Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services

I call the Assembly Human Services Committee hearing to order. We will act as a Subcommittee until we have a quorum. We want to welcome everyone to the July 11 Bill hearing. I will now share a few notes about the logistics of our hearing today regarding the public's access to the discussions. For those joining us in person, face coverings are encouraged for all Members, employees, and the public in all common areas and shared spaces.

For Dowling witnesses, we will be using a moderated telephone service through which any Member of the public can testify on a Bill. The call-in number for this hearing is 877-692-8957, and the access code is 131-5447. You can also find this number on the Committee website as well as on your TV screen. If you're calling in, please do so now. The operator on the line will give you instructions on how to be placed in the queue based on whether you support or oppose a Bill.

When calling in, please be mindful and eliminate all background noise. We will be hearing 15 bills on the agenda and three bills on consent. Please note that we limit testimony to two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition. Each witness has two minutes to testify, and any additional witnesses may add on by stating their name and affiliation. We are starting exactly at 1:30, and so we will begin with SB 318. Senator Ochoa Bogh, please come on up and you may begin when you are ready.

This is my first time in this Committee hearing room. So grateful to be here. So, good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to be here. Mr. Chair Members, every day, thousands of Californians call 2-1-1 a critical information and referral service that connects people to health and human services in their community.

During the pandemic and recent natural disasters, Governor Newsom and other state officials encouraged the public to use 2-1-1 to access critical information and assistance related to evacuation routes, emergency rental assistance, vaccine appointments, home food delivery for seniors, and much, much more. Unfortunately, when state leaders direct the public to the 211 service without a corresponding increase in financial resources, both the users and the 211 specialists who answer the phones can experience frustration and stress.

Simply put, the most significant challenge that 2-1-1 providers face is a serious lack of funding. SB 318 creates a grant program that funds the state's 2-1-1 system in an equitable and meaningful way. SB 318 is a bipartisan effort with Senator Roth and Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula and Jim Patterson as co-authors.

Here to testify in support and answer any technical questions are Alana Hitchcock, the Executive Director and CEO of California 2-1-1 providers, network, and Kim Starrs, Vice President of external affairs for the Inland SoCal United Way.

Hello to the Chair and Committee. Thank you so much for having us here today. My name is Alana Hitchcock, and I am the Executive Director and CEO of 2-1-1 California, which represents and supports 2-1-1 services and service providers across the state. I'm here today because 2-1-1 is a critical piece of our social infrastructure. We think of it as the triage system of our social care network, much like the ER functions for our medical care network.

People come to 2-1-1 and they don't necessarily know what they need, but they know that we are going to be able to point them in the right direction. We know that we're going to be there to answer the phone with live, skilled assistants 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in their languages, regardless of their situation, their background, their technical capabilities or access thank you and any other thing. They don't need to know what they're looking for.

They just need to know 2-1-1. And in that way, it is much like 9-1-1 is for the emergency system. However, there are some differences. 9-1-1 is supported by the state. 9-1-1 as we know, everyone knows 9-1-1 and they know to use it. If everyone knew 2-1-1 the same way one, there would be less impact on 9-1-1 because calls would be able to be diverted that are non-emergency situations, and that's something that we work with our 9-1-1 partners to do.

But on the other hand, we would not be able to handle that capacity in the 2-1-1 system as it is currently without additional support. Our relationships with 9-1-1 and 9-8-8 are critical to serving the state when people reach out because they know they need help in some way. So I thank you very much for your support in building up the two on one system for the needs of today and tomorrow.

Thank you very much. Ms. Starrs here. Oh. you may begin.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. I'm Kim Starrs. I'm actually the new President and CEO for Inland, SoCal, United Way and 2-1-1 plus serving Riverside in San Bernardino counties. At our 2-1-1, we are extremely proud of the service that we provide, and we are part of the 2-1-1 California network. We take more than 500,000 calls each year, and that volume has increased since the pandemic, and we have not seen that level or drop off. Sorry, I've got some background there.

We haven't seen that level or drop off since the pandemic's effects have been reduced. We are very proud to be a front door service for our communities. Namely, folks don't just call for an information referral, but they're also able to call and be connected immediately to services. We do enrollments for CalFresh and we are the coordinated entry system for San Bernardino, County, providing homeless services.

We regularly receive feedback from folks that get services from 2-1-1, saying that is a life-saving service and we are very proud to offer this service to our community. And we highly, highly, highly would appreciate additional support to be able to expand the services to more folks.

Doing 1 million units of service each year for a region that is 5 million people is really showing the reach and the breadth of the services that we provide, and very much appreciate your support and look forward to your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Those who would like to add on and support, please state your name and affiliation.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Brian Howe with the California Faculty Association and I would like to note to this Committee that this is a bipartisan effort and we are committed to seeing the Senator carry this Bill through. Thank you so much.

Greg Herner on behalf of info line of San Diego or two? One. One. San Diego in support.

Good afternoon. Jenny Trice on behalf of County of Santa Clara in support.

Adriels Corro, United Way, California Capital region, in full support.

Matt Plotkin from United Way of Northern California in support. Thank you.

Hello, Larry Olmstead, CEO of United Way of Northern California. In support of this Bill vital disaster lifeline for the North State.

Okay, is there anyone in opposition in the room at this time? Seeing none. Operator, is there anyone in support or opposition on the phone line?

Thank you. Mr. Chair. As he stated, if you're in support or in opposition to SB 318, please press one followed by zero. One followed by zero. Let's go to line 49. Please go ahead, 49.

Good afternoon. This is Claire Margarson with United Way Bay Area. We serve eight counties in the San Francisco Bay Area region and we are in strong support of 201 throughout California and respectfully urge your I vote on SB 318. Thank you.

Line 65, you are open.

Thank you. Amber King with Leading Age California in support.

Line 54. 64, please go ahead. Line 64, you are open. Let's move to line 56. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Susan Good, representing United Ways of Fresno, Madeira, Merced, and Stanislaus Counties. We are in strong support of 2-1-1 and respectfully urge your aye vote on SB 318. Thank you.

Line 37, you are open. Line 37, please. Unmute. 37. One more shot. Line 37.

Good afternoon, Sherry.

Go ahead. Your line is open.

Good night. Afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Cassandra Flores representing the United Way of Santa Cruz County. We are in a strong support of 201 and respectfully urge your vote on SB 318. Thank you.

Line 68, please go ahead.

Yes, good afternoon, this is Michelle Murphy with Orange County, United Way, and 2-1-1 Orange County, and we are in strong support of SB 318 and urge your I vote. Thank you.

Line 53, you are open.

Hi, this is Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

Please go ahead. Line 50.

Lendri Purcell with Jonas Philanthropies and strong support.

Line 59. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Rebecca Ray, representing 2-1-1, San Joaquin, operated by Resource Center, with strong support of 2-1-1 and respectfully urge your aye vote on SB 318.

We'll give one more final reminder. If you're in support or opposition to SB 318, please press 10. Line 72, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. This is Ron Rapp speaking on behalf of the California Faculty Association in support. Thank you.

We have no other participants queued up at this time.

Fantastic. Is there any comments from Committee Members? No. Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Absolutely. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I introduce SB 318 because it would provide critical funding so communities like those in my district and yours can continue addressing gaps in access to 211 services. This $20 million grant program would increase resiliency in communities across California by building upon the current investment made by local governments and private funders. Other states Fund their 2-1-1 systems. Most recently, Pennsylvania invested millions of dollars to shore up and expand their statewide 2-1-1 network.

Other states include New York, Washington, Indiana, Michigan, and even Texas. Now, I know I had to put that in there. Now is the time for state leaders to invest in and grow 2-1-1 infrastructure throughout California. I respectfully and urgently ask for an I vote.

Fantastic. Since you mentioned Texas, this Bill will get out of this Committee. We will not. Okay. Anyway, we are in a Subcommittee at this time, but looking forward for this Bill to get through. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members.

We are looking for Senators. Senators, come on in and have your bills. Heard.

Yeah. I feel two weeks off in the first week. Yeah, and the whole time will be this is our last scheduled one. They might do. We've had a few bits in the past, but as far as, like, scheduled ones, I don't know. I know. Question. I think that.

Just another call for Senators. If you would like your bills to be heard, this is the perfect time to do so.

I gave a real difference. Thank you. If we have memory.

Next up, we will hear SB 773 by Senator Glazer. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Chair Jackson. Appreciate it. I want to thank you and your staff for allowing me to present this, and in particular, appreciation to your staff for their work on this bill. This bill does three things. Number one, it allows counties to consider additional sources of income towards the 80% income threshold requirement to help more CalWORKS families qualify for permanent housing assistance. These sources can include government assistance, nonprofit assistance, and other forms of private assistance the family regularly receives.

Number two, it requires the California Department of Social Services to regularly collect statewide data to determine the number of applicants to the CalWORKS Homeless Assistance Program, whether the applicants are accepted or denied, the applicant's income level, and the reason for denial. And the third thing the bill does, it requires the Department of Social Services to form a working group with relevant stakeholders to determine best practices for data collection on the Homeless Assistance Program and how to better support CalWORKS recipients in identifying and maintaining permanent housing.

We have seen the statistics on the low utilization of permanent housing assistance. We know that CalWORKS families are among the lowest-income families in California, and improving access to permanent housing assistance will help more CalWORKS families find and maintain housing. With me today is Kevin Aslanian, Executive Director of the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization to testify in support.

Good afternoon. Kevin Aslanian, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. And permanent housing has been a long-standing issue for about 10 years or more, ever since the rents went up. For example, in July of 2022, 4862 families were granted temporary homeless assistance, but only 349 received permanent assistance. That means the 4500 ended up back in the streets after the 16 days temporary homeless assistance that they got. In January, Christmas, January of 23, 4788 families received temporary, 517 received permanent.

And the problem is that it's hard to find the average grant, maybe it's $1,000 a month. So in order to qualify for permanent homeless assistance, your rent has to be less than 80% of your income. That's 800. In the 21st century it's hard to find these in this decade. Find a place, a permanent place for $800. So this bill will expand different ways and most public beneficiaries rely on support from the community, from families, to be able to sustain themselves. And this will expand that to make sure that if people want to help them, they could help them to get permanent housing. We support the bill and urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there any additional support in the room? Please come on up and state your name and affiliation. Seeing none. Is there any opposition? Any opposition in the room? Operator, can you please bring up any support or opposition on the phone lines?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition to this bill, please press one followed by zero at this time. One followed by zero. And please go ahead, line 81.

Hi. My name is Raquel with the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter and we support this bill. Thank you.

And we have no other participants queued up at this time.

Any questions or comments from committee members? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. When we have a quorum, we'll take a vote.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we'll bring up SB 589 by Alvarado-Gil. Please come on up and you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Human Services Committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present in front of you Senate Bill 589. This is a bill to aid foster youth and foster families during natural disasters. All 13 counties in my district have high-risk fire areas, and 12 out of those 13 counties have very high-risk fire areas.

In fact, more than half of rural California is now in a quote-unquote, very high fire zone, which includes 50 counties across California and approximately 60% of the state's land mass. There are approximately 2300 foster youth in Senate District Four and roughly 55,000 across California.

This bill would establish a statewide Child Welfare Disaster Response Fund to ensure that resources are immediately available to meet the urgent needs of children and youth in foster care and their caregivers in the situation in the aftermath of natural disasters such as floods and wildfire. This could include the cost of replacing lost clothing, food, and essential belongings, securing temporary housing, or traveling additional miles to and from a temporary shelter or more distance from home to appointments and or school.

We are responsible to ensure that resources are immediately available post disaster to reduce additional trauma and minimize further disruptions to one of our most vulnerable populations. Thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of our foster youth in California on this important issue and for all Californians. In support of this bill, I'd like to introduce Susanna Kniffen from Children Now and Joseph Finnegan, a youth who was in foster care during the fires. He is now in Independent Living Program. A case manager for Voices Sonoma.

Hello, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Susanna Kniffen, Director of Child Welfare Policy at Children Now. This proposal was developed and brought forward by youth in the foster care system and families caring for children in foster care who have experienced devastating wildfires. They often feel as if the system accountable for supporting them is not there during these difficult times, and they may struggle to maintain stability and to rebuild on their own. This is truly unacceptable.

In the weeks and months following a wildfire flood, California's children and youth in foster care and their caregivers are confronted with distinct challenges and heartbreaking choices. Relocation isn't always an option or an appropriate choice for young people or children who meet regularly with their biological families, who are receiving critical supports through their school of origin, or who are healing from the trauma they have experienced through therapy or critical connections to community supports.

Youth and caregivers may struggle with the added costs of replacing destroyed belongings, securing temporary housing, and finding transportation options to maintain critical community connections. The state is legally responsible for meeting the needs of children and youth in foster care. However, there is no dedicated financial assistance available to help cover the extra unexpected costs that arise after a natural disaster. A statewide Child Welfare Disaster Response Fund is critical to ensuring that we fulfill our responsibility to children and youth in foster care when they need it the most. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Assembly. Thank you for offering me the opportunity to share my story as well as speak in support of Senate Bill 589. My name is Joseph Finnegan. I'm 27 years old and a former foster youth. Being a participant of Assembly Bill 12 as a non-minor dependent during the 2017 fires was extremely hard. The thought of having to restart my life for the fifth time was a real possibility.

I was on an evacuation line, I had nowhere else to go, and the best option for me was to stay home and stay in the mandated evacuation zone. With no hot water, no power and no way to heat my meals, no resources being offered to me at the time, I felt the responsibility to ensure these things was forgotten about. In times of emergency for caseworkers, social workers and all, the lens of priority gets smaller. But the need grows larger to support our foster youth.

Majority of the people do rely on someone when they need support. But who do we go to when all the services we rely on are unavailable in these times? There needs to be more aid and assistance to support and ensure more of us don't fall through the cracks and end up back on the streets. I thank you for allowing me to speak on this important issue and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Well done. Anyone else in the room at this time in support? Please come on up. State your name and affiliation.

Suzanne Hume CleanEarth4Kids.org. Strong support.

Kristin Power, Alliance for Children's Rights, in support.

Kim Lewis, representing Aspiranet serving foster youth in 35 counties. In support.

My name is Greyson Gunheim. I'm the Independent Living Program Manager for Voices Sonoma, in strong support of Senate Bill 589.

My name is Ladarius Sparks. I'm the ILP Case Manager for Voices Sonoma as well and in strong support of Senate Bill 589.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the room in opposition? Opposition witnesses? Anyone in opposition. Seeing none. We will go to our operator. Is there anyone in support or opposition on the phone lines at this time?

Thank you. Mr. Chair. As he stated, if you're in support or opposition to SB 589, please press one zero. And line 52, you are open.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Tiffany Phan on behalf of California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, or Cal CASA, in support. Thank you.

Please go ahead, line 85.

Hi, Colleen Pagter on behalf of First Place for Youth, in support.

Another quick reminder, one followed by zero. If you're in support or opposition to 589. Please go ahead, line 45.

This is Purva Bhattacharjee on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in strong support of this bill.

And line 50, you are open.

Hello. Lendri Purcell with Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, in strong support.

And we have no other participants queued up.

Thank you very much. Is there any questions or comments for committee members? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chair and committee. Senate Bill 539 is a, I'm sorry, 589 is a Legislative Women's Caucus priority, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote in this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. When we have quorum, we'll take a vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Next, we'll move on to SB 578 by Senator Ashby. Did I see Senator? Oh, there she is. Senators, please make your way here to get your bills heard. We'll get you in and out. We're pretty quick around here.

Thank you so much for having me. Appreciate it. We're not quite as quick on the other side sometimes, as you know. Poor Chair sat in a hearing all morning, still probably waiting to be heard. So sorry. All right, well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I know this is a space that you are very familiar with, and I appreciate the opportunity to come and present to your Committee and to you and just talk to you a little bit about what SB 578 seeks to do.

SB 578, which would require judges to perform a trauma-informed analysis when considering removal of a child from their home. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments, and I want to thank your staff person, Jessica. She's been great. Thank you for working with my team on ensuring that our intent in this Bill is really clear.

What's really special to me about bringing this Bill forward to you is that I get to partner with the California Judges Association. Just so, you know, for the judges to come forward and sponsor a Bill that changes what they need to do as judges is a pretty special and big deal, and I'm really honored to get to work with them on this harm reduction model.

SB 578 will require the courts to consider the trauma that a child will experience as a result of removal from parental care and weigh that harm against the potential risk of nonremoval. The judge will be able to ask the social workers for trauma-informed reports, including suggestions to mitigate any trauma that their child may have.

For example, they may need to be removed from the home, but perhaps they can stay in the school, or perhaps there's somebody in the neighborhood where they could stay, but they would be able to do all of that analysis. Eight states and Washington, DC already require the judges to consider the harms to a child before removal. California does not. This Bill--I say this all the time--I think it's really important.

This Bill is not about trying to make sure more kids are removed or that more kids stay. This Bill is about considering the trauma of both options, weighing them against each other, and then continuing to make the decision that is in the best interest of a child.

Just a minute. Operator, we're hearing some phone stuff.

I hear it, too. Please mute yourself from Caitlin Welch's line. I'll mute it. She put us on hold. I've muted it. Please go ahead.

All right. Thank you for calling her out, yeah. You may continue.

We appreciate the support. Thanks, Moderator. So just to restate that because I think it's a really important point of the Bill. The Bill does not seek to put its hand on the scale. This isn't about trying to have more kids removed or more kids stay. It's about looking at the trauma to the child and making the best decision in each individual incident.

California courts currently only have to consider whether a child is at risk of harm in order to determine if they remain with the parent without factoring in the harm that results from the alternative: removing that child from their home or the family, or the neighborhood or the school, as we've discussed. So there are, of course, times when removal is absolutely necessary. We all have heard those horrible stories that usually include violence and abuse. To be clear, SB 578 does not alter that removal process for when a child has experienced violence or abuse.

It still seeks for the courts to make the decision that's in the best interest of each child. However, what this does do is implement a harm reduction model and require a trauma-informed analysis to be considered by the judge before a child enters the system. Before I introduce my support witness, I'd just like to say that I know and understand, as I know your Chair knows and understands, and the judges understand. The good judges already do this.

They already do this. They already do a trauma analysis. But by making it California law, we'll ensure that all judges look at a harm reduction model and a trauma-informed decision before they make a life-altering decision for a child in California. So I'd like to introduce you to Mike Belote, who many of you probably know. He represents the California Judges.

Thank you, Senator. And thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. On behalf of the California Judges Association and the Juvenile Court Judges of California, which is a section of the Association, we're proud to sponsor the Bill today. You know, juvenile court judges are a unique subset of the California judiciary. They are not people who tend to go from assignment to assignment throughout the court system. The juvenile court judges tend to do it for essentially the balance of their judicial career.

And so they are lifelong experts in juvenile justice both on the dependency and the juvenile justice side. The fellow who suggested this to the Association is a legend in juvenile justice and dependency from Santa Clara County. And they are evidence based judges. They are looking at what's happening around the country, what is working and what isn't. And they brought this to us and said, you know, as Senator Ashby noted, good judges, I should say we think most of them are.

But the best practice is to consider the trauma to the child of removal and to ask the social workers to include that in their reports. Your analysis, which, by the way, was excellent. It's like a primer in dependency law. Anyone who wants to get a quick update on the subject ought to read this analysis. Noted, that it is particularly acute in communities of color.

So the notion that you should consider trauma in making that removal decision--and make no mistake, they will remove the child if the evidence suggests that it's necessary. You also ought to look at their school, their community, their potential of relative placements and other ways to minimize that trauma. It's a very subtle point and we've been working with DCSS and the social worker community. We think we're close to not only the right words, but where they go in the statute.

And we're committed to the best possible product. But we think this will help us help kids. And for that reason, we would ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the room in support? Please state your name and affiliation, please.

Good afternoon. Ruth Dawson with ACLU California Action in support. Also expressing support for the National Center for Youth Law. Thank you.

Dominika Campbell, Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers in strong support.

Jenny Trice on behalf of the County of Santa Clara in support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone in opposition? Any opposition witnesses? Anyone in the room wish to express opposition? Seeing none. Operator, is there anyone on the phone lines in support or in opposition at this time?

If you are in support or opposition, please press one followed by zero at this time. One followed by zero. And one moment. We have just a couple queuing up. Should be with us momentarily. Anybody else, please take this opportunity to press one-zero to get your line number. And we'll go to line 41. You are open.

Hello to the Parent Committee. My name is Marisa Hernandez and I am an impacted parent from Los Angeles County. We are in strong support of SB 578. Thank you.

Line 48 please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Susan Schofield, and I represent LA County Kids in Progress. I support this Bill. And here's my daughter, Janny, a victim of DCFS.

Hi, I'm Janny Schofield, also representing LA County, and I am in full support of this Bill. Thank you.

Line 41, please go ahead. I think that--41, if you'd like to requeue, just go ahead and hit one followed by zero. Line 60, please go ahead. Line 60, you're open, please unmute.

Hi, my name is Alex Varella with Support Kids in Progress, in strong support of Senator Ashby's Bill. I'd also like to add, I had three of my grandchildren with me and two weeks after the children were removed, the nine year old attempted suicide twice and then shortly after, the other children been having really bad issues, the mental health issues. So I'm strongly in support of Senator Ashby's Bill and I thank you all very much.

Thank you very much. Just one second, just want to remind callers, just please state your name and affiliation and whether you support or oppose. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and we'll go back to line 41. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Marisa Hernandez and I'm an impacted parent from Los Angeles County and I am in strong support of SB 578. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we did clear the queue.

Thank you very much. Bringing up to Committee Members any comments, questions or comments? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close? Told you we were fast around here.

You guys did great. I appreciate it and I appreciate all the support. I think it's a Bill that will make a big difference. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Once we have quorum, we'll take a vote. Thank you very much. Ah, next up we have SB 628, Senator Hurtado, and you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm here to present SB 628, which declares it the established policy of California that every human being has a right to access sufficient, healthy and affordable food. On average, one out of every five Californians do not know when or where their next meal will come from. That's about 8 million Californians living food insecure. With the pandemic, we saw a spike in the number of Californians experiencing food insecurity.

And not only that, we're also experiencing the cost of food going up. Climate change is only going to make it much more worse. If you look at just what happened with the drought and the floods that's all impacting crops, impacting the food supply chain, and impacting people all over the world, but especially here, always in California.

So SB 628 really just sets to establish the human right to food so that we can, as we're considering policies here, doing our work that we also take into mind food as we're going along. And with me, I have two witnesses. David Geist with Bread for the World and witness to Pritka Ram with Community Action Partnership of Kern.

Fantastic. Is David Gist Geist in the room seeing none? Pratika Ram on the phone lines. Do we have someone to testify on the phone?

From Community Action Partnership. Kern.

Yep.

I am not seeing that person.

That's okay. I'm sure they'll pop up. That's usually what happens. We're on the phone lines, so if there's someone who wishes to testify, when we get you on the queue, if you're still here, still on, we will allow you to testify at that time. Is there anyone in the room who wish to come in? Who's in support? Please come on up and state your name and affiliation. Seeing none. Is there anyone in opposite? Did you?

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

Thank you very much.

Vanessa Teran, Policy Director with the Mixteco Indígena Community Organizing Project. And strong support.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition at this time? Seeing none? We will go to our phone lines. Is there anyone in support or opposition on our phone lines?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, if you're in support or opposition, please press one followed by zero. At this time, one followed by zero. And line 81, you are open.

Thank you. My name is Raquel. I'm with the National Association of Social Workers, the California chapter, in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

And line 77, please go ahead. Also, anybody else, press 10 to put yourself in queue. Please go ahead, 77. Line 77, go ahead.

Hi, can you hear me? Great. And I'm so sorry. This is Pritika Ram from Community Action Partnership of Kern. I was calling in through the General line. So our agency is primarily in Kern. County. Community Action Partnership of Kern. Operates the county's food bank. On average, we distribute about 19 million pounds of food. And during COVID we reached about 33 million pounds of food. It's our intent to support SB 628 to provide a local perspective on the food delivery models and its impact on Low income families. So I do request your support of SB 628.

And Mr. Chair, we did clear the queue.

Bringing it to Committee Members. Any questions or comments at this time? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Once we have Quorum, we will take a vote. Thank you, Senators. If you are here, if you want to be here, come on up. We will take you, we'll get you in and out.

Next up, we have SB 491 by Senator Durazo. You may begin when you are ready.

Hi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nice to walk in and be taken right away. Thank you so much.

That's how the Assembly does it.

Darn it. We better learn from you. Oh, great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I want to thank the Committee for working with us on this legislation. We're committed to continue with your staff.

SB 491 is a Bill that will provide an option for unhoused Californians to receive and pick up all government-related mail at a County Department of Social Services office. Currently, government agencies have relied on the United States Postal Service to deliver important mail to Californians through General Delivery. For people without a reliable mailing address. General Delivery is a free service that provides access to mail delivered to a local post office.

As an alternative, Californians without a permanent address have also relied on receiving their mail at County Social Services offices, shelters, nonprofits, and friends or family Members. Residents Californians without a permanent address have used these services to maintain access to critical government forms of IDs, election ballots, prescriptions, and most importantly, public benefits. Californians who receive public benefits receive notices and access of these services through mail, including the electronic benefit transfer cards, recertification of public benefits, and notices of housing programs, among many more.

Notices for these documents often require people to respond in a timely manner. If not, their benefits or services can be interrupted or cut off. Unfortunately, none of these services are proven reliable without set rules and standards which have contributed to people experiencing homelessness, having no access, or even extreme delays and their services distributed. According to a report by the US. Department of Agriculture, participants not receiving mail was a key reason they lost food benefits, especially impacting people facing housing insecurity.

With me are Christopher Sanchez, legislative advocate for the Western Center on Law and Poverty, to provide testimony and is Steven Weiss here? Oh, he's on the phone. Okay. Steven Weiss, Regional Managing Director for the Bay Area Legal Aid.

If the witness on the phone can go first.

Sure. Mr. Weiss, if you're on the phone, you may begin your testimony. Mr. Sanchez, why don't you go?

Sure. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members, Christopher Sanchez, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, here in strong support and as a proud sponsor of SB 491. And I first want to thank the Committee for its thorough analysis and its deep dive that it went into. As mentioned previously, this Bill will provide an additional option for Californians without a stable address to pick up government related mail, because, unfortunately, our nation's mail delivery system is not reliable for vulnerable Californians.

For decades, we've relied on the USPS, post office to provide us mail. However, in recent years, the Post Office has had to reprioritize its operations to ensure that they're still able to meet their federal obligation of delivering mail in a timely manner. One of the services that has been placed on the back burner, as mentioned, is the reprioritization of General Delivery. Today, some counties, such as Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego, have allowed for government mail to be picked up more than at their offices.

SB 491 seeks to ensure that an alternative option for mail is available for those who are unhoused, as they access to have access to mail, which is an essential link to providing access to social safety net programs for Californians living in poverty. Because they need access to EBT cards, they need to be able to receive their HUD notifications, and so forth.

Today, veterans, survivors of domestic violence, those who've been impacted by natural disasters, and many other Californians without a reliable mailing address need critical social services that they have successfully signed up for, and they need this last part to receive them. It is for these reasons we urge an aye vote for SB 491.

Thank you very much. Mr. Weiss, if you're on the phone lines, please indicate that to the operator so that you can testify.

But if you're in the general queue, then you may begin when we call you up. Is there anyone in support in the room at this time? Please come on up. Let's just state your name and affiliation, please.

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

Mr. Chair Members. Dennis Cuevas Romero with the California Health Plus Advocates, the Community Health Centers in the State of California in strong support. Thank you.

Suzanne Hume, CleanEarth4Kids.org. Strong support.

That happens all the time around here. You got to be on your toes. Anyone else in support here? Is there any opposition witnesses? Go ahead.

We did find Mr. Weiss' line. That's his line.

This hearing is getting weirder and weirder.

That was Mr. Weiss.

Mr. Weiss, are you there?

No, he put us on hold. That was his hold music.

I'm losing control of this hearing.

I opened his line and then he put us on hold.

Okay, we will continue on until he's done with his party. Is there anyone in opposition at this time? Seeing none. Okay, Operator, I'm scared now, but you can go on and do your thing. Support or opposition on the phone lines or whenever Mr. Weiss is ready.

Ladies and gentlemen, the phone lines. If you'd like to testify in support or opposition, please press one followed by zero for SB 491. Please go ahead. Line 81. Line 81, you are open.

Hi. Sorry about that. Thank you. My name is Raquel with the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Would you like me to try to open his line again?

Sure.

He had mute. Okay, let's go back 1 second. All right. You want to take that? Okay, his line is open.

Mr. Weiss, are you there? Let's just go on to support or opposition at this time and he'll--

Hello?

Oh, Mr. Weiss.

Can you hear me now?

We can hear you. You may begin your testimony.

Oh, hi. I'm not sure what happened there. I'm sorry. Good afternoon, Chair Jackson, Vice Chair Sanchez, Members of the Committee. And thank you to Senator Durazo. My name is Steve Weiss.

I'm a regional managing attorney at Bay Area Legal Aid, appearing in support of SB 491. This Bill, as it's been said, would ensure access to mail delivery services for people without a reliable mailing address, including people who are experiencing homelessness, to receive government-related mail at a county location, including mail about received public benefits or housing availability, as outlined in a recent report from the Western Center on Law and Poverty entitled Return to Sender: How an Unreliable Mail System Harms Californians Living in Poverty.

The US. Postal Service does not provide adequate access to timely and reliable mail delivery, particularly for people without a fixed residential address. This has gotten much worse since the start of the pandemic, with General Delivery becoming more and more unreliable. Some county social services agencies currently do hold mail for clients who receive county administered benefits, but the scope of services varies widely by county.

Some will only hold mail that was sent by the county and may not hold mail that was sent by the state or federal agency or some other program that's administering government benefits or housing assistance. For example, in early 2020, Contra Costa County stopped holding mail for clients on General Assistance and directed all mail, all client mail, to the US Postal service through General Delivery. When clients went to get their mail, they were often told that it had not yet been sorted.

By July of 2021, USPS and Contra Costa County no longer allowed the county to request General Delivery service on behalf of customers and returned mail for unhoused people back to the county, causing confusion and delay and disruption for people receiving their mail benefits. In San Francisco, all county mail for unhoused people is sent to one US Postal Service General Delivery location in the Tenderloin neighborhood, where mail is only held temporarily.

So if you're a DA recipient and you want to get your mail, you have to go to the Tenderloin location at least once a week, often wait in line for an hour or longer. Our clients have reported being solicited by drug dealers while waiting in line, putting some at risk of relapse. Other clients have reported being assaulted while waiting in line, or having fear of stalking by abusers who know that they have to go there to get mail.

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

Thank you very much. Any folks in support or in opposition on the phone lines?

Again, if you're in support or opposition, please press one followed by zero for SB 491. And we have one with an operator. One moment, Mr. Chair. And please go ahead, line 95. Line 95, you are open. They took themselves out of queue. There are no other participants queued up.

Okay, now we'll go to Committee Members. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Just want to, Mr. Chair, just to mention that the sponsors and I committed to working on issues raised in the Committee analysis and by the county welfare directors.

Thank you very much. We will have a vote after we have a quorum.

Thank you. Thank you, members. Now we'll go to SB 343. Senator Skinner, and you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, members. SB 343 is regarding child support enforcement. There is something in federal statute now that's referred to as the final rule, and it has not been revised in 20 years. However, in 2016, the federal office basically engaged in a full review of this and engaged in a comprehensive child support revision, which will result in orders being based on the evidence of an individual's financial circumstance. Also that allow for the screening for the ability to pay before incarcerating parents for failure to pay, and ensuring that incarcerated parents are able to adjust their payment based on income. California has to implement this final rule by Sept. 1, 2024. And what this bill does, SB 343, is ensures California's conformity with that new federal rule. So I want to thank the staff of this committee, the Protemon leadership staff, who all worked with stakeholders over the last summer and fall, to come up with an agreement on this. And now I'd like to turn to my witness, Steve Goldberg, who's Legal Services of Northern California.

Thank you very much. Stephen Goldberg, regional Counsel from Legal Services of Northern California. Good afternoon. I appreciate being here. SB 343 has two primary purposes. The first is to implement the federal final rule requiring an end to orders based on presumed income and to base child support orders on the facts of the case. And the bill properly does that. Secondly, SB 343 has two changes to right size orders. Child support orders in California have historically been unaffordable for low-income obligors. And this bill attempts to right-size those orders in two different ways. First, it changes the K factor in the current child support formula, which has not been updated since 1992, to help orders reflect the actual ability to pay for low-income obligors. Secondly, it increases the low-income adjustment to full-time minimum wage. And these two changes should create orders that better reflect what is a realistic order for low-income obligors to pay. These are important changes to comply with the federal final rule and to help right-size orders. And I urge support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the room who would like to add on support, please? State your name and affiliation, please.

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

Is there anyone any witnesses in opposition? Please come on up.

Hi, my name is Rajesh Sinha from Fremont, California, and I'm in opposition unless revised or amended. The major issue with the bill content is, first of all, it doesn't mention anywhere what the final rule requires as a self-support reserve. So if you have a self-support reserve for a low-income obligor, then you cannot tap into that in order to have a child support taken out from there. And the final rule of the federal government says you must have a self-support reserve. Secondly, there are certain other data, like 1.1 million child support cases are there, out of which 850 thousand cases as of 2022 have areas pending. That means 84% of child support cases are not you can say up to date, or they are not paying regularly. Now, 84% is pretty high. Right. Now, If we do tweaking of this formula, which is there in 4055, family code 4055, and some denominators and numerators have been changed, we ask DCSS to work on that formula to give us the data as to how much will be today and how much will be when this bill becomes a law. And we found there is hardly any difference of $20, $30 for the low-income obligators. With that difference, I don't see any reason why self-support reserve is being reflected anywhere. Secondly, the people will again default in making their child support. As of today, $18.5 billion is pending child support area in California, and it's snowballing at the rate of $2.5 million a day. $950 million per year. You can pick up any legislative report of DCSS, and they are given certain data that nowhere it is written straight away. That how much pending areas are being accrued every year. You have to do a little calculation, and you will find, since the time the legislative reports are coming out, that is 2015. Every year, it's like that. Please wrap up. Okay, I'm sorry about that. So I was suggesting that we should have a child support family fund, which should take care of the pending areas of every year, like $950 million. And it should be funded by tax-supported corporate funds or some of the federal funds, which come in like $650 million every year to DCSS and some from the state. And gradually, this will catch up.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the room in opposition? Please state your name and affiliation, please. Seeing none. We'll go to the phone lines. Is there anyone on the phone lines in support or opposition at this time?

In support or opposition to SB 343, please press one followed by zero. One, zero. Mr. Chair, nobody is queuing up at this time.

Okay, thank you very much. We are going to pause, and I think we have a quorum. And if we don't call it... We are going to get our quorum established. And Madam Secretary, please take the role.

Jackson. Here. Sanchez. Alanis. Arambula. Bonta. Here. Brian. Here. Calderon. Garcia.

I like the trend, so I'll be brief. This is a bill that this committee has seen before. It's slightly different, but in essence, we want to make sure that our children get as many behavioral health options, behavioral health treatments as possible. Current law pretty much restricts it to one. And if you're a parent and your child gets benefits from others, you have to pay out of pocket. And that's just not right. I have a number of key witnesses who I think are on the phone line to testify in support Dr. Cullinane. And then we also have a parent. We have Caitlin Welsh. Right.

All right, we have a quorum. Any questions or comments from committee members on SB? It's been moved. Is there a second? And we have a second. Questions or comments? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully, ask for your aye vote.

All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due, pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, aye. Alanis. Arambula. Arambula, aye. Bonta. Aye. Bonta, aye. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye.

Bryan, aye. Calderon. Garcia.

All right, it is five to zero and the bill is out. All right, our first bill out. Thank you very much. All right, next up we have SB 805 by Senator Portantino. You may begin when you're ready. Move the bill motion and a second. You may begin.

Board-certified educational therapist. If there is any witnesses on the phone line operator, please patch them in.

Hello? This is Diane Cullinane.

Yep. You may begin.

Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Jackson and committee members. My name is Dr. Diane Cullinane. I'm a developmental pediatrician and past president of the DIR Floor Time Coalition of California, the bill's sponsor. A little bit about my background. I've worked as a physician in managed healthcare, as a school physician with LA Unified School District at Children's Hospital, Los Angeles Center for Child Development, as training coordinator as a physician at East LA Regional Center. And for 23 years, I was a executive director of a nonprofit agency that provided therapy services for children with autism, largely funded by various regional centers. So, as you can see, I've witnessed firsthand the dramatic increase in autism and the urgent need for more services. For the past 12 years, I've advocated for legislation to make behavioral health services more equitable for children with autism. As you may know, in 2011, legislation required insurance to cover behavioral health treatment for autism in California. Unfortunately, subsequent regulations have restricted services to only one type of treatment, namely ABA, which is not effective for all children. Despite the intent of the original 2011 legislation that all evidence-based behavioral health treatments be available through insurance funding, developmentally based behavioral health treatment prescribed by physicians and psychologists for children with autism are being denied. Senate Bill 805 will finally correct this inequity and enable children with autism to get the services that are best for them. This will result in better outcomes as well as immediate and long-term cost savings for the state as costs are shifted from regional center to insurance and as less costly forms of intervention become available. I ask for your aye vote for Senate bill 805. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Ms. Welsh, are you on the line? Operator, do we have anyone else as a witness?

One moment, please. I am opening Caitlin Welsh's line.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can hear you. You may begin.

Thank you. My name is Caitlin Welsh and I'm the mother of Spencer, who has autism. Starting at two, Spencer had severe aggression towards others, kicking, biting, hitting, including my husband and myself, and when he went to school with teachers. Because the preschool demanded we address this, we saw a neuropsychologist who happened to be trained in DIR, a developmental individualized relationship-based approach. After receiving just one session, his daily hour-and-a-half rages, where we had to restrain him became 20 minutes rages every other day. After the second session, it was dropped to once a week. Eventually, we never had to restrain him. DIR was that effective for my son. Eventually, we never had to restrain him. Why would I want any other therapy? We were lucky enough to get DIR for several years. But once funding ended, I turned to Kaiser, our health insurance plan. I wanted him to continue at DIR, but was told that due to current law, Kaiser could only cover ABA. I didn't want him to stop attacking people simply because of consequences where we withheld rewards. I wanted him to control himself because he didn't want to hurt others. By developing awareness of others' feelings. So we asked Kaiser for just 4 hours a month of DIR. Our Kaiser pediatrician even recommended it. But Kaiser said that our only option was to receive 40 hours per month of ABA. 40 instead of four. Flash forward two years of doing ABA parent support and Spencer was much worse. We had zero relationship with our son and his anger towards us was intense. I decided I needed to go back to DIR, which worked in the past, even if Kaiser wouldn't pay for it. Within a month of having DIR sessions, 4 hours total, we were back to having a warm, connected relationship with our son. Please vote yes on SB 805.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room in support? Please come on up and state your name and affiliation, please.

Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth for Kids. Strong support.

Okay, is there any opposition witnesses? Anyone in the room in opposition? Seeing none. Operator, is there anyone on the phone lines in support or opposition?

And if you'd like to show support or opposition for SB 805, please press one, then zero. Our first line will come from line 83. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, in strong support of SB 805. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 94. Please go ahead.

Hi Raquel with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, in support of this bill. Thank you.

And our final in queue is line 57. Please go ahead.

Hi, it's Dr. Andrea Davis, licensed psychologist and the current president of the DIR Floor Time Coalition, the bill's sponsor. In strong support of SB 805.

And we have no further in queue.

Okay, thank you very much. Members of the committee, any questions or comments at this time? Seeing none, Senator, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote and appreciate the committee's attention to this issue.

Thank you very much. We have a motion by Bryan. Second by Arambula. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due, pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, aye. Alanis. Arambula. Arambula, aye. Bonta. Aye. Bonta, aye. Brian. Brian, aye. Calderon. Garcia.

Five to zero, the bill is out. Thank you very much. Now, while we're waiting for other Senators, any other Senators, please make your way here. We are pretty quick around here, and so please make your way. And while we're waiting, we will do some add-ons at this time. Madam Secretary, please do the add-on votes.

On the consent calendar. File item three, SB 348, Skinner. File item five, SB 456, Menjivar. File item nine, SB 521, Smallwood-Cuevas. I need a motion. Second.

It's been moved and seconded for consent.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On the consent calendar. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, aye. Alanis. Arambula. Arambula, aye. Bonta. Aye. Bonta, aye. Bryan. Aye. Bryan, aye. Calderon. Garcia.

Five to zero. The consent calendar is out. Now we will do some add-on votes for bills that have been heard.

File item one, SB 318. I need a motion.

It's been moved. Can I get a second? We got a second by Bryan. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due, pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Jackson. Jackson, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, aye. Alanis. Arambula. Arambula, aye. Bonta. Aye. Bonta, aye. Bryan. Bryan, aye. Calderon. Garcia.

Five to zero. The bill is out.

File item seven, SB, 491, Durazo.

Is there a motion? It's been moved. Is there a second? We got a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due, pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, aye. Alanis. Arambula. Arambula, aye. Bonta. Aye. Bonta, aye. Bryan. Bryan, aye. Calderon. Garcia.

The vote is five to zero. The bill is out. Now we'll move on to SB 578. Is there a motion, a second? So moved. Second. Got a motion. Got a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due, pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, aye. Alanis. Arambula. Arambula, aye. Bonta. Aye. Bonta, aye. Bryan. Calderon. Garcia.

Four to zero is on call.

File item 11, SB 589 Alvarado-Gil.

Is there a motion? It's been moved. We got a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due, pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, aye. Alanis. Arambula. Arambula, aye. Bonta. Aye. Bonta, aye. Bryan. Calderon. Garcia.

The vote is four to zero. The bill is on call.

File item 12, SB 628 Hurtado.

Is there a motion? Been moved. Is there a second? We got a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due, pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Jackson. Jackson, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, not voting. Alanis. Arambula. Arambula, aye. Bonta. Aye. Bonta, aye. Bryan. Calderon. Garcia.

Vote is three to zero. A bill is on call.

File item 13 SB 773, Glazer.

Is there a motion? It's been moved. Is there a second? We have a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due, pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, aye. Alanis. Arambula. Arambula, aye. Bonta. Aye Bonta, aye. Bryan. Calderon. Garcia.

The vote is four to zero on call. Still waiting on Senators to come on down and have your bills be heard.

Next up, we have SB 499 by Senator Manjavar. You may begin when you're ready.

Spend an hour and a half in Health Committee? I hope not for both of our sakes chair Members, I'm here to present to you SB 499, my Cool Schools Act. Bill. It's looking to address the issue of hawk ground services on school campuses and the impact that health and safety on our students in my district. About a year and a half ago, LA Times did an article that on a 93 degree weather, the asphalts got to 145 degrees.

This is a crisis that both the Governor recent reports UCLA just came out with another report saying that we need to do something in the Legislature. So to that, SB 499 is looking to it requires schools to do two things create an extreme heat action plan, stating that by the earliest time or next time schools will surface or resurface, they will offer a cooler solution. This also applies to childcare centers that are located within school on school campuses.

This does not include family daycare centers or daycare childcare centers that are off site of school campuses. It's asking them to install green barriers that have been shown to mitigate the impacts of extreme heat and pollution. Additionally, it's asking for two things from our departments. It's requiring the Department of Education and consultation with the Department of Social Services to develop a template for an extreme heat action Plan that can be utilized by school sites to help guide them.

Additionally, it's also asking for them to create a modern program guidebook that would be a living document that can be added to every single year or so forth. Secondly, it's asking the Department of Social Services to identify a liaison that is trained in extreme heat mitigation efforts to help guide these child day care centers along with our schools.

We're no stranger to the fact that climate change has led to an average temperatures rising in the United States that are disproportionately impacting our BIPOC communities, our rural areas, and so forth. Research shows that communities with the fewest resources usually have the least access to nature within and surrounding their school grounds, coupled with the highest heat, pollution and environmental toxicology levels. Your colleague there are a couple of Assembly Members that are running complimentary bills.

Assembly Member Calderon has a funding portion of this because where are we going to find the money? In the past year, the Governor has earmarked $150,000,000 for grants to be issued under CAL FIRE to help our schools and so forth to implement some of these changes on their campuses. A statewide coalition of nearly 50 experts, including doctors, medical and environmental health researchers, educators, youth and community groups recently released that call to action that I mentioned about a month ago.

And among their evidence based recommendations was the need for a Climate Resilient Master Plan, which is what my Bill is looking to do. I want students to be able to thrive in school. And by removing these harmful services and adding green spaces, there'll be significant change in students daily experiences, learning and health outcomes. Because right now, if it's really extremely hot, we're not letting our kids go out and play.

And just to reiterate, it aligns with the Governor's Extreme Heat Action Plan that was released in April of last year. Here with me today to testify Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'd like to turn it over to not Chuck Mills.

Christina Hildebrandt.

Christina Hildebrandt with The Voice for Choice Advocacy and co sponsor of SB 499.

I believe Chuck may be on the phone. Chair Jackson, Member of the Assembly Health Committee Services Committee. My name is Christina Hildebrand and I'm the founder and President of A Voice for Choice Advocacy and proud sponsor of SB 499. I know you've been sitting in here all afternoon, but my question was going to be have you been outside this afternoon and felt the asphalt?

If not, I ask you, when you leave this building to go, just put your hand on any piece of concrete or black top for 7 seconds and feel how hot it is on a 90 degree day, which is what we have outside. I also ask you to stand in the sun and then stand in the shade and just feel the difference in temperature there. As Sin of Tamendravar mentioned, synthetic surfaces can rise to over 145 degrees.

Vegetation and tree canopy lower temperatures through direct shade and a process known as evapotranspiration, in which a tree pulls moisture up from the soil and releases it via the leaves. An area of shade can be 20 to 45 degrees cooler than surfaces in the full sun. According to the US. EPA, the goal of SB 49 is to create school environments which benefit the students and staff physically, mentally and environmentally, and ensures it is accomplished from a place of equity.

SB 499 will mitigate both extreme heat and air pollution in California schools and daycares in line with the Governor's priorities for our state. A recent report of California schools shows that 85% of our schools have less than 10% shade covering. Children spend a significant portion of their day outside of their school or daycare. Removing synthetic surfaces that absorb heat and adding shade trees in places that are accessible to children during the school day will directly protect them from high temperatures and toxic air exposure.

This is especially true for children in daycare or preschool who are closer to the hot ground. Children in lower income neighborhoods and children of color are affected, disproportionately with alarming frequency. Amid growing public concern about economic inequality and environmental injustice, it's essential to unravel the link between poverty and pollution and extreme heat, and design effective means to spare children these detrimental effects.

Research shows that urban tree and shrub cover in schools is positively associated with increased physical activity, attention, social collaboration, as well as higher academic performance, as well as decreasing students'anxiety stress and destructive behavior. Trees are also amazing at converting California's heavily polluted air into clean air, which has been shown to reduce children's asthma and allergies. Significantly, this Bill is a win win for students, teachers, staff and local communities. I will say one opposition that we've gotten is that it is a one size fit all.

If you read the Bill, it is not every school can do what they feel is the right thing to do. For mitigating Extreme Heat, A Voice for Choice asks you to pass SB 499 out of this Committee, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Operator, is there a Chuck Mills on the line for testimony?

Chuck Mills is here. Good afternoon, Chair Jackson and Members of the Committee. I'm with Tree People, an LA based nonprofit utilizing nature based solutions to catalyze climate resiliency in the region's most underserved communities. We're proud to support Senator Menjovar's SB 499, which is a critical component in addressing extreme heat at our state schools, where children spend 30% or more of their waking time.

Extreme heat has become an increasingly visible and necessary issue for California to confront as the state sees more triple digit days than it ever has before. Punctuated by our dubious distinction in 2022 of holding the title for single so hottest September day on record for the planet, the Legislature and the Administration have made significant strides addressing the issue and how it affects our youth through such laudable efforts. As Senator mentor mentioned the extreme heat action plan and Green schoolyards grant program, both adopted last year.

However, the state needs public policy that can weave these pieces together and set in statute a framework for how California keeps our kids safe from the adverse physical and mental effects of playing and learning at school sites. Too hot for either? SB 49 seeks transformative change, creating a partnership between the state and the state school districts to develop Exchanging Action plans across all campuses and implement those plans in a reasonable time frame.

Moreover, the Bill recognizes the value and long term benefits that nature based solutions bring to this equation, including shade trees and related green infrastructure. As already noted, decades of research has documented the educational and health benefits that result when students are provided park like environments in which to learn and play.

The Bill recognizes the urgency to course correct with California school sites, both old and new, that too often favor pavement over green space and lack a definitive plan to transform these concrete campuses into living schoolyards that will further the state's efforts to create climate resilient communities and provide genuine human service for generations to come.

The Bill is supported by over 30 environmental and environmental justice groups doing the on the ground work to mitigate extreme heat on campuses through green solutions to communities like Riverside, Fresno, Oakland and Los Angeles. We applaud Senator Dementia's leadership on this issue and respectfully request your I vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the room in support? Please come on up and just state your name and affiliation, please.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Karen Amagon. On behalf of Stand Up California, we support SB 49.

Suzanne Hume, cleaners for kids. Very strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there any opposition witnesses?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Rebecca Colleen with the Coalition for adequate school housing and the county school Facilities Consortium. We represent school districts and county offices of education on school facilities issues. We support the goal of safe and healthy outdoor spaces to support child education and development, and we have been partners on addressing climate change here in the state.

We're concerned that the approach in SB 499 identifies building materials that are bad and good for the purposes of heat mitigation without regard for other functionality of those materials. For example, SB 49 says rubber surfaces are bad because they have a Low specific heat. But we used rubberized play surfaces for impact attenuation so that falls off of play structures and to ensure that children of all physical abilities can safely access play structures.

SB 499 appears to conflict with federal requirements for access compliance. It refers to replacement of outdoor surfaces, which, as drafted, would impact path of travel surfaces. We can't replace a paved walkway with Wood chips or natural grass and still meet accessibility standards. SB 499 also conflicts with existing state policy on drought mitigation and irrigation efficiency requirements. Schools abide by standards known as model water efficient landscape ordinances.

Mandating the use of Low specific heat surfaces like natural grass is likely to conflict with these Mwello standards, and those are very localized regional standards that are developed in local communities. State building code governs the use of specific materials through a very robust process that allows for consideration of multiple factors. SB 499 bypasses that process and ultimately creates numerous conflicts with state and federal policies in doing so. Thank you.

Is there anyone else, any opposition in the room at this time? Seeing none? Is there anyone on the phone lines in support or in opposition?

And once again, if you'd like to show support or opposition to SB 499, please press one and then zero. First we're going to go to line number 103 103. Please go ahead.

Hello Chair Members. This is Christy Sapolvita Burchett with Educate Advocate. We are in strong support. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 104. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Members. This is Casha Williams. I'm home on behalf of California Parents Union and we are in support of SB 499. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 105. Please go ahead.

Vanessa Forsythe with Clean Earth for Kids calling in to support SB 499. Thank you.

Next we're going to line 87. Please go ahead.

*Inaudible*. With California environmental voters in strong support.

Next, we're going to line 98. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Michelle Gale on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in opposition. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 94 pardon me. We're going to line 44. Please go ahead. Your line is open 44.

Good afternoon. Madison Dolane on behalf of Prevention Institute, calling in support of SB 499. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 33. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Terry Saucea on behalf of the Los Angeles and San Fernando Valley chapters of the Climate Reality Project in strong support.

Next, we're going to line 62. Please go ahead. Line 62. You may have your mute button on.

Diane Wolkie in support on behalf of safe, healthy playing Fields nontoxic communities. San Diego sequel, the Field Fund, the Jewish Earth Alliance and Angelinos for Green School. Thank you.

Next we're going to line 93. Please go ahead.

Hello, Lindy Purcell with families advocating for chemical and toxic safety and strong support.

Next, we're going to line 101, please go ahead. Line 101. Possibly you have your mute button on. We'll move on to the next line, which is line 110. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Leanne McCauliffe residents, Santa Clara County, calling in strong support of SB 499. Thank you.

Next we'll go to line 108. Please go ahead.

My name is Pam Bond, I'm a parent in Los Godos, California, in a school district that's been directly impacted by these hot surfaces and strong support of SC 499.

Next we'll go to line 107. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Cynthia Fan, and I am a parent of schoolchildren in Santa Clara County. Also calling in strong support. Thank you.

And our final line is line 1111. Please go ahead.

This is John Bador with clean earthforkits.org and strong support.

And we have no further in queue.

Thank you very much. People might be wondering why in the world is this Bill coming to the Human Services Committee? Well, we actually were wondering the same thing. However, it's important to note that this Bill requires the California Department of Education, in consultation with the California Department of Social Services, to develop a template for an extreme heat action plan and make available a model program guidebook, and requires CDSs to identify a liaison for care facilities.

So because it is dealing with the Department of Social Services, that's why we are only here to hear this portion of it. If this Bill passes, it will go on to the Education Committee, where I'm sure there will be a robust discussion as well. Is there a motion that's been moved? We have a second. Any additional questions or comments from Committee Members?

Yes, I wanted to thank the Senator for bringing up this important issue. Last year, I had the privilege of going to France to learn about their extreme heat plan and believe that your measure here today will take California a step forward. We have a lot more that we can learn from other municipalities and look forward to. The effort that comes out of this Bill and when it's appropriate, would like to be considered to be added as a co author, if possible.

Thank you so much, Dr. Arambula. Thank you. Of course. Absolutely.

Any other questions or comments from Members seeing? None. Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

The motion is due passed to the Assembly Education Committee. Jackson, Aye. Sanchez, Not voting. Alanis. Arabula. Arambula, Aye Bonta. Aye. Bryan. Calderon. Garcia.

The vote is three to zero, and we will hold the roll open for additional votes. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Next up, we have SB 831 by Senator Caballero, and you can do that Bill. And after that, I hear you have another Bill that you're doing on behalf of Senator Wahob as well.

Yes.

You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members for the opportunity to present SB 831. SB 831 would give authority to the Governor to negotiate with the federal government to create a pilot program for undocumented agricultural workers in California in order to create a pathway to permanency residency status.

I'm working with the attorneys and the UFW to address the issues raised in the analysis and to make sure that whatever we do gives a federal government the ability to create this program just for California because we're different than the rest of the states. The United States is home to the largest immigrant population in the world. While assimilation in the United States is reported to be faster than in any other country, immigration remains one of the most contentious issues in our country, and it's really split across the country.

You're not going to get any uniform agreement on how to handle immigration. The agricultural sector is one of the largest industry sectors in California, and its performance is vital to the economy of the state and food security of the country. California is the top agricultural producing state in the United States, with more than 50 billion in agricultural annual revenue, producing over 13% of the US. agricultural value.

California produces over 400 different commodities, including two thirds of all fruits and nuts, and more than one third of all vegetables consumed in the country. These agricultural commodities are also exported globally. According to a study by the University of California, Davis, every dollar of value in farming and agriculture related industries generates an additional dollar 27 in the state economy. For every 100 jobs in agriculture, there are 94 additional jobs created throughout the state.

California's ability to grow and feed its population and large portions of the nation are essential to the national security of the United States. California's agriculture contributes significantly to the state's economic well being and is vital to its stability and growth. So why are we talking about farm workers? According to the Center for Farm Worker Families, between one third to one half of all farm workers in the United States reside in California, or approximately 500,000 to 800,000 farm workers. Approximately 75% of them are undocumented.

Farmers and agricultural producers in California are struggling to find a reliable and consistent workforce which is aging. Undocumented agricultural workers face multiple forms of exploitation, encountering unsafe or unsanitary working conditions, are reluctant to report their rights. Rights reserved for all workers in California have been violated because they are afraid of jeopardizing their jobs and families. Undocumented agriculture workers have no access to the disability benefits and Social Security benefits that they earn as part of their work in agriculture.

Another way they fill up the fund, but they can't earn them. They can't benefit because they're undocumented. During the pandemic, they were classified as essential workers who were expected to show up every day to work, yet were not eligible to receive unemployment benefits or any other COVID relief granted by the state or federal government. They fed the country but suffered higher rates of infection and death due to COVID.

SB 831 would state the intent of this Legislature to create a partnership with the federal government in conjunction with the Governor to create a pathway to legalize an agricultural workforce that are critical to the state's economy and food security. I would like to thank the chair and the Committee staff for their support on this important issue.

Should the Bill move forward today, I'm continuing to continue working on it and any language change that we may effectuate, we'll bring it back to the Committee so you could take a look at it. With me to testify in support of the Bill and facilitate questions is Victoria Poz with Lideres Campensinas. She'll speak in Spanish and then it will be interpreted.

Victoria Poz. Sode, Guatemala. Soy De partamento De societipe ablo espanol yelchiche travahe angel Campo durante lapademia mientrasmuchas personas sequedaro Encasa Etravahado Engel Calor Engel Frio Elas yubias durante incendios Tenia Mucco Miedo dermarme iber kemi familia in Guatemala. Saint Ferman inopo De Ayudar Dio Tango beneficio De Salud medical TMPO dermedat no beneficio De samplio ago muco dinero Untravajo Muduro dice soy insencial Perono tango permisso De Travajoni existe pais legal mente PO rasones control Guatemalai.

Mi comonidad ASU frido Mucco Tubo Kebuscar unabida mejor nosotrosco se Chamos LA comida paralla Mesa De dos De Todos travahadores para sustainer liconomia De este pais De estado may Uno comis campagnas leader es campesina in California ParaPod avogar ilograr una bida mask campesinas comojo defende Nuestros De rachos. Umanos les Pido Ketrava Jemos Junto Honosotros Ivote AFA Borde LA pro Puesta De Latros Nosotros Los Ramos toda classe De frutas De verduras. No sapasado todo el sol.

Elawa ensima De Nosotros kenostoming and Quinta Como lires campesina Como travahadores Porcasino sotros novamosa travahar Kembacos Frutas, Kembacos Berduras Quienes bangas embrace Otoson diapoyar estale Kenosotros Estamos Necessitado diosteres comucco porqueto De testimonial ketraje ploiso contodo mikorazo IconTo poraquendo ang elfil Ipora Keos Notanianawa Isa Muriero entrepreneur Garon Suspira yoleson Kelos ikenosapo paracetamo ibaca iporesonosotros amos benidong este pais paraluchar I Parasacara De lante nostra familia. YOLES Agradesco Contolo mi coraso portolo locanos mes MESCU charo. YOLES Agradesco ike dios Bendiga ike dioslevaco icomano sotro Sambie. Gracias.

Thank you.

Okay. Hello. My name is Victoria Poz, and today I would like to thank the Creator for allowing us to be here today. I am from Guatemala, from the Department of My. My native language is Spanish or I'm sorry, I speak Spanish, but my native language is Quiche. I worked in the fields during the pandemic while many people stayed at home. I have worked in the heat, the cold, the rains and during the fires.

I was very afraid of getting sick and seeing my family in Guatemala get sick and not being able to help them. I have no health benefits or sick time, nor unemployment benefits. I make very little money for hard work. They say that I am essential, but I do not have permission to work or even exist in this country legally, for reasons beyond my control, Guatemala and my community have suffered greatly. I had to look for a better life.

We grow food for everyone's tables and work to sustain the economy of this country and state. I joined my fellow women farmworker leaders in California to advocate for a fairer, more just life and for farmworkers like me to defend our human rights. I urge you to work with us and vote in favor of SB 831. We have worked hard and gone through so much, working in the sun and the heat, and nobody takes us into consideration.

I beg for you all to listen to the workers and to take them into consideration. The economy in Guatemala is very Low. So oftentimes they don't have a choice of staying in their own country. And so she just asks and pleads that you take into consideration her situation and many others. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the room in support? Please come on up. State your name and affiliation.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Taylor Roche on behalf of California Fresh. Fruit Association and California Citrus Mutual. In support of the Bill. Thank you. .

Suzanne Hume clean Earth for Kids. Strong support

Is there any opposition witnesses? Any opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Anyone in the room in opposition? Seeing none. We'll go to our phone lines is there anyone in support or opposition on our phone lines?

And if you'd like to show support or opposition for SB 831, please press one, then zero at this time.

Thank you very much. I would just like to thank Ms.. Boss. She has presented testimony during the trajectory of this Bill and her comments are really poignant. She speaks for all of the farm workers that are looking for the opportunity to be part, a legal part of this society.

And this is just a real simple way for us to separate ourselves from the rest of the country and say, here, we appreciate the hard work of farm workers and we want them to be recognized, and we want them to be able to receive the benefits that they earn every day and so respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you very much. Do we have a motion and a second? We have a motion and a second. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Jackson, Aye. Sanchez, Not Voting. Alanis, Aye. Arambule, Aye. Bonta, Aye. Calderon. Garcia.

The vote is four to zero and we will keep the roll open for additional votes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next we will have SB 463 that will be presented the author is Wahab, but will be presented by Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here to present SB 463 on behalf of Senator Wahab, which the Bill removes the automatic presumption that inability of a parent to participate regularly in court ordered treatment programs is sufficient to deny reunification of parent and child. Under current law, a parent or guardian's failure to participate regularly and make progress in court ordered treatment programs is used as baseline evidence of unfitness and can result in the denial of family reunification.

Unless the parent or guardian can produce evidence to the contrary, the court must assume that the parent or guardian is unfit solely based on their performance and participation in treatment programs.

Lack of compliance may be a red flag, but there are many reasons unrelated to fitness that a parent or guardian might not be able to fully participate in the treatment program, for example, such as the inability to take time off of work, the lack of treatment programs, long waitlist illness, and the inability to afford the program. Child welfare research and recent legislative trends suggest current risks to a child should always be the analysis, not a parent's level of compliance.

Additionally, many marginalized groups have fear and generational trauma around the child welfare system, making them less likely to be compliant or cooperative. SB 463 eliminates a requirement for courts to begin with the assumption that the parent is unfit solely because of the lack of participation. It strengthens judicial discretion and allows the court to make more holistic determinations when deciding family reunification. Testifying today.

In person is Dominica Campbell, an attorney with the Los Angeles dependency lawyers and available to answer questions via the phone line is Hilary Kerrigan, the lead deputy council counsel, county counsel for Santa Clara County child welfare unit.

Thank you. Thank you, chair Members and staff. My name is Dominica Campbell and I am an appellate attorney with the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers. Excuse me. My organization represents parents in one of the largest child dependency systems in our nation. We represent nearly 220 thousand parents a day in court. Also present are my colleagues from the other side of the attorney's table, our co sponsors, the County of Santa Clara County Council, Hillary Kerrigan by phone.

We thank you for the opportunity to speak about SB 463, which increases judicial discretion in deciding dependency cases for the well being of the child and the family independency proceedings. Once a child's been removed from their parent, there are review hearings that happen every six months. Each of these hearings have certain guidelines that the court must follow. The court must return the child home unless a showing is made that doing so poses a substantial risk of detriment to the child.

If a child cannot be returned to the home, family reunification may stop and a permanent separation may be considered. Under current law, if the government shows that the parent failed to attend required classes or make substantive progress, a facially sufficient case has been made to show that return is unsafe. The burden then falls on the parent to rebut this presumption, which can be difficult to accomplish with the limited resources a parent or court appointed counsel may have.

The current presumption in the law is outdated and simplistic. It's outdated because it traces back to the 1980s when it was probation officers and not social workers that ran foster care. The focus was on punishing parents instead of protecting children back then, the child welfare system has since continued to be overhauled to prioritize child well being and encourage reunification when it can be safely accomplished. Currently, the presumption that a parent's noncompliance automatically equals risk is simplistic in that it conflates the noncompliance with a danger.

The opposite would also not be true. A court would not find a home to be safe for a child just because a parent attended classes without actually considering what the parent learned from those classes. Ultimately, compliance can only tell us so much about the safety of a child. The presumption overlooks valid excuses that the court can consider about why the parent could not comply and what the parent's efforts to comply were.

With permanent separation of families at stake, the court and we as a nation should not be content to rely on intellectual shortcuts such as this presumption. Furthermore, the presumption creates an inequitable result. As all Members are aware, Low income families and families of color are overrepresented in the child welfare system. In some counties, the parent must pay for services themselves, or classes may only be offered during normal work hours. This puts financially struggling parents in a.

Predicament if you can wrap up. Yes. This puts financially struggling parents in a predicament between having to choose whether or not to comply or to provide for their family. Taking away this presumption will take the finger off the scale. This will increase judicial discretion to be able to look at all the case facts without having to go into court with the presumption that they must follow. We're asking for your support. The Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, strongly and without reservation, supports SB 463, and we strongly encourage an Aye vote. Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room in support? Please come on up and just state your name and affiliation, please. Seeing none. Is there anyone in opposition? Any opposition witnesses? Any opposition in the room? Seeing none. Is there anyone on the phone lines in support or in opposition?

Hillary Carrigan, County Council's Office. The County of Santa Clara is a. Proud co sponsor of this Bill.

Anyone else in support or in opposition on the phone lines? We have no one in queue at this time. Please press one, then zero if you'd like to show support or opposition. And we have no one in queue. Okay, thank you very much. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Ms. Bonta?

A question for the expert here. So essentially, we're making an assumption that we're removing the presumption that should a parent not be able to support or attend both treatments and workshops or status hearing, that it doesn't lead to prima facial understanding of the judge that a child should not be placed within the Home for Family Unification. Is that fair? But it's replaced by additional judicial discretion with any guidance associated with that. Or can you just share a little bit what the replacement is, what the alternative is?

The review hearings themselves already have codes and statutes that the court must follow. So instead of being a presumption, the parents failure to participate now just becomes one factor in a lot of factors that the court can consider. So there's already existing law that allows the judge to make the decisions that they need to. Now we're just removing kind of this thumb on the scale that the judge must follow. Now the judge can take a holistic view at all of the case facts and decide what's in the best interest of the child at that time.

I'll move the Bill. Thank you for the answer.

We have a motion. We have a second. Any additional questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. Madam Secretary, please call the zero, but will you like to close I'm on a roll? We're ready to wrap up.

It's all good. Mr. Chair, we respectfully ask for your behalf of Senator Wahab.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Jackson, Aye. Sanchez, No. Alanis, No. Arambula, Aye. Bonta, Aye. Bryan, Aye. Calderon. Garcia.

The vote is four to two is on call for other Members to add on to their vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

And now we'll go to SB 435, our final Bill for today. And we want to thank Dr. Arambula for being able to present this Bill for us.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here today to present Senate Bill 435 on behalf of Senator Lena Gonzalez, which will take the necessary first step to uncover trends and potential disparities that are often hidden in aggregated health data for Latinos and Indigenous Mesoamericans.

SB 435 will ensure that health data collected by the state reflects the diversity of various subgroups within Latino populations and is able to actively address the needs of each group. Testifying in support of this measure, I have Mar Velez with the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California and Carmen Hernandez with MICOP, the Mixteco Indigenous Community Organizing Project.

We have a motion, we have a second. You may do your testimony.

Well, good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Mar Velez, Director of Policy with the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. LCHC is a proud co sponsor of SB 435, authored by Senator Lena Gonzalez, which will collect and disaggregate anonymous demographic and language data for Latinx subgroups and Indigenous Mesoamerican nations in California. The goal of SB 435 is to uncover and reduce underlying health disparities related to both the social determinants of health, like food access, and disease related disparities such as diabetes or COVID-19.

For Latinx and Indigenous nations. Research shows that more specific, high quality demographic data is beneficial to address and effectively meet the health needs of diverse populations. Food insecurity is a particularly pervasive issue within the Latinx and Indigenous Mesoamerican community, and the CalFresh program is one of the premier programs assisting to fight food insecurity in our state. Latinx households comprise 40% of all households participating in CalFresh.

However, a recent statewide survey showed one in five respondents who participated in CalFresh experienced a language barrier when applying for the program. An estimated 75% of individuals who experienced discrimination, bias, or language barriers reported that they would be less likely to apply for services in the future. And Spanish speakers were twice as likely than English speakers to have this experience.

And we know that for Indigenous language speakers that they face even more barriers when trying to access social safety net programs, as there is rarely, if ever, language access for Indigenous Mesoamerican languages. SB 435 will recognize the specific needs of Indigenous Mesoamericans who speak more than 560 languages and dialects. Collecting specific demographic and language data can assist public health departments and safety net systems like the CalFresh program to provide culturally competent and responsive information and care.

To address these disparities and improve enrollment and outcomes for these programs, I respectfully ask for your aye vote for SB 435.

Good afternoon, chair and Committee Members. My name is Carmen Hernandez, a former enroller and outreach specialist for the CalFresh program in Ventura County with the Mixteco and Dijana Community organizing Project. For six years, I saw cultural and linguistic challenges in the CalFresh system, simply because our indigenous community identified within a race and ethnicity that was not previously accounted for in the pre assigned boxes of the application.

And for those who spoke an indigenous language. Within the application, there are also two questions which ask what language families prefer to speak and read if it's not English in the application, there's a blank line so that clients can write down their preferred language. So there I wrote that the community Members preferred language to speak was Mixteco, and in writing it was Spanish. However, when the time came for the interview, these families were called in Spanish or even in English, and not in Mixteco.

The families did not understand it when they were spoken to, and they asked for an interpreter, which is a civil and human right. And what actually happened was that they would tell them that they would call them again and that they would find an interpreter, but it did not happen. Most of the time, the calls did not arrive. Many times their cases were simply denied and as well as their benefits, with the excuse that they never completed their interview.

But in reality, it was because of the language access barrier. The application also includes a question about race, ethnicity and ethnic origin, and there are many options, such as Other and Mix, among others, although there is a box for Other, we wrote in Indigenous Oaxaqueño, which was not even taken into account. Knowing this, it is crucial that we begin to collect demographic data for the Indigenous, Mesoamerican and Latino nations. We also count. This is why today I respectfully ask for your I vote on SB 435. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there any...translate? Oh, I'm sorry.

Good afternoon, chair and Committee Members. My name is Carmen Hernandez, a former enroller and outreach specialist for the CalFresh program in Ventura County with the Mixteco and Dijana Community organizing Project. For six years, I saw cultural and linguistic challenges in the CalFresh system, simply because our indigenous community identified within a race and ethnicity that was not previously accounted for in the pre assigned boxes of the application.

And for those who spoke an indigenous language. Within the application, there are also two questions which ask what language families prefer to speak and read if it's not English in the application, there's a blank line so that clients can write down their preferred language. So there I wrote that the community Members preferred language to speak was Mixteco, and in writing it was Spanish. However, when the time came for the interview, these families were called in Spanish or even in English, and not in Mixteco.

The families did not understand it when they were spoken to, and they asked for an interpreter, which is a civil and human right. And what actually happened was that they would tell them that they would call them again and that they would find an interpreter, but it did not happen. Most of the time, the calls did not arrive. Many times their cases were simply denied and as well as their benefits, with the excuse that they never completed their interview.

But in reality, it was because of the language access barrier. The application also includes a question about race, ethnicity and ethnic origin, and there are many options, such as Other and Mix, among others, although there is a box for Other, we wrote in Indigenous Oaxaqueño, which was not even taken into account. Knowing this, it is crucial that we begin to collect demographic data for the Indigenous, Mesoamerican and Latino nations. We also count. This is why today I respectfully ask for your I vote on SB 435. Thank you.

Fantastic. Thank you so much for the testimony. Anyone in support in the room?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Christopher Sanchez, policy advocate with The Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support.

...In support.

Myda Castillo-Garcia on behalf of Ultimate in support.

Vanessa Terán, policy Director with MICOP, in strong support. Thank you.

Fantastic. Is there anyone in opposition? Any opposition witnesses, seeing none. We'll go to our phone lines. Is there anyone on the phone lines in support or in opposition on the phones?

And if you'd like to show support or opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. 1-0. Our first line is line 51. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi. Mary Creasy. On behalf of the Children's Partnership in support.

Next we're going to line 42. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, chair and Committee Members. My name is Juan Carlos Diaz, a community advocate with Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Project, calling in strong support of SB. Four, three, five. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 63. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, chair and Committee Members. My name is Alondra Mendoza, a community advocate with the Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Project, calling in strong support of SB 435. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 92. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Johan Cardenas with the California Pan Ethnic Health Network and the Having Our Say Coalition in strong support.

Next is line 112. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Next is line 113. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hello, Daniel Sanchez. On behalf of Sheerla and also the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Jessica Moran with the California Dental Association in support. Thank you.

And our final line is line 114. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, chair and Committee Members. My name is Betza Estudillo and I'm with Nourish California, and we're in support of SB 435. Thank you.

And we have no further in queue.

Thank you very much. Is there any questions or comments from Committee Members at this time?

Thank you for bringing forth the Bill. Please move the Bill.

All right, we have a motion by Alanis a second by Sanchez. Dr. Arambula, would you like to close?

Thank you. Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to present on behalf of Senator Gonzalez, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Jackson aye. Sanchez aye. Alanis aye. Arambula aye. Bonta aye. Bryan aye. Calderon. Garcia.

The vote is six to zero. The Bill is out. Thank you so much. Now we will go on to add ons to the bills for those who haven't been able to cast their votes. Right on time, Madam Secretary. Let's open the roll so that Members can add on their votes.

On the consent calendar. Alanis. Alanis aye. Calderon. Garcia. Garcia aye. Final vote on the consent calendar, seven to zero. File item one, SB 318. The current vote is five to zero. Alanis. Alanis aye. Calderon. Garcia. Garcia aye. Final vote, seven to zero. File item two, SB 343. The current vote is five to zero. Alanis. Alanis aye. Calderon Garcia. Garcia aye. Final vote, seven to zero. File item four, SB 435. The current vote is six to zero. Calderon. Garcia. Garcia aye. Final vote seven to zero.

File item six, SB 463. Current vote is four to two. Calderon. Garcia Garcia aye. Final vote, five to two. File item seven, SB 491. Current vote is five to zero. Alanis. Alanis aye. Calderon. Garcia. Garcia aye. Final vote seven to zero. File item eight, SB 499. The current vote is three to zero. Alanis. Alanis not voting. Bryan aye. Bryan aye. Calderon. Garcia. Garcia aye. Final vote five to zero. File item 10, SB 578. Current vote is four to zero. Alanis. Alanis aye. Bryan. Aye.

Bryan aye. Calderon. Garcia. Garcia, aye. Final vote, seven to zero. File item 11, SB 589. Current vote is four to zero. Alanis. Alanis, aye. Bryan. Aye.

Bryan aye. Calderon. Garcia. Garcia aye. Final vote seven to zero. File item 12, SB 628. Current vote is three to zero. Bryan I'm sorry. Alanis Alanis not voting. Bryan aye. Bryan aye. Calderon. Garcia. Garcia, aye. Final vote, five to zero file item 13, SB 773. Current vote is four to zero. Alanis. Alanis, aye. Bryan. Aye.

Bryan aye. Calderon. Garcia. Garcia aye. Final vote, seven to zero. File item 14, SB 85. Current vote is five to zero. Alanis. Alanis aye. Calderon. Garcia. Garcia aye. Final vote seven to zero. File item 15 SB 831. Current vote is four to zero. Bryan. Bryan aye. Calderon. Garcia. Garcia aye. Final vote six to zero.

Thank you. Business before the Assembly Human Service Committee is now complete. This hearing is now adjourned.