mission of expanding diaper access. And thank you for your work. Great. Thank you so much.

All right, so we'll now move to teleconference services Moderator do we have anybody waiting to express support or opposition to Assembly Bill 1015?

And if you wish to express support or opposition for AB 1015, please press one, then Zero and we'll go to line 29. Please go ahead.

Good evening, Madam Chair and Senators Michelle Teran-Woolfork with the California Commission on the Status Women and Girls in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

And, Madam Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak.

Great. Thank you so much. We'll bring the discussion back to our Members. Questions or comments from the Committee?

I just want to appreciate you bringing this forward. And of course, I'm going to be supporting. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Menjivar. Assistant. Will you please call the roll?

File item 18, AB 1015. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call vote]

Vote is four ayes, zero no's and the vote will move to call.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay, Assembly Member Ortega, we're ready for you. I have you as item 17, Assembly Bill 1006. Item number 20, Assembly Bill 1313, and item number 21, Assembly Bill 1457. Can we start with 17, McKinnor's Bill, Assembly Bill 1006? Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Today I'm here to present on behalf of Assemblymember McKinnor, AB 1006. Across 21 Regional Centers, California Department of Developmental Services, DDS, serves 370,000 consumers serviced by 120,000 direct support professionals. Despite this reach, there are still many barriers to families who are in need of respite services both within and beyond the DDS universe. DDS has struggled to fully reduce barriers to accessing care, including being able to pair families with culturally competent providers. Also, not all Regional Centers offer consumer directed respite, a cost effective care option that allows for greater comprehensive care options at home.

Families who provide long term care for disabled and elderly loved ones benefit from having access to respite and importantly, benefit from having simple ways of getting access to these services. AB 1006 will mandate that the Department of Aging Partner or contract with its No Wrong Door program with a referral registry that will match Medicaid funded consumers with culturally competent respite providers, maintain a registry of vetted and trained respite providers, and work with a consumer directed program entity that will serve as co employers to respite providers.

Please come forward and you're ready.

Today I have In Home Support Service provider Rachel Gonzalez and senior government relation advocate for SEOU California, Tiffany Whiten. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Rachel Gonzalez. I am an IHSS home care provider. I serve on the Executive Board for Local SEIU Local 2015. I am also a Member of the bargaining Committee with the county for this current IHSS contract. According to AARP's caregiving study of 2020, 1 in 5 Americans, that's approximately a little under 77 million people have cared for a disabled adult or child in the last 12 months alone. Yet it's hard for people to find respite care, right?

My child has down syndrome. I am a parent provider. My daughter is nonverbal. She doesn't bathe herself, she doesn't dress herself. She requires supervision for almost every activity. And being nonverbal, it's especially difficult to find someone to care for her. Grace had a respite care worker for a year. Veronica. Wonderful. I found out about IHSS program in 2018 and I had at that time a choice of four or five people that I could interview for this position.

After the pandemic, we lost Veronica to a higher wage paying job. We're talking about people that perform changing adult diapers, changing IVs, stomach tubes. My daughter has asthma, chronic respiratory issues. So you need to know how to work a nebulizer. You need to see, not hear, see that she's going to have an asthma attack before she has it. So finding culturally competent skilled workers has been a massive problem for me. I was without respite care for approximately a year and a half.

I finally found a respite care worker that met my daughter's needs. We've had her for six months and last week she notified me that she's leaving and moving on to a higher wage paying job. Not having a registry has caused me significant difficulty in matching someone that meets my daughter's needs.

So now this will be my new full time job for the next four to six months, trying to find someone that I can train for six months so that I can take a break and leave the house.

Because for at least six months, my daughter with transitional difficulties is going to need to get to know this person and I'm going to need to feel comfortable with this person before I leave the house because when I come home, I can't ask my 12 year old daughter, how did it go? How was she? Did she treat you well? She can't answer me. Our Bill provides this registry. It provides a means for us to be matched with people that are skilled. It's imperative.

I am suffering from isolation. I'm a single parent, and without these breaks, we suffer mental health issues in the IHSS program. I'm standing before you as someone who has a wage capacity that is certainly not $16.50 an hour, but this is my circumstance. So again, I beseech you on behalf of thousands and thousands of parent caregivers and caregivers of family Members, we need your help. Case by case. We're saving the State of California anywhere from $20 to $50,000 per client.

This is economically in the best interest of taxpayers to provide these support networks for people that are home healthcare providers. I thank you for your consideration.

Thank you so much.

Madam Chair and Members Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California. We are the sponsors of AB 1006. Thank Assembly Member Ortega for stepping in today and presenting the Bill on behalf of our author, Assemblymember McKinnor. And I also thank Ms. Rachel for her testimony. I will only add a couple of things. It was mentioned in the analysis, so I would just pay note to the funding questions.

We're currently exploring funding options to ensure that the registry is set up and has the proper capacities and capabilities to connect providers to clients in need, as well as workers who are approved to provide those services but are without a client. Currently, we have engaged the Department of Aging and sincerely appreciate Director DeMarois and her staff for their engagements as we are exploring these options, including federal options for the No Wrong Door program.

Just recently, the No Wrong Door program, it does encompass services for veterans, and recently there has been an Executive order, a federal Executive order that potentially California can utilize that will help get this referral registry up and running. So we are exploring all of those options. We sincerely thank you for your time today and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. All right, do we have any Members of the public wishing to testify in opposition? Seeing none, Members of the public that would like to express either support or opposition, please approach the microphone. We'd ask for your name, affiliation, and your position only.

Good afternoon. Lisa Coleman with the California Commission on Aging and in support. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Katherin Bledsoe from San Jose, California. I am in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Paul Henderson. I am a provider for IHSS, also Member of SEIU 2015, and I am in support of the Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Tracy Hammond. I'm from Yuba County and I'm an IHHS worker, and I do use respite, so I think it's really important.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Signatio Cortez. I'm with SEIU and I'm in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Okay.

Good evening. My name is Les Tilgner. I'm a provider for my son, Lakota. I've been his provider for almost 19 years now. I'm a single dad. He's type one diabetic. He is autistic, nonverbal down syndrome. And I haven't been able to use the respite program for years now because it's so clunky. To put it plainly, the previous speaker spoke very eloquently about the details of that clunkiness.

I recently had a nurse friend that was willing to do respite at a far reduced wage in her spare time. But the paperwork requirements and other hoops to jump through for her were just a little too much. So hopefully, this will streamline that. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any other Members of the public? Okay, we'll move to teleconferencing services now. Moderator, please prompt Members of the public who would like to speak in support or in opposition of Assembly Bill 1006? That we are ready.

And if you wish to speak in support or opposition of AB 1006, please press 1 and 0 at this time. We'll start with line 62, please go ahead.

Good evening. My name is Nina Weiler-Harwell with AARP California in support of AB 106. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair. Just a moment while we gather the next line number.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll go with line 61, please go ahead.

Yes, good evening. My name is [indeterminate] Marchetti. I'm a Member of SEIU 2015. My son with down syndrome, and he uses respite. I would have been there today, physically way, had we had a better service with the respite system. And what we're going for in six would give me the ability to call somebody else, and I could have been there today. And this happens quite a bit.

And so it would make a big difference for our family and for the ones that have just spoken prior to me to have this Bill work for us. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Madam Chair. We don't have anyone else in queue wishing to speak at this time.

Okay, thank you. We'll bring the conversation back to the Committee Members wishing to question or comments.

I'll move the item.

Okay, we have a motion. Would you like to close?

I'd like to thank the families that came out and spoke on behalf of this Bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Yes. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Ortega on behalf of Assemblywoman McKinnor. Yes. Thank you all for coming. It is such an importance to bring the voice of caregivers and families in situations like this. That is how we become more educated on these issues and how we are able to hear from your experiences, from your real world life, how our decisions impact you. So thank you so much for being here today. So, we have a motion. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item 17, AB 1006. The motion is do pass, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call vote]

Okay, we have four ayes, zero no's, and we will move that to call. Thank you so much. And we'll move me now to item 20. Assembly Bill 1313.

Thanks again, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Now I will be presenting my Bill. AB 1313 would establish a pilot program administered by the California Department of Aging to expand case management services for older individuals to maintain their health and economic stability in Alameda, Sonoma, and Marin counties. Specifically, the demonstration would increase the capacity of the case management programs in these counties to serve older Californians who are low income but are not eligible for MediCal or other means tested benefits and who need assistance.

Currently, these programs are only funded with federal Older Americans Act funding that has remained essentially flat for the past decade. The state offers no matching funds. This lack of support has led to economic insecurity for older adult households in California, resulting in high risk for repeat hospitalizations, falls, depression, anxiety, loss of housing and homelessness. Case management and visiting programs are extremely effective at improving health outcomes and preventing crisis among older seniors.

By expending these services, California can help reduce the risk of negative health outcomes for older adults and improve their overall quality of life. To testify in support of this Bill is Monica Miller, representing Alameda County.

Please come forward. Thank you. Yeah.

Good evening, Madam Chair Members. Monica Miller representing the County of Alameda, and we're one of the co sponsors of AB 1313. And first and foremost, we'd love to thank your staff for working with us. So briefly, what this Bill does is it allows for a reinstatement of a program that was in existence up until the 2008-2009 Great Recession. We continue to get federal funding through the Older Americans Act for this program.

So it is in existence, but it is completely on life support at this point. So AB 1313 would create a pilot program, as the assemblywoman said, for Alameda, Marin and Sonoma counties. The reason for those counties is specifically because Alameda, my client, brought this issue forward with a lot of our social services coalition partners in the district. They would be here today, but for, again, it's the holidays, and most of them were off and had family plans this weekend.

Understandably. Having said that, they brought this Bill idea forward. Last year, we ran a budget request that was statewide, but unfortunately, we were not successful at passing a $32.5 million budget request to do this program statewide. There was not a policy component, a policy Bill attached to that. So this year we reevaluated over the fall, working with the Members, the Member staff, as well as Members of the California Department of Aging's staff for a technical support perspective to figure out how to move this bus forward.

They had recommended doing a pilot program. At the time. It was only Alameda County that wanted to pursue this. However, we took it to the California Welfare Directors Association Leg Committee meetings, where all 58 counties do have a representative that sit on that Committee. The counties that came forward were Sonoma and Marin, which is why we have those three counties represented today.

Having said that, we wanted to make sure that we kept the pilot small because it needed to be cost effective in order to be implemented. So we could then come back to the Legislature and say, yes, it does work. We know it's going to work again. We are keeping this program alive through the Older Americans Act. However, that program has remained, the funding has remained flat since 2010. But as you are all very acutely aware that we have our older population that has significantly increased.

From 2010 to 2018, it went up 54% for individuals over the age of 60 that are eligible for these services but are not able to necessarily obtain them, because, again, we can only serve so many at capacity due to funding. The number is anticipated to grow by 60%. And those are specifically the aging population over the age of 80. So we need to be ready to anticipate and be able to assist those individuals because they do not have any services elsewhere.

As Senator Wahab had mentioned, isolation, social isolation is a huge issue. We want to make sure that we address that. We definitely noticed a lot of social isolation during the pandemic. So we're just trying to make sure that we are meeting the needs of the people where they're at, keeping them in their homes, if at all possible. They are not MediCal eligible because they're just above that FPL. So therefore, this program would be beneficial to them.

And again, it's a pilot in an effort to say, look, it worked. We know it's going to work, but look, it worked. And then we can come back to the Legislature, obviously contingent upon where we are financially as a state and are we able to move it to a statewide program, which is the desire of my client. So happy to answer any questions, and thank you so much for your time.

Thank you so much. Any witnesses in opposition, Members of the public that would like to speak either in support or opposition, please approach the microphone with your name, affiliation, and your position only, please.

My name is Lisa Coleman with the California Commission on Aging, and we are in strong support.

Thank you.

Izzy Swindler On behalf of Sonoma and Marin Board of County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we'll now move to the teleconference system. Any Members of the public wishing to speak on Assembly Bill 1313, we are ready now.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And any Members of the public that wish to speak in support or opposition of AB 1313, please press one, then zero at this time. And, Madam Chair, we have no one queuing up at this time to speak.

Great. Thank you so much. We'll bring the discussion back to the Members. Questions or comments. Senator Wahab?

Thank you, Wahab. One, I just really appreciate the witnesses that were testifying and explaining why this is so important. I really want to thank the Assembly Member, my Assembly Member for bringing this forward.

Specifically, Alameda County in particular, out of the majority of the counties in the Bay Area, is one of the lower income counties, in fact, and it is incredibly important to highlight the need for more funding, period. As well as services, as well as programming, as well as so many other things for our senior individuals. Specifically, it's getting harder and harder to not only live in the Bay Area, but specifically taking care of aging adults, which many people are struggling with.

So I really do appreciate you bringing this forward. I will be supporting this, and I will make the motion. Thank you.

Thank you. There are comments, questions. So, assemblymember, I'm glad that you were able to work with our staff. I've shared some concerns for this Bill, particularly around the selection of the counties. They're all Bay Area counties, and aside from Alameda, Sonoma, Marin, have somewhat of an affluence to them.

So I'm concerned that we are creating a pilot program that is going to create data that may or may not reflect all of California, certainly not Southern California counties, and not one of the 27 rural communities or rural counties that we have in California. So I haven't seen that issue resolved. I do understand that this was brought up at a meeting. I'm not convinced that it was something that was done formally.

It feels more informally, like, hey, we're going to do this, who wants to be part of it? Versus we are going to be selective in making sure that we're creating the pilot program that serves all California. Oftentimes, our rural communities are kind of left out of the opportunities for extra funding and the opportunities to meet the needs of their constituents. And we certainly saw, with the pandemic, a movement out of the Bay Area into other rural communities.