Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services

We will be getting started momentarily. We ask any Senators who are going to be present bills to make your way here. Chances are we'll be able to get you going right away. Also any Members of the Committee. We're looking for one more for quorum. Thank you. We'll call the hearing to order on the Committee of Human Services. We are going to begin by establishing the quorum. Madam Secretary, will you call the role.

Jackson, Here. Lackey, Here. Alanis. Arambula, Here. Bonta, Here. Carrillo. Calderon. Garcia.

We have a quorum. We're going to go right into the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, please read the bills on.

Consent file, item two, SB, two, four, six. Otoa. Bow file item eight, SB Eight, four, two Jones.

do we have a motion on the consent calendar? It's been moved. And a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Jackson, aye. Lackey, aye. Alanis Arambula, Aye. Bonta, Aye. Carrillo, Aye. Calderon. Garcia, Aye.

The vote is six to zero. The synth calendar has passed out. We will allow absent Members to add on at the end of the hearing. I want to start off by welcoming and thanking Assembly Members Lackey and Creole for filling in for us. We really appreciate it. Now we want to welcome everyone to the June 20 Bill hearing. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge our Members who weren't able to be here, but also those who have filled in.

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. 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 131-5437 you can also find this number on the Committee website as well as on your TV screen. If you are calling in, please do so now. The operator on the line will give you instructions on how to be placed in queue based upon whether you support or oppose a Bill. When calling in, please be mindful and eliminate all background noise.

We will be hearing eight bills on the agenda, two of which have been taken care of on consent. Please note that we will limit testimony to two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition. Each witness has two minutes to testify. Any additional witnesses may add on by stating their name and affiliation. The first Bill that we have up is SB Nine by Senator Cortese. Great to see you, and you may begin when you are ready.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Great to see all of you as well. I'm pleased to present. SB Nine happens to be sponsored by the California Judges Association. The Bill will create a three year opt in pilot program that extends the age of jurisdiction for voluntary Extended foster care for an additional year from age 21, which is the current limit to age 22. It Deems eligible foster youth as non minor dependents and allows them to extend their access to payment, benefits and transitional support services.

A nonminor dependent coming out of both the foster care and juvenile justice systems is eligible to receive extended jurisdiction under this proposal. In order to qualify, the nonminor must be homeless or at risk of homelessness and meet one or more of the additional conditions outlined in the Bill, which are the same requirements in current law. The need for this Bill is tremendous given the negative impact imposed by our most vulnerable youth by the COVID crisis and the fallout from that.

In fact, data shows a decline in outcomes resulting from the aftermath of the pandemic, making it clear that foster youth need a wider safety net. Additionally, all data points to the need for extended foster care. According to the Children's Bureau, approximately 4000 youth age out of foster care in California every year. That's an approximate number of the number of young people who age out. About 20% end up homeless, as reported by the LAO.

A study done by the University of Chicago in 2018 found that every additional year, youth spent in foster care increased their probability to complete a high school credential by 8%, increased their probability to enroll in college by 11%, and decrease the odds of being homeless between ages of 17 and 21 by 28%.

The benefits of extended foster care are undeniable, and it's time to give our youth the ability to have more time to address the effects of their trauma, make strides toward their education and employment opportunities, and accumulate support before transitioning out of the system. The Bill had bipartisan support in the Senate Policy committees and unanimous support on the Senate Floor. Here to testify is Desiree Peterson, along with Klaus Valdez, who are both former foster Youth. And we can call them up.

I believe they're on by phone, correct?

Okay, I didn't realize that.

And so if they're on by phone, we will first bring up Desiree Patterson, one of our former foster Youth. Motion to move the Bill. It's been moved. We have a second operator. Do we have our witnesses.

We do have a Veronica Valdez, but I do not see anyone else.

Do we have a Klaus Valdez or a Desiree Patterson?

If you are supposed to be speaking on this, please press one, then zero. And they're currently not queuing up if they need assistance. So all we have is just the Victoria Valdez. Okay.

So what we'll do is sometimes they get jumbled up, and so as soon as if we run into them, we'll give them their two minutes as we go.

Mr. Chair, maybe in lieu, I'd be willing, if he's here in the Committee room, to call Cliff Costa from the California Judges Association, I think he'd be prepared to serve as the lead witness in lieu of the others.

Not a problem. Come on up, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members Cliff Costa, on behalf of the California Judges Association and the Juvenile court Judges of California, which is a section of the California Judges Association, both organizations are sponsoring SB Nine and appreciate the Senator's work and his staff's work on this, as well as your work and the Committee's work on the Bill. We continue to see the progress of what extended foster care has done to our youth, the opportunities is providing for them.

But we've also seen the impact of the COVID pandemic, and what we did during the COVID pandemic was enable those foster youth to stay one additional year during the pandemic. And we saw positive outcomes coming out of that experience. And we would like to see that experience tried again in a pilot program that we are still seeking funding from in the budget. Frankly, honestly, we do not have money yet in the budget allocated for this pilot program.

But we continue to try to see if that opportunity is available and would ask your support today to continue until we know how the outcome of that budget is finalized with the Governor and the legislative leaders. And with that, we respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there any other additional folks in the room right now who's in support? Please come on up and just state your name and affiliation, please.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Tiffany Fan, on behalf of California Court appointed Special Advocate Association, or CalCASA, in support.

Good afternoon, Chairman Members. Jenny Trice, on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, support.

Thank you very much. Now, are there any primary opposition? Saying none. Is there any opposition in the room at this time? Seeing none now, we'll go to those who might be in support on the phone lines operator, are there any of those on the phone in support?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you should make a comment in support. Please press one, then please press star, then zero. Apologies. You'll hear a tone engagement placed into the queue. You may remove yourself from the queue at any time by pressing one, then zero again. If you speak your phone, please. Forgot the hands, therefore pressing any numbers. We do have someone that has queued up one moment while their line number is taken, and we will be going to line seven. Please go ahead.

Hi, Mary Christie. On behalf of the children's Partnership and support.

And one more has this queued up one moment while their line number is taken and we'll be going to line 24. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Stephanie Gohan, and I'm calling from San Francisco county to show support for this Bill.

Are there any additional support on the phone?

There are no others in the queue, but we do have Desiree Patterson now with us.

All right, bring her on up. Love to hear her.

Hi, I'm Desiree Patterson. I have lived experience and I'm in support on the behalf of California youth Connection.

Thank you very much, and we thank you for your participation. Are there anyone in opposition on the phone lines at this time?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak in opposition, please press 1 and 0. And there's currently no one queuing up.

Thank you very much. Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and thank you.

Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Any questions or comments for Members of the Committee saying that. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Jackson, aye. Lackey, aye. Alanis. Arambula, aye. Bonta, aye. Carrillo, Aye. Calderon, aye. Garcia, aye.

It's 7-0. The Bill is out. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Next we have SB 260. Senator Menjavar, please make your way up. And folks who may not be used to the Assembly Human Services Committee, just know that we take testimony and we also take support or opposition for those who are in person and via phone. It's always our goal to be as open and accessible as possible to our most vulnerable populations. So it just requires just a little bit more patient. But we are the patient Committee. Okay, Senator Menjivar, you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Committee Members. I'm here to present to you SB 260 that is looking to further close the gap on our menstrual equity. I do thank legislators before my time that I've worked so hard to ensure. We're closing that gap from allowing menstrual products to be in our schools to the removing of the ping tax. But we still need to close that gap because not everyone isn't in school. 247 and school itself, for those who are in school, is not open year round.

And we need to make sure that we're reaching the individuals where they're at. So SB 260 is looking to address our most Low income, our most vulnerable communities in the State of California, our cowworks recipients, which we have approximately 370,000 in the State of California. This Bill is looking to request to add $20 to those who are on cowworks. And this isn't the first time that the Legislature has added something. And additional benefits to Cowworks recipients.

$30 was added recently for recipients to be able to purchase diapers. And now I'm requesting to add $20 to purchase menstrual products. We are still seeing that one in three individuals, Low income individuals, are struggling to be able to purchase these products. I'm so proud. And you're going to hear from one of the elite sponsor here to have this Bill be led by high school youth who are saying that this is still needed.

I come from a nonprofit world where we would distribute these products and people would come in and say this was at the lowest of the list of their things, that they would have to set aside money for each month because everything else came before that, whether it was food, rent, diapers, and so forth, formuLA for their children. This was the last thing. And we need to ensure that we're helping our individuals.

So with that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to turn to my expert and introduce Shamikska, who is a rising high school senior with Ignite and a co sponsor.

We love experts. Go for it.

Good afternoon, chair and Members of the Assembly Human Services Committee. My name is Smek Sharmation. I'm a rising high school senior from Pleasanton, and I'm also part of Ignite, who is co sponsoring this Bill. I'm here today to support SB 260, which would expand menstrual product access for Low income CalWORKS recipients. According to a study done by you by Kotex in 2021, two in five menstruators have struggled to purchase menstrual products at some point in their life.

Because of Low income, many menstruators may resort to using substitute period products, such as rags, toilet paper, or socks. Menstruators may also reuse period products or use them for a prolonged period of time because of the inability to buy new ones, which is unhygienic and can lead to health problems. The amount of menstruators using a substitute product instead of period products has increased by 75%. All menstruators deserve to be able to take care of their health needs without cost being a barrier.

No menstruator should have to worry about how to afford menstrual products since menstruation is a natural process. Moreover, even though schools are required to stock bathrooms with period products, these products are not always available and many menstruators who are in period poverty may not be of school age. The lack of period products may prevent menstruators from going about their daily lives. In fact, 38% of menstruators had to miss events or activities in last year due to the need for menstrual products.

Period products add another expense to menstruators living in period poverty and further their financial burden. Their money allocated for other necessities such as food and clothing may be minimized to save money for menstrual products. SB 260 will help alleviate the spurting by allowing CalWORKS recipients to receive an additional cachet to purchase menstrual products. We need to support Low income menstruators and make sure they feel comfortable and their basic needs are not a luxury. I strongly urge you to vote in favor of SB 260. Thank you for your time.

We have a motion second and a second. Are there anyone in the room that's in support? Please come on up and state your name and affiliation, please.

Good afternoon, Assembly Members. My name is Forrest Cameron. I'm a policy advocate intern at the Western center on Law and Poverty here in strong support. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Kevin Asda, Coalition California Welfare rights organizations strong support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, Michelle Taran Wolfwork with the California Commission on the Status Women and Girls in Strong Support.

Good afternoon. Raquel Yaffe, on behalf of the California Alternative Payment Program Association in Support.

Good afternoon. Yereli Magayon, on behalf of Alameda County in support. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. James Michael Powell with APSME California in support.

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

Craig Pulser. On behalf of Equality California in support.

Jill Jacobs with family builders in support.

Kathy Senarling Mcdonald County Welfare Directors Association. In Support thank you very much.

Are is there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Is there any opposition in the room? Please come on up. Seeing none now we'll go to our phone lines. Operator, are there those in support on the phones.

If you wish to make a comment in support, please press one, then zero. We'll be going to line one. 8, please go ahead.

Shannon Swanson, on behalf of the Cal State Student Association, in support.

Next we'll be going to line 37. Please go ahead.

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

Next we'll be going to line 24. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Stephanie Gona from San Francisco county in support.

Next we're going to line 11. Please go ahead.

Lacey Jerome, on behalf of the National Diaper Bank Network and Alliance for Period Supplies in support.

And there currently is no one else. Mr. Chair.

Okay, then we'll move to opposition on the phone lines. Is there anyone in opposition on the phones?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak in opposition, please press one, then zero. And there's no one queuing up. Mr. Chair.

All right, Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you so much for the support. And I respectfully ask for Nibo to close the period poverty in California.

All right, Members of the Committee, any questions or comments? No, seeing none. We have a motion by Rambula, a second by Bonta. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Jackson, aye. Lackey, Aye. Alanis. Arambula, Aye. Bonta, Aye. Carrillo, Aye. Calderon, Aye. Garcia, Aye.

Vote is 7-0. The Bill is out. Thank you very much. Next we have SB 380 by Senator Limon. Welcome. Good to see you. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, chair and Members. Childcare is essential to a functional economy. Without affordable and available childcare, parents cannot work. According to the Center for American Progress, the Childcare Workforce has lost 88,000 jobs nationally since February 2020. Childcare workers are some of the lowest paid workers across the country. There are currently empty early childhood classrooms because providers cannot hire teachers to staff them.

This Bill will help early learning and childcare providers and families by transitioning providers to a single cost based reimbursement rate, suspending family fees until an equitable family fee schedule can be established, and make reimbursements based on enrollment rather than attendance. And I think we may not... Yes, hi. Maria Lopez is here, a family child care home provider to speak in support of the Bill.

You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. My name is Maria Lopez. I am a parent leader, an early childhood educator, and a small business owner. Since 2016, my inhome licensed daycare has grown to serve 12 families with the help of two employees on payroll. My goal is to provide care to those that need it most by welcoming both subsidized and private pay families.

When the pandemic forced schools to close down, many inhome daycares took in school agers, school age children, and made distance learning work within our limited environment as we also continue to balance the demands of having infants and toddlers in our care while maintaining health and safety requirements. during this tough period. For the last three years, childcare providers were given stipends, retopay, and other incentive based on enrollment rather than attendance.

This is an acknowledgment that we in home daycare providers were in fact underpaid and our services are essential to the working force. With this additional resources, I was able to retain adequate staff and continue to offer high quality care experiences. I prepare my week with staff, schedule and shop for the week based on enrollment, accounting for fresh vegetables and fruits, gallons of milks for the week when children are absent.

We don't get reimbursed or credited for those we didn't serve even though the money was already spent. To get yet another caught on payment because a child was absent will hurt my daycare program. In this scenario, do I charge the difference on payment to Low income families or do I cut hours on an already part time staff who are depending on hours for income?

As a small business owner, I understand that retaining staff can be challenging without being able to provide a stable paycheck and benefits outside of predictable paycheck. As an early childhood educator, I know the importance of having a consistent caregiver, which brings us back to the staff retention to maintain quality care in our program. I also know that quality time is essential for families. The majority of daycare are open year round to meet the demands of the working class.

We can't expect the children to attend daycare the 52 full weeks out of the year. Let's account for illnesses, doctors appointments, holidays, and family time. As a mother and early childcare educator, I ask you to support SB 380. Thank you.

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

Hi Chair and Members, my name is Justina Erpelding. I'm with EveryChild California. We are co sponsors of the Bill and in strong support. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Michelle Teran-Woolfork with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in strong support. Thank you to the author.

Hi Amanda Dickey, Executive Director of government relations for the Santa Clara County Office of Education in support.

Juliet Terry with the Childcare Resource Center, a proud co sponsor and proud support.

Raquel Yoffie with the California Alternative Payment Program Association, in support.

Yarelie Magallon, on behalf of Silicon Valley Community Foundation, in support.

Good afternoon. Chair and Committee Members. Carlos Rojas with the Kern County Superintendent of Schools in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Raquel Morales with the Education Trust West in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and members. Jonathan Munoz, on behalf of First 5 Los Angeles, in strong support.

Good afternoon. Karen Lang. On behalf of the City and County of San Francisco and the City of Golita, in support. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Tyler Rindy, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ada Naymack with Children Now and the co sponsor, also in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium, also in support. Thank you.

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

Leticia Garcia. On behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, in support.

Fantastic. Is there anyone in the room in opposition? Please come on up. At this time, seeing none, we will now go to support on the phone lines.

Gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment in support, please press 1 and 0. We'll be going to line 26. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair. Sam Nasher with the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support.

We have a motion. We have a second. Anyone else in support? On the phone lines?

Next we go into line 16. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I'm Malik Bynum, on behalf of Childcare Providers United, CCPU probably want to support in concept as we continue bargaining negotiations at the table throughout the end of the month, but also want to extend our appreciation to the author for her continuous commitment to childcare throughout the years. Thank you.

Next we go to line eight. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

We'll take that as support. We'll take it. Everybody's welcome.

The Rainbow in support.

Next, we'll go to line 40. Please go ahead, 40. Your line is open.

Sorry. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Teja Stephens calling on behalf of Catalyst California in strong support and thank you to the author.

Next, go to line 41. Please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Darcy Roberts from Santa Barbara county, and I'm calling in strong support.

Next we go to line 32. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. This is Kristen Hills calling from the Mendocino County Office of Education in strong support, and thank you to the author.

And we'll be going to line eight again. Please go ahead.

Cecilia Petty, Children of the Rainbow, in support.

And there's no one else in the queue. Mr. Chair.

Is there anyone in opposition on the phone lines?

If you wish to speak in opposition, please press one, then zero. And there's no one queuing up. Mr. Chair.

All right, any questions or comments from Committee Members? Assembly Member Bonta?

I just want to thank the author and, of course, the amazing testimony being brought forward today. I also just want to reiterate that this is the most important issue in the State of California because when we have childcare, we're able to actually have a thriving economy. So I want to thank the author for bringing this forward and also just highlight essentially kind of the linkage between establishing the sliding scale while we're also in order to be able to ensure that we reinitiate the family fee waiver.

So I think that's incredibly important. I'm sure you'll talk about this, but this is a women's caucus priority and something that we are very much in sync with. So thank you. Thank you.

Any other additional Members?

I just want to echo the same sentiments. Thank the author and the witness. As a father of four, living in a community where we have to commute to get to work and coming back, we rely heavily on those centers to care for our children. Thank you again and a Committee for bringing this up. Thank you.

Any other Members at this time seeing? None. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you. And as has been stated by one of our colleagues who's also working heavily in this space, this is a women's caucus priority Bill. It's an issue that we have been working on for decades. There's little pieces, and we continue to dig in to try to determine how to best solve a very, very big problem with the state. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

The motion is do pass to the Assembly Education Committee. Jackson? Jackson aye. Lackey? Lackey aye. Alanis? Arambula? Arambula aye. Bonta? Bonta aye. Juan Carrillo? Juan Carrillo aye. Calderon? Calderon aye. Garcia? Garcia aye.

The vote is 7-0. The Bill is out. Thank you very much. We are looking for more Senators to come on through to be able to introduce your bills.

Hello.

You may begin when you are ready.

All right. Hi, how are you? I walk faster than my staff. Sorry. Let's see if I can pull myself together here. All right. First of all, thank you so much to the Assembly Health and Human Services Committee. It's Human Services Commission. Thanks for having me here today. Very excited to talk to you about SB 408, and I have some amazing partners with me that I know you'll recognize and love hearing from today.

So SB 408 creates 10 regional health teams across the state that will go directly to youth in crisis. Their families will be able to receive diagnostic assessments, direct care, and support. These regional health teams will focus on being trauma informed and addressing needs that cross systems of care. So often families in need. Just one little thing would have been able to prevent us from having to remove a child or prevent the family from falling into homelessness or some other ill fate.

So this is an attempt to put together these 10 regional health teams that bring a myriad of services to families. Education, occupational therapy, mental health, and substance abuse support. The regional health teams will prioritize referrals from child welfare, probation, and tribes. That's really important. And if I can be candid, this Bill started out a lot more robust. And as you all know, and some of you know really well, a lot of us have been working really hard on these child welfare issues.

And you've all seen these headlines, 300 kids in LA, 30 kids in Sacramento. And I wanted to do a two part Bill, one that addressed that first half, but we're still all kind of trying to figure out how to get that piece done. This second half was about prevention, and that's what these regional health teams are.

Because if we can do more to keep kids from ever entering into that system, we wouldn't have 300 in hotels and 300 in a former juvenile detention facility, and 300 here and 300 there.

So what these regional health teams really seek to do in prioritizing child welfare, probation in tribes, is to help foster youth and their families, or those who are at risk, really, of becoming a part of the foster care through a placement, with planning, coordination, physical mental health services, particularly addressing some of the things that we know a lot of these families cannot navigate on their own, like mental health services and substance abuse services.

408 simply seeks to meet highly traumatized foster youth and their families, where they're at, and provide trauma informed services when they're in the most need and when it would be the most useful on our behalf to prevent them from becoming part of the group of kids that we really, truly in California right now do not have a place to put and do not have a place to really meaningfully serve. I have a couple witnesses with me today. This is not Amanda. This is Kathy. All right?

She is the Director of the Child Welfare Director Association. Just one point of privilege for me. Long before I was a Senator, my dad was a child welfare Director. He passed away a couple of years ago, but he worked for the state as the head of foster care for California, and he went to San Diego and worked as a child welfare Director there. So, I've known Kathy for a really long time, and her predecessor, Frank Mecca, is one of my dad's really great friends.

And when I won a seat in the Senate, I really wanted to work on these issues and carry my dad's legacy. Many of you have signed on to SB 307 with me, which is a furtherance of his legacy. And this is really trying to get at the heart of getting the resources into those welfare directors' hands so that they can be really successful in what they're trying to do, which is help these families.

I see this 408 as the first time really giving kids an opportunity to bring something to their families that could meaningfully change the outcome for the entire family. So Kathy's here, and Daniel Sanchez is here, and really grateful to have them both.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Kathy Mcdonald, the CWDA. Really pleased to co-sponsor the legislation and work with Senator Ashby on this. As we've been talking at a number of committees, counties are working to strengthen families, prevent placement into foster care. And then we know, as children and youth do come into foster care, they have trauma from the start.

Just removing someone from their home, from their parents, the life that they live, is traumatic, let alone what abuse or neglect might have occurred.

And so for these children and their families, at these various points, as the Senator was saying, the idea is to create a regional health team to really coordinate that care, to make sure that someone is helping them navigate that, to try to reunify in situations where we have removed a child from the home, placed into foster care, to stop disruptions of placements if there are issues and crises that occur, but ideally back that way up and provide services to those at-risk children and families to really strengthen them and keep them out of foster care.

So that first call doesn't happen that we know leads to a lot of disproportionality and a lot of trauma and inequities from there on out. The other thing that this would do is to create some parity for children who are in foster care. About half of the children in foster care are in fever service Medi-Cal, not managed care. It's not mandatory that they sign up for a managed care plan.

So the new enhanced case management that is being done as part of the huge CalAIM initiative, it's only for children in managed care. So this would create some parity as well for those children who are in fever for service and ensure that their care, which is more difficult to coordinate anyway when they're not in a managed care plan, is more collaboratively done. We urge your aye vote, happy to answer any questions and are proud to be here today.

Good afternoon, chair and Members Daniel Sanchez, on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California, very pleased to co-sponsor this measure with our child welfare colleagues and certainly thank the Senator for her leadership on this. Probation chiefs, along with child welfare colleagues in this Legislature, have really embraced the goals of looking at improving permanency outcomes for foster youth and really bringing the stabilization that we know they need to address many of their needs.

We also know that through those efforts, there are still gaps that we are looking through. I think this effort certainly represents a significant part of looking to fill those gaps and make sure that we are looking at holistic approaches to addressing all of their needs. I would say for the probation chiefs, we view many of these foster care issues both through the lens of how do we best support and serve those youth that probation serves on the foster care side.

But how do we look, as the Senator said, at the prevention side of things, looking upstream to help provide stability and supports on the front end to help them from coming into contact with the system at all. Certainly, our goal is to keep them out from coming into the juvenile justice system.

I would say this approach is really critical from our perspective in preserving families, preventing disruptions in home-based care, and really looking at how do we coordinate the clinical services for the types of wrap around services foster youth need. So, I know many of the comments have been said, so I will just say we're pleased to co-sponsor this effort and look for your support today. Thank you.

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

Kelly Brooks. I'm here this afternoon on behalf of The Urban Counties of California, the Royal County Representatives of California, and the Boards of Supervisors of Riverside and Ventura counties, all here in strong support.

Yarelie Magallon here today on behalf of Alameda County in Support.

Stephanie Strat, on behalf of Sacramento County in support. Thank you.

Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in appreciation for Senator Ashby's leadership on this. in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tiffany Phan. On behalf of California Court appointed Special Advocate Association, or CALCASA, in support. Good afternoon again.

Karen Lange. On behalf of the boards of Supervisors in the counties of Humboldt, Fresno, Kern and San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Jeff Neal. On behalf of the County of Contra Costa, in support.

Jenny Trice. On behalf of the County of Santa Clara, in support.

Thank you very much. Is there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Is there any opposition in the room? Seeing none. We'll go now to our phone lines. Is there anyone on the phone lines in support at this time?

Gentlemen, if you wish to speak in support, please press 1 and 0. We'll be going to line seven, please. Go ahead. Hi, Mary Christie. On behalf of San Bernardino county and the children's Partnership in support, there's currently no one else in the queue, Mr. Chair.

Okay, we'll go to our opposition on the phone lines. Is there any opposition on the phone lines?

Once again, if you wish to speak in opposition, you may press 1 and 0. And there's currently no one queuing up. Mr. Chair.

All right, any questions or comments from our Committee Members? Assembly Member Bonta, move the Bill first.

And I just want to note that the family discussions that must have been around that dinner table are pretty remarkable. I think this is a testament to really creating very necessary disruption, positive disruption in our system, to make sure that we're actually providing holistic, thoughtful, deliberate, connected, collaborative support for every single child in the foster care system. So, I want to thank you for bringing forward this Bill, Senator Ashby, and ask if you would consider co-authors, if I might be able to join.

And then I did have a question about the regional teams. Just how are those going to be defined? I was happy to see support, support from Alameda County, but certainly I'm hoping that we can understand how that is going to work.

Yeah. Kathy could probably give you some real specifics on the regional health teams. There are 10 of them. They do focus on more than just the child, which is my favorite thing about this Bill, because we blame the kids for being the disruptor.

But sometimes when you show up, it's not the kid at all. The parent needed some help, or the grandma that lives there, or the teenager that's older needs some help.

And so, one of the reasons you have so much support, and it's not just your welfare directors, but it's the whole county Board of Supervisors, is because this layers on top of itself, a lot of the organizations inside of your county that are doing this work, but they're doing it separately, and sometimes they can get reimbursed and sometimes they can't. It depends on how anybody in the household is registered with Medi-Cal or if they are at all.

And this really removes all of those barriers and like both of these ladies said, moves us way downstream before a kid is removed, hopefully, or they've already been returned. We're trying to prevent that reentry back into our system, so to speak. But Kathy might have some more detail, too.

Sure. So Department of Healthcare Services and Department of Social Services would jointly run the 10 counties and work with a group of stakeholders that's named in the Bill that is intended to be broad and present a lot of perspectives on how we might select those 10 regions. I think it may be the case that we think about regions such as a Bay Area region. Right. But you also could think, well, that's pretty big.

So I think we'll want to think through the pros and cons of a couple counties versus more counties in a region should the Bill pass. One thing I'll mention, too is there was a question in the analysis that I think this goes to as well, which is CWDA sponsored legislation by Assemblymember Cooley AB 2083 about six years ago now.

And what that did was require counties to create MOUs, bringing everybody to the table in a very similar set of all the local partners, not just the county groups, but also the education agency and the Regional Centers and things like that.

So what we've been thinking about is this is both an extension of those, hopefully existing relationships that are being built, but also building on it by adding in specific practitioners, such as behavioral health practitioners, nursing practitioners, and things like that, so that we can actually really bring those targeted services to children, youth, and their families. So we're sort of continuing that March, I think, as you say.

And so we don't have them specified in the Bill because we'd like to leave it open, but there's a process, and it builds on things we already do.

We also know that some counties have very specific needs. For example, Alpine County has a very large tribal population, and so a regional team may look a little different based on the region that they're in.

Any additional questions or comments? Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Any additional questions or comments? Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you. I urge an aye vote. Appreciate your time.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Motion is do passed to the Assembly Health Committee. Jackson Aye. Jackson, aye. Lackey.

Aye. Lackey, aye. Alanice. Aye. Alanice, aye. Arambula. Bonta. Aye. Bonta. I. Juancarillo. Juancarillo. I. Calderone. Calderon. Aye. Garcia. Garcia. Aye.

The vote is set. The Bill is out. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

All right, now we will turn to SB 722. Senator Ochoa Bogh, please come on up. Good to see you. And you may begin when you're ready.

Okay. Not quite sure whether or not I'm going to need my glasses in this lighting. So, Mr. Chair Members, it's a pleasure to be here. I think it's my first time in the Assembly this year thus far. I'd like to start by thanking the Committee for their work on SB 722 and accept the Committee amendments noted in the analysis to strike the liability provision as requested.

Parents of children with disabilities are three times more likely to experience job disruptions because they are less likely to secure childcare for their child. When families can secure early learning and childcare, also known as ELC, for a child with a disability, they must often resort to segregated ELC providers that only serve children with disabilities.

This is because an ELC provider must amend their plan of operation to add an incidental medical service plan, or IMSP, and the plan must be approved by the Department of Social Services DSS before the provider can admit any child with a disability who requires medication or adaptive equipment. An IMSP is required for all children with disabilities, even those who may have minor medical needs, such as asthma or allergies.

DSS does not have a template for creating an IMSP, nor is there a state guidance or regulations outlining what information must be included in an IMSP. As a result, it generally takes months of back and forth conversations between an ELC provider and DSS to obtain approval of an IMSP. Sorry, a lot of acronyms here. I try not to.

SB 722 will eliminate barriers to childcare for children with disabilities by requiring DSS to create templates for Incidental Medical Services Plan and allowing children with disabilities to enroll and attend an ELC provider upon creation of a plan that meets basic requirements. This is so providers and parents will no longer be required to wait for approval of the IMSP before a child with disabilities can attend an ELC program.

Joining me to testify in support are Amanda Dickey from the Santa Clara County Office of Education and Letitia Garcia from the Riverside County Office of Education. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm Amanda Dickey. I'm the Executive Director of Government Relations for the Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools. We are very pleased to sponsor SB 722 and thankful to the Senator for bringing forward this important Bill which prioritizes the right to accessible care for children with disabilities.

Most of the regulations governing childcare centers are more than 30 years old and have not been meaningfully updated in that time. Whereas 30 years ago, nearly all children with disabilities, regardless of severity, replaced in separate programs segregated from their peers, we now know that inclusion of children with disabilities actually has huge benefits for both children with disabilities and without disabilities. This Bill is really about now that we know better, we need to do better.

For example, a study out of Denver found that toddlers with autism who participated in an inclusive early learning program saw improvements in language and adaptive and social behaviors and that their brain activity fundamentally changed because of this early intervention.

However, there are still, unfortunately, dozens of regulations on the books that act as barriers to enrolling children with disabilities in child development programs and make it very difficult for families to find childcare for children with disabilities and, frankly, difficult for providers like ourselves, the Santa Clara County Office of Education, to provide those services as well.

SC 722 would tackle one of these regulatory barriers by ensuring that children with disabilities who require an incidental medical services plan can attend a childcare as soon as their provider completes the plan. The change would alter the current practice in which families have to wait for months for approval before a child can access care, and would remove the administrative barriers that discourage childcare providers from accepting children with disabilities.

I urge you to join us in supporting SB 722 when we ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. And I'm going to cut my comments in half, so I won't be redundant. So, I just wanted to further. Well, Leticia Garcia on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendents of School. Proud co-sponsors of SB 722, I just wanted to highlight that in addition, in the 22-23 Budget act increased funding for early education programs and also required providers to serve more students or children with exceptional needs, setting a state goal of that by 24-25.

At least 10% of children serve must be children with exceptional needs. The Riverside County Office of Education, in partnership with the California Department of Education co-leads the Supporting Inclusive Practices project to increase opportunities for students with disabilities to participate in General education least restrictive environment and improve academic achievement.

We believe that SB 722 will go a long way to remove barriers and allow providers to serve children with exceptional needs as soon as they file the proposed standardized template with the Department of Social Services and Ensure that our youngest learners are well prepared to enter our school system in the least restrictive learning environment, ready to succeed. And for those reasons, we ask for your support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the room in support? Please come on up and state your name and affiliation. Seeing none. Is there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Is there any opposition in the room at this time? Seeing none. We'll go to our phone lines. Is there anyone in support on the phone lines.

If you wish to make a comment in support, please press one, then zero. And there's currently no one queuing up. Mr.

Chair, we'll move on to opposition on the phone lines. Is there anyone in opposition on the phones?

If you wish to speak in opposition, please press one, then zero. And there is no one queuing up as well.

Still, Members of the Committee, are there any questions or comments at this?

As a former special ed educator, I have some concerns, but I'm very thankful that I think the intent of this Bill is going to focus on again the students. Because as I compare this IMSP process to the IEP complexity, I think sometimes the process becomes the problem instead of the student.

And I just hope that it doesn't become as convoluted as the IEP process because it was a long time ago when I was a teacher, and the IEP process was very simple and very effective, and I feel like it's moved away from that. And now we have this new process that I worry that it's going to get caught up and mired in other interests other than the students.

So I'm hoping that this Bill will help clarify and bring the focus back to the student instead of the process. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional Members? If not, Senator, would you like to close?

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Inconsistent access to ELC programs limit learning and social emotional growth opportunities for children with and without disabilities. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, we have a motion by Garcia, second by Calderon. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Arambula? Bonta? Aye. Bonta, aye. Juan Carrillo? Aye. Juan Carrillo, aye. Calderon? Calderon, aye. Garcia? Garcia, aye. Seven-zero.

The Bill is out. Thank you very much. We have one more Bill left. While we're waiting for the author to come and make his way over expeditiously, we will begin to do some add ons. Madam Secretary, let's open the roll so that Members can add on to their.

Votes. On the consent calendar current vote is six to zero. Alanis? Alanis, aye. Calderon? Calderon, aye. Final vote on the consent calendar eight to zero. File item one, SB 9. The current vote is seven to zero. Alanis? Alanis, aye. Final vote eight to zero. File item three, SB 260. The current vote is seven to zero. Alanis? Alanis, aye. The final vote eight to zero. File item four, SB 380. The current vote is seven to zero. Alanis? Alanis, aye. final vote. Eight to zero.

Okay, we will just wait, waiting on the Senator to make his way here, and then we will hear the final Bill.

You. Family builders.

Okay, we will move on to our final Bill, SB 407, by Senator Wiener, and we thank Assembly Member Calderon for presenting on his behalf. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to present SB 407 on behalf of Senator Wiener. This Bill expands the California Department of Social Services and County's responsibilities related to implementing a resource family approval, RFA, process to require resource families to demonstrate the capacity to meet the needs of a child, regardless of the child's sexual orientation or gender identity as specified. With me here to testify is Jill from family builders and Craig from equality, California. Good afternoon, chair and Committee Members.

I'm Jill Jacobs, the CEO Family Builders, an Oakland based foster Care, adoption, permanency and LGBT services organization. I also serve as a board Member of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, 160 statewide nonprofit organizations that provide services to children, youth and families in foster care, and one of the co-sponsors of this Bill. Studies show that LGBTQ youth are disproportionately represented in foster care, comprising over 34% of youth in foster care.

LGBTQ youth suffer abuse in foster care at a rate twice of that of non-LGBT youth, and 45% of LGBTQ youth seriously considered suicide in the past year. More than half of transgender and nonbinary youth have considered suicide. In the past year, California has enacted legislation to prevent discrimination, including the Foster Care Bill of Rights. However, this protection is not translated when approving the process to approve resource families.

SB 407 will strengthen and clarify the existing resource family approval process to prevent discrimination and abuse that is still occurring today. To become a resource parent, there's a set of criteria that one must meet, and if the prospective caregiver cannot meet the criteria, they should not be approved. I'd like to tell you the story of a young man who I met when he was in his early 20s. He came into foster care when he was a toddler.

He'd only known the one family that he'd been placed with when he was a toddler. He grew up thinking they were his family. He called them mom and Dad. When he was 14 years old, he came out to his family telling them he was gay. The day after he did this, he was removed from his family. He never had another family, and frankly, his heart never failed. The last time I saw him, he was kind of meandering through his 20s.

We don't know which youth are gay or nonbinary or which children are going to come out or when they're going to come out. Therefore, we must ensure that all caregivers are able to meet the needs of children, which SB 407 will do. And one more number that's really important that I want you to know is that youth who perceive parental support regarding their gender identity are 93% less likely to attempt suicide. As a mother, I can't think of anything more profound than that.

We believe this Bill will actually save lives. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, a proud co-sponsor. Over the past decade, Equality California has sponsored and supported numerous bills to help ensure that all resource families have the training and support they need to support LGBTQ youth who remain drastically overrepresented in the foster care system.

Currently, all resource families are required to receive training on sexual orientation and gender identity, and California has established a strong Foster Youth Bill of Rights, which clearly states that all foster youth have the right to be free from discrimination or harassment. But we continue to hear stories of LGBTQ foster youth who are being placed in homes with caregivers that are not accepting or affirming of their identity.

As the analysis highlights, a significant number of LGBTQ youth continue to experience maltreatment after they are placed in out of home care due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. According to one study in Los Angeles, 13% of LGBTQ youth reported being treated poorly by the foster care system, compared with 6% of non-LGBTQ youth.

SB 407 will strengthen the resource family approval process by making it clear that all resource families must have the ability to uphold the existing rights of all children in their care, including LGBTQ youth, and if any issues arise, that they're willing to seek out any and all available resources to help meet those needs. It will also require counties to ensure that approved resource families are upholding the rights of not only LGBTQ youth, but all youth, regardless of their background.

It is important to stress that this Bill is not in any way intended or directed at the beliefs of potential resource families, religious or otherwise, and everyone is free to hold any beliefs they choose about sexual orientation or gender identity as long as they don't discriminate or harass foster youth in their care. SB 407 will simply ensure that California's resource family approval process is as strong as possible and helped protect LGBTQ youth from further violence in the foster care system.

We are grateful to Senator Wiener for bringing this Bill forward and respectfully urge your aye vote.

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

Good afternoon. Tyler Rindy, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, one of the co-sponsors, in support.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in Support.

Chair and Members Michelle Taran Wolfwork with the California Commission on the Status Women and Girls in Support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members Kathy Sunderling Mcdonald with the County Welfare Directors Association. We're support if amended, but the amendments are intended to be technical and friendly to the Bill and we hope that we'll get into full support very quickly. Thank you.

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

Santa Clara, in support, thank you very much. We would like to invite up Greg Burt and Jonathan Zacherson, who are here as witnesses, in opposition. Please come on up and you may begin when you're ready.

Chair, Members, my name is Greg Burt with the California Family Council in opposition to SB 407. We fear the intent of this Bill is to weed out potential foster care parents whose religious beliefs about gender and sexual orientation conflict with those of the state. These beliefs are not rooted in animus or hatred. They are faith based, science-based viewpoints about the nature of reality, where feelings don't determine one's sex identity or sexual behavior, but biology does.

The Bill author in a previous hearing said that foster parents can still believe whatever they want under this Bill about gender and sexual orientation. I question this. Here's a question that needs to be answered in this hearing. If a foster parent says their religious faith prohibits them from affirming or encouraging a child's self perceived gender or sexual identity, can those individuals still be foster parents under this Bill? I think the answer is clearly no.

The Bill text mandates that foster parents have, and I quote, the capacity to meet those needs of a child regardless of the child's sexual orientation and gender identity, including an understanding that the sexual orientation, gender identity and expression can evolve over time, end quote. The language in this Bill will be interpreted as a requirement for foster care parents to actively affirm and encourage beliefs and behavior in foster children that contradict their faith and they'll not be able to do it.

Have you ever thought about how many foster parents you might lose if you approve this Bill? There are a lot of foster people doing foster care that are motivated by their faith. This Bill infringes on the First Amendment protections for religious belief and practice because it compels speech and behavior that violates a person's sincerely held religious beliefs. SB 407 excludes an entire class from being foster parents because of their religion. And for these reasons, we're asking you to vote no. Thank you.

My name is Jonathan Zacherson. I'm a parent of three, have many titles and wear many hats. But today I speak as a foster parent to a teenager of four years. In opposition to SB 407, our family was first joined by a 14-year-old foster child whose group home was closing.

Through the four years of fostering, we helped empower her to make sound medical decisions for herself, provide stability through a revolving door of county caseworkers grown to a vibrant young adult, and proudly watched her graduate high school, a goal she thought unattainable. She now plans on attending community college in the fall. But if SB 407 was law five years ago, we would have never been approved and she would have moved across the state into another group home, far away from everyone she ever knew. Why?

Because if she or other daughter came home from school one day and said, I think I might be a boy, we would tell her that no child was born in the wrong body and there is no right or wrong way to be a girl. We would teach her to have the confidence to love her body the way it is, and for that, this Bill would shun us from ever being resource parents again.

At the Bill Senate hearing, the author said, if 7 out of 10 families don't share the sponsor's view on parenting, then we don't have 10 resource families. We only have three. That estimate matches reality. A poll published this week showed that by nearly two to one margin, Americans believe that being a man or woman is something that is permanent and cannot be changed.

Does that make nearly two thirds of adults unable to care for any foster kid, even if the child is young or not part of the 5% of transgender foster kids? The author estimates, the sad reality is the state has a resource family shortage. Two months ago, we learned of a harrowing story of foster teens in Sacramento county living in an old jail with conditions so bad that the sheriffs normally would contact CPS.

And in May, an article, the LA Times discusses this crisis and how group homes have been halved since 2017. But the state has failed to recruit nearly enough resource families to offset the closures. Will it be the policy of this Committee to reduce the number of loving resource families by possibly 60% to 70% and to pile foster youth into unsafe conditions?

Will it be the policy of this Committee to prevent a family Member from fostering their own five year old relative because a relative doesn't think biological boys should share a bedroom with a transgender biological girl and would say no to that hypothetical fostering scenario. This Bill will dramatically reduce the number and quality of resource families and hurt all foster kids in California. On behalf of them, I beg you, please vote no on SB 407.

Thank you very much. If there's opposition in the room, please come on up and just state your name, affiliation, and whether you support or oppose, please.

Hello, my name is Allie Snyder. I'm a mother of two, registered voter. I oppose.

David Bolog in affiliation with Take a Stand Stanislaus, San Fernando Valley's Parents, and No Person is Born in the Wrong Body.

Please state whether you support or oppose, please good afternoon.

Kashia Williams, on behalf of California Parents Union, a special group for parents, grandparents, teachers, we are in opposition to SB 407. Thank you. Good afternoon, Aaron. Friday Our duty A mother of a girl who used to think she was a boy. Lauren Wall Sanchez, a public health professional and former lifelong Democrat of over 40 years. I oppose. Judith Khill, representing WomenAreReal.org, in opposition. Lisa Mullins, mother of a daughter that is just now coming back to being a daughter. I oppose.

Barbara Walker from Alameda, California, Liberal, mother of three. I firmly oppose. Stephanie, registered voter, California native and sister of a victim of this heinous crime. I oppose it as well. Yes, hi. Sharina Lodge, Placer County. I'm a mother of three, and my daughter was abused in foster care, and I am strong opposition, and please vote no. Thank you. My name is Tanya. I'm trying to get my daughter back. She was picked up by this garbage.

Please state chair, whether you support or.

It's not constitutional, what you guys are doing.

Pastor Brandon Campbell, Faith Baptist Church in Wheatland, Northern California, Director of California Capital Connection for Independent Baptist Churches. In opposition. Scott Dean, pastor of Elmira Baptist Church. We are strongly opposed.

Christine Campbell, just a concerned parent, in.

Opposition, Pastor Tim Benefield of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Modesto and absolutely opposed.

Margaret Rader concerned parent who understands the facts of this situation, in strong opposition. Sarah Martinez, I'm a parent from Contra Costa County, and I oppose this, Bill. Kara Butler, a mother of two teenage boys and I strongly oppose this, Bill. My name is Mike, the Funky Fathers Organization, ending tyranny one song at a time, especially pharmaceutical tyranny. I oppose.

I'm Stephanie Swalea for rebuild California, and I strongly oppose being a mother, a. Grandmother and a great grandmother. Sherry Meek, Oakland, California, lifelong Democratic voter. I oppose this Bill. Susan Waters from Solano County, mother and grandmother. I strongly oppose this Bill. Barbara Hyde from Fremont. I strongly oppose this Bill. As a 57 year old.

Thank you very much for your time.

Amanda Covitana, San Mattel County. I was a gender nonconforming child. I'm a lesbian now. I strongly oppose.

Nathan Pierce on behalf of Child and Family Protection Association in opposition.

Good afternoon. T Hocobian. I'm speaking on behalf of Tulare Coalition for Freedom, Blessings of Liberty in Porterville. Unmasked Tulare County Red Rover Children's advocate group, Calvary, Visalia Church, Rock Harbor Church. I stand in joint Support with, Stand up Sacramento County and Freedom Angels in strong opposition to SB 407. Thank you. Lisa Disbrough, Veteran public school teacher teachers against groomers, informed parents of Contra Costa County in strong opposition and LA Mirandans Against Grooming.

Thank you very much. Now we'll go to our phone lines, please. If there's anyone on the phone lines, please, we'll start with support.

If you wish to speak in support, please press one, then zero. We'll be going to line 39. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Denny Choicelock calling on the behalf of SBN in support. Thank you. Have a great day.

Next, we'll be going to line 25. Please go ahead.

This is an opposition call. I'll redial.

Go to line 51, please go ahead.

Hi, I'm opposed. Please re queue me.

Why don't we just do this? Whether you're in support or opposed, we'll just take them both at the same time.

Once again, if you wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then Zero. We will go to line 50. Please go ahead.

Sue Evans, COO, Walden Family Services, a foster family agency. I strongly support this Bill to support our foster youth.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 34. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Eve Bannes. On behalf of the Sacramento LGBT Community Center, in strong support.

Next, we'll go to line 43. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Esperanto Segueda. I'm calling on behalf of Seneca Family of Agencies, and we are in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

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

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

Next, we'll go to line 29. Please go ahead.

Tim Chu with Trans Youth Liberation. We are in support.

Next, we'll go to line 51. Please go ahead.

Hi, is that me? The phones are a little bit confusing, and I'm curious where the author of the Bill is. Don't these lawmakers need to show you very much for your time? Is that Scott Wiener presenting the Bill? We'll move on to the next, presenting his own Bill.

And we do have a few others that have queued up one moment while their line number is given.

And again, we will take both support and oppose at the same time.

Next we go into line. One moment. We'll be going to line 52. Please go ahead. We go into line 52. Please go ahead.

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

Next we're going to line 54. Please go ahead.

Amy Harrington from San Diego County, strongly opposed.

Currently no one else in the queue. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. And now we'll turn to questions or comments from Committee Members. Are there any? Mr. Lackey, you have the floor.

Thank you. As we all know, the foster care system has become a critical component in our current society and the district that I have had the privilege of representing. We have a very, very high number of youth in the foster care system, and I appreciate the intent to ensure that abused and neglected children are provided with supportive type of environments because they do not need more adverse childhood experiences in their life. However, I don't think we're in a position to limit resource parents.

There are not enough of them, and many of them are older and retired. We can all learn from generational divides and disagreements as foster youth move from group homes to resource parents, they learn by contrast. We all know that group homes supply less stability than resource parents. And in this group setting, many children are experiencing issues derived from that setting. Children, particularly aging boys, wait while the county attempts to meet these requirements.

Surely we would not want to delay having a room to themselves while they check yet another box. This is a political test which is not equipped to evaluate someone's capacity to care. When someone opens their home to a foster child, they do so with an open heart. That foster child will challenge them to open their minds and hopefully their hearts as well. We should not be afraid of disagreement or misunderstanding, which is inevitable in all family-based situations.

And I can't support a Bill that I think will put our children in greater peril because I could tell you, everybody, group homes serve a purpose, but clearly are not an ideal alternative. And for that reason, I can't support this Bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lackey. Is there any additional Members at this time? Ms. Bonta?

Well, I want to first thank Ms. Calderon for stepping in and representing this Bill with such fidelity and to the testimony of those in support for making clear what the intention of this Bill is about and certainly to the author for Bringing it forward in the first place. I can certainly acknowledge the fear that comes with the idea that we might lose resource families by moving forward with this Bill.

However, if the state's responsibility is, at the end of the day, to create homes for our youth who are desperately in need of them, that provide social and emotional support environments that they can thrive in and be able to be who they are for the entirety of their lives, in all of who they are, I think it's absolutely critical that we take this step to ensure that we are doing our responsibility as a state to make sure that those resource families are those homes.

I don't buy the First Amendment arguments at all. We establish criteria for resource families that require them to have food in their refrigerator, to make sure that they have a stable home environment, that make sure that they are not abusive. And we also require them to make sure that they are able to support a child in all of who they are. And that's what this Bill, as I understand it, intends to do, for those reasons, I will be supporting this Bill.

And I would like to make sure that we encourage our fellow colleagues to think about this with open hearts around what happens to youth, particularly foster youth who are Trans, LGBTQ, who get placed in homes where they don't belong. And bring it back to my advocate from Oakland here, who shared the story of a broken heart, of a young boy who discovered and learned about who he was throughout the process of growing up with a family.

And I don't want that to happen for any child, and certainly not a child who is the most vulnerable. So thank you.

Any other Members at this time? Mr. Creo?

I also represent a district where we get a large number of foster population, and unfortunately, a lot of them come without any resources from where they come from. There's been a lot of legislation where we are supporting doing good efforts to help the foster population, which is in desperate need in various areas. In fact, I do have a Bill that proposes to help the foster population.

I do believe that the specific foster population that this Bill is addressing should not be ignored because we've done efforts throughout many other different bills and legislation. And again, this Bill, I believe, is addressing those specific needs that the Bill is trying to address. So for that reason, I will be supporting this Bill, and I'd also like to make a motion to move the Bill.

We have a motion. Second.

Mr. Alanis, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a few questions because I'm still a little puzzled on some of this. So, if you have foster parents or resource parents, if they don't agree to the terms. Are they allowed to still have foster kids?

Yes, please. The regulations that oversee and regulate the process for approving and supporting resource families is 337 pages. And there's lots of rules, as the assemblywoman said, and requirements. What this Bill is trying to do is make sure, and there's a psychosocial assessment process for any prospective caregiver, whether that be a relative or a new foster parent, whoever comes through the process. It's now an equal system for relatives and non relatives.

And there's a psychosocial assessment, and there's lots and lots of things that are addressed in that. It's usually a 10 to 15 page document when it's written up. This is one of the areas of inquiry, is, how would you support a young person if they came out to you? Whoever's asking those questions, which should be master's level, social workers and Clinicians, work with the family, talk to the family. It's not a yes and a no, but where is the family at with this?

What will they be able to do if the family is absolutely adamant and says, we would have to kick the child out of the home in my agency, we would not approve that family. And what this Bill is doing is putting a little bit of strength behind that, because we can't continue to do what we've been doing. I've been in my position for 27 years. When I started, there was 125,000 children in foster care in California.

And in 1996, people were saying, well, we can't afford to lose any foster parents. And so for 27 years, we've been putting kids into abusive foster homes. They run away, they end up back in the shelters, they're on the street. If you look at the demographics of homeless youth, it's more than 65% are LGBT and former foster youth. There's a correlation there. So, in answer to your question, sir, yes, that could happen if the family is not able to move forward.

Okay. And as a law enforcement officer dealing with school kids and crimes against children and all that, I know what you're talking about, but I also see the value in also having. Making sure that those parents are available. And so the other thing I have a question about, and I don't know too much about the foster part, is, are they also actually asked or maybe prefer, like, I prefer kids under five or I would prefer kids.

Foster parents can always decide what kind of child they want in their home, whether they want to support babies or teenagers or any other demographic. Same goes for gender and race. The problem with sexual orientation and gender identity is, we don't know what that is. We know what a child's race is. We know what their age is, but we don't always know what that is. And we don't know, like this 14 year old boy when he was four, I don't think he knew he was gay.

He figured that out when he was 14, and yet he lost his family. And that's what we're trying to prevent.

Okay. I understand it, but I also see that becoming a strong issue also, because even for us parents who have kids that didn't know who or what they were, me, myself, my daughter, she didn't come out till she was a teenager, but it didn't mean that I wasn't still able to take care of her as a young one. And so now I fear that with this Bill, that's what we're doing, and it's not, in my eyes, fair to the child.

If we decide that for them with their foster parents, that could be loving and caring and maybe just have those questions down the road and maybe can get the counseling then, to be able to provide a better, healthier environment for that child.

What we're asking resource families to do is what you've done. It's what I've done, which is kind of follow our kids, let our kids lead us the way, and raise them to become healthy, happy individuals. And you were able to do that. You were able to support your children through whatever trials and tribulations. Raising kids is hard. It's hardest job in the world, as far as I'm concerned. And we're there, and we support our children.

We deem families that say they can do that, even if maybe you don't have all the answers, maybe you don't know. Some folks don't know what it means to be transgender. They don't know what gender identity means. That's okay. We can help you. There's support and resources for that. It's when somebody comes in and says, no, I'm opposed to that. The child would have to leave my home. That's a problem.

Okay. And I get that. But I also see that, as in, like, somebody saying that they won't accept anybody over five or they won't accept a certain gender. I kind of see that in that category also, and just know, okay, well, then I can't place that kid there. And if those issues do come up, then that's what I see being a solution to that. And as for opposition, I don't know if you guys have anything to say on that. As well.

Our biggest concern, I wouldn't want any foster parent to be kicking a child out of their home when they found out they were coming out as LGBT. But what we're concerned about is that the only thing that would exclude you is actually your beliefs about gender. I mean, if you simply have a family simply because they're a Muslim or they're Jewish or they're Christian and they have a particular view on gender, we're afraid that alone will exclude them from being a foster parent.

Right. And I don't see them contradicting that. You have to believe a certain way if you want to be a foster parent and not just believe in your head, but you must be affirming mean, you encourage a child, you affirm them into something that would contradict their faith. So what that will do is it will completely exclude folks who have a particular view on gender because of their religious belief from being foster parents. That's illegal.

You can't outlaw a person with a religious belief from being a foster parent as the only criteria. And I don't know how they can't say that's going to happen, because it is.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, we're just going to reiterate what Jill shared. I mean, the Bill is not directed at anyone's beliefs. Foster youth in California have a clear set of rights. One of those is to be free from discrimination and harassment. So, if a foster youth resource family kind of openly shares that, they could be hostile or discriminate against LGBTQ youth, they would potentially not be eligible.

But we're simply asking resource families to uphold the basic rights of all foster youth, including LGBTQ folks, rights that are clearly established in existing law.

I think when we entangle this issue with faith and with religion, it gets really slippery. And of course, everyone has the right to their religious beliefs, but there are many, many people of faith and many, many religions that support LGBT youth. And we welcome everyone and everyone has that right to their religious freedom. But there is no entitlement to become a resource parent. We're acting on behalf of the state.

We have to make sure that children that come into the state's care meet the criteria to be cared for safely. And that's the difference. There is no entitlement to be a resource parent. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional Members at this time seeing? None. Ms. Correa, would you like to close.

Calderon.

Calderon. I'm sorry.

That's okay. Yes. On behalf of Senator Wiener, I respectfully.

Ask for an, aye vote we have a motion by Correo, a second by Bonta. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. Lackey? No. Lackey, no. Alanis? No. Alanis, no. Arambula? Arambula, aye. Bonta? Aye. Bonta, aye. Juan Carrillo? Aye. Juan Carrio, aye. Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye. Garcia? Garcia aye.

The vote is six-zero. The Bill is out six-zero. I'm sorry, six-two. I'm sorry, siz-two. The Bill is out. Thank you very much. Next, we will have Members, if you've already created, have all your votes. Thank you very much. We will now move on to any other Members who need to add on. We ask that everyone please keep your voices down while in the chamber. While we continue to vote. Madam Secretary let's open the roll so that Members can add on votes.

File item six, SB 408. The current vote is seven to zero. Arambula. aye. The final vote is 8 to 0. File item seven, SB 722. The current vote is 7 to 0. Arambula, aye. Final vote, 8 to 0.

Okay. Business before the Assembly Human Service Committee is now complete. The hearing. Hearing is adjourned.