Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

So we're holding our Committee meetings here in the O Street building. I'll ask all Members of the Committee to be present here in room 2200 so that we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. Okay? So noticing absence of the quorum, we are going to begin as a subcommitee. We will hear our bills in file order. It looks like today we have 32 bills on our agenda. Four bills have been pulled. File item 3, AB 41, file item 4, AB 1148.

File item 27, AB 1324. And file item 28, AB 1512. 13 bills are on consent. Okay. All right, so we will proceed. Assembly Member Gibson, I see you're here. We have item file number 1 and 2, Assembly Bill 20 and Assembly Bill 373. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and to our Vice Chair and to Committee Members, I would ask the chair if she would allow me the privilege of going and having and hearing the first Bill, AB 373. Because AB 20, my witness, just parked, and so they're running up here. So I wanted to see if I could proceed with that Bill first and then take AB 20 at the conclusion of this Bill.

I think that'd be great. All right, thank you for that.

Thank you so very much, Madam Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members, thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 373, which aims to increase graduation rates for foster youth and homeless youth by giving them priority access for summer and winter school session. Assembly Bill 373 has received underscore unanimous bipartisan support. And so I'm happy to present this Bill today.

I would like to thank this Committee staff for working diligently with my team, and I will be accepting the Committee's amendments to add tribal language to this Bill. AB 373 highlights a well known issue that homeless and foster youth have struggled most when it comes to receiving an education. We as the Legislature have the power and the obligation to help in any way that we possibly can by recognizing this barrier and acting accordingly.

Foster youth and homeless youth experience high rates of absenteeism, suspension, and also school mobility. According to a study done by the Learning Policy Institute, during 2018 and 2019, a school year, only 5% of non foster care students moved schools, while 34% of students in foster care did. In addition, 20% of the students experienced homelessness changed schools at least once during a school year, and a quarter of the students change schools twice or more.

And you would hear when you talk about foster youth and the tremendous transition they have to go through. I've had a young person testify, was moved 32 times in one year. That means 32 schools, that means 32 homes, that means 32 neighborhoods in which in one year, that that child's life was turned upside down. These factors make it hard for a student to engage in educational in education and maintain the appropriate number of credits of graduation.

Often high school graduates or graduation is a critical part of a student's long term access. When students are focused to frequently switch schools, they struggle to adopt a new system, a new teacher, a new experience, a new curriculum. Their lives are changed. And for those who have stable homes, those who have kids in school, that doesn't happen to our own children, but this is what our children are going through in the foster care system and those who experience homelessness.

AB 373 will ensure that foster youth and homeless students have a priority access to summer and winter session when available so that they can enroll in classes that they are essential for their success. With me to provide supporting testimony is a representative who will self introduce the Chief Public Policy and Advocate Officer, as well as a representative who's the Director of the Public Policy and Strategic Strategies for California Alliance for Children and Family Service.

Thank you. Assembly Member, before we hear from your witnesses, we're going to establish a quorum. Yes? All right? So please call the roll.

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

Right. So we have a quorum, so we will continue. All right. Please state your name just so, because I interrupted.

Yes. Hello. Good afternoon. Adrian Chilton with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services. We are pleased to co sponsor Assembly Bill 373. We represent nonprofit community based organizations across California that are serving children and youth and families, primarily in our MediCal program. So this Bill would prioritize youth and foster care, those experiencing homelessness, and Native American youth for educational programs such as summer school.

When those are available in their district, these students often experience educational barriers due to factors that are outside of their control, such as higher rates of absences, suspensions, and school mobility compared to their peers. And this all reduces access to important instructional time and academic support. So, for example, 22% of youth in foster care change schools four or more times over a four year period, compared to less than 1% of all other students.

In 2021, 87% of students graduated high school in four years, compared with 73% of homeless students and 61% of foster students. So summer and winter programs often provide these important credit recovery opportunities for high school students. And it's also important to note that students of color are overrepresented in both foster care and our homeless population. So AB 373 will reduce barriers for youth who have been historically underserved. It's also an important step to achieving our state's vision of educational equity.

So for those reasons, the California Alliance urges your aye vote today.

Great. Thank you so much. Your second lead witness. Please state your name and the organization you represent.

Yes, good afternoon. My name is Wendy Wang with Sycamores, a proud co sponsor of AB 373. For over 120 years, Sycamores has been dedicated to serving young people and their caregivers in the child welfare system. Since the launch of our first transitional housing program in 2000, we now provide approximately 135 scattered side apartment beds and quality wraparound services to young people ages 18 to 25 experiencing homelessness.

Research highlights the stark educational outcome disparities of foster youth students and students experiencing homelessness when compared to their peers, respectively. In the 2018 to 2019 academic year, 25% of students who are experiencing homelessness were chronically absent compared to only 12% of nonhomeless students. In that same year, the suspension rates for unhoused students were twice those of their stably housed counterparts.

This data, other research and examples of young people we serve illustrate the importance of prioritizing foster youth and unhoused students for enrollment in intercession programs when offered by LEAs. I want to close with the story of John, a 16 year old foster youth student whose primary language is Spanish. He finished spring semester of last year with three F's and 1 D. Prior to coming into our care in spring of 2022, he had traveled from Guatemala to the US.

He was placed in a foster home and then shelter. Despite early communication and submission of all forms to enroll in credit recovery, he did not end up completing it. The school district only enrolled him very last minute, but primarily because there was no Spanish speaking in district summer program for his educational needs. In closing, Sycamore strongly urges you to endorse AB 373. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any lead witnesses in opposition on this Bill? Seeing none. We'll now open up the microphone for those who want to participate from the public in either opposition or support. Please approach the microphone with your name, any organization that you represent and your position only, please.

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

Thank you.

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Karen Keane with the Children's Law Center in support.

Kim Lewis, representing Children Now, the California Coalition for Youth and Aspiranet. All in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Okay, any more witnesses wishing to address? No. Okay, so we are now going to move forward to our public teleconference. Any witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service? Please note that any individual who is disruptive may be removed from the remote meeting services or have their connections muted at the chair's discretion. I will not institute any time limits on testimony, but I will ask for you to be courteous, as we have a lot of bills today to get through.

I will permit an equal amount of time for all witnesses, regardless of their position. And I ask that all witnesses to state their name, affiliation, and position only. And this will be strictly enforced. Moderator please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 373 that we are ready to begin.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 373, you may press one and then zero, and we will go to line 34. Your line is open.

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

Thank you. Line 38.

Madam Chair and Members, Nicole Wordleman on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 39.

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

Thank you. Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. Okay. We'll now bring the conversation back to the Committee. Members of the Committee.

I'll move the Bill when appropriate. I do want to thank the Assembly Member. I've been watching some of your bills. I really appreciate every single Bill that. You have brought forward. So thank you. And as a former kid in the foster care system, I really do appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Okay. I wanted to thank you so much for bringing this forward. As you were doing your presentation and really representing the voice of our foster youth, you were telling a story you were telling the story of so many times our youth are displaced from their place of stability. People that they know feel safe, and school is one of those places. So thank you for bringing this forward and for taking the amendments to include the tribal youth.

Right? So I have a motion from Assembly Member Wahop. Please call the roll.

File item two, AB 373. The motion is do pass as amended. Alvarado-Gil aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Hurtato. Menjivar aye. Menjivar aye. Wahab aye. Wahab aye.

That's 4-0 and we will leave that on call.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member. Would you like to proceed with AB 20?

I would.

Okay. Thank you. When you're ready.

Thank you again, Madam Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 20, which allows children and young adults to change to a safe, stay connected with their families and communities post adoption. AB 20 has received unanimous bipartisan support. This bill is a repeat of the bill that I did back in 2022. That was Assembly Bill 1794. This bill was vetoed by the Governor. We used his message to make this bill before you better moving forward.

And so specifically, this bill would ensure three areas. It would ensure a post adoption contract to continue visitation between a sibling, I mean siblings, and addressing prior to termination of parental rights. Two, ensure sibling visitations continues past the end of parental rights. Clarify the adult siblings, even if the previous adoptions are viewed as siblings under the state law. Nearly 100 times a day a child in California is placed in foster care. Los Angeles County alone has over, watch this, 33,000 foster youth.

33,000 foster youth. And it makes sense for these children who want to live with their birth parents and to have an opportunity to keep and stay connected as a family. In some cases, the adoption failed and the child has to reestablish a relationship with their parents. Having a family connected during a time is absolutely important. As a Member of the Select Committee on Native American Affairs, I am also aware of the crisis with our Native American foster youth in this state.

Family culture, connection, it matters and it's important. Every child deserves a loving, a permanent relationship. Every child deserves to feel safe, secure, wanted, loved and heard by the community they identify with and develop ties with. AB 20 provides a path forward for those families. With me to provide supporting testimony is a Senior Policy Attorney with the Children Law Center of California, who will also self introduce and also be here to answer any technical questions.

Great, thank you. We'll hear from our first lead witness.

Good afternoon and thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm Julie McCormick, Senior Policy Attorney at Children's Law Center of California. We are the largest nonprofit children's legal services organization in the nation. As Assembly Member Gibson noted, we advocate for over 30,000 children and youth in foster care in Los Angeles, Sacramento and Placer counties. So for this bill, permanency is critical for our clients.

But there's also a growing recognition that many adoptees it is also critical to maintain connection to their biological families and communities and that maintaining these connections can be done safely and provide significant benefit. Research has showed that the sibling one is especially important in mitigating the trauma of family separation. Feedback we hear from our clients has reinforced the veracity of this research. While the importance of maintaining sibling connections is already recognized in law, we rarely see these meetings take place.

Too often we see our clients lose all contact with their siblings. So if you would allow given the holiday I do not have our other witness present, but if I could share a story of one of our clients. She's a young woman who unfortunately grew up in the dependency system. We started representing Elaine in 2012 when she entered foster care at 10 years old.

In May of 2017, she gave birth to her first child, a daughter, and we also began to represent her as a minor mother. This child, we'll refer to her as EA, was removed from Elaine's custody and the court did order family reunification services. As a foster child, Elaine struggled with many issues as one can imagine, including, perhaps most significantly, a lack of family support.

She lived in various foster homes and group homes, and although her siblings returned to her mother's home, she never reunified with her own mother. This left her with a feeling of confusion, abandonment and further loss. In October of 2019, she gave birth to a second daughter, and in January of 2021, she gave birth to a son. Both these children were eventually detained from her and placed in the same foster home as her first child.

Although Elaine was in partial compliance with her case plan to regain custody of the oldest daughter, she ultimately faced too many barriers to comply with all the court orders. And sadly, her parental rights were terminated and the permanent plan was adoption. Unfortunately, that child's prospective adoptive mother severely physically abused that child. And all three siblings were immediately removed from that foster home.

Significantly, after having shared their lives and living together for years, the Department determined it was in the best interest of the three siblings to be moved together as a sibling set to a new foster home. Our client, Elaine, had visits with all of her children together, she observed. They were exceptionally close. They played engaged in activities together, and they interacted warmly. Elaine then wonderfully reunited with her two younger children.

But due to the fact that her parental rates had already been terminated to her oldest child, those siblings have now completely lost contact with each other. Because there was no sibling contact agreement stated and her heart is broken. She knows that her younger two children may never see their sister again, and that her oldest daughter is likewise being deprived of relationship with her beloved younger siblings. AB 20 would strengthen existing law, ensure meetings take place, and discuss the possibility of a post adoption contact between siblings.

And additionally, this bill would create pathways to reinstate parental rights for youth when it would be appropriate and in their best interests, such as it might have been appropriate for Elaine and her oldest daughter when her adoption fell through and both her siblings reunified with Elaine. I urge your support of this important legislation, and I thank Assembly Member Gibson. I think we've all noted he is such a champion for these youth and for the work he does to strengthen California families.

Thank you. Thank you. Any lead witnesses in opposition here today? Okay, so we will now move forward to hear from the public. Please come forward to the microphone when you're ready. Members of the public wishing to express support or opposition for this bill, please approach with your name, your organization and your position only, please.

Hey, Jenny, trice on behalf of the County of Santa Clara in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, any other witnesses? So we will move to the teleconference service. Moderator please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of Assembly Bill 20 that we are ready to begin.

Thank you. For your support or opposition of AB 20. You may press one and then zero. We will go to line 34. Good afternoon. Tiffany Fan on behalf of California court.

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

Thank you.

Thank you. And Madam Chair, there is no further support or opposition in queue.

Okay. We'll bring the conversation back to the Members. Senator Wahab has moved the bill. I know she's moving us along here. She said we're not going to be here till midnight tonight. All right, thank you so much. I don't have any questions for you.

Assembly Member, I did hear that you worked on your bill, the previous version that was vetoed, you took the feedback and the comments to make this bill stronger.

Absolutely.

Did you want to say anything specifically about those changes?

No, we just made it stronger with the sponsors. I want to thank our sponsors, Ms. Mccormick, for being here. And if I can just say this before I conclude and you take a vote that I strongly ask for an aye vote. In 2021, I met a brother who came and testified in support of this bill, 2022. And he talked about he was separated at birth. He was a twin brother. He had a twin brother.

And he went to the social worker when he became of age to try to find to try to find his twin brother. And they said that's against policy. Well, not knowing that, they went to the same school, but they were on different tracks. They lived a quarter of a mile from each other and they never knew that. The social worker decided to break the rules and reunify them so they can meet.

Two days before they were met, his twin brother was shot and killed in a drive by shooting. He said to me, I wish I would have at least had an opportunity to see if we had mannerisms. Do we actually look alike? Do we walk or talk like our father or our mother? He would never have that opportunity. The first time and the last was at a funeral to say goodbye to his twin brother. This is what this bill means.

This bill means to try to make sure that this never happens again, that we keep families together when possible. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Alright, let's call the roll.

File item one, AB 20. The motion is due passed and be refered to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Alvarado-Gil aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab aye.

Okay. The vote is four Ayes, and that bill will go to call.

Thank you. Very much.

Thank you. We're going to move on to item number five. I see Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer present. We are ready when you are to present Assembly Bill 86.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I present AB 86, which will strengthen California's response to the homelessness by establishing a statewide Homeless Coordinator as the lead entity for ending homelessness in California. Today, over 170,000 Californians individuals experience homelessness in California, a roughly 6% increase since 2020. The State has invested billions of dollars to assist local governments and support housing programs that shelter unhoused individuals. Yet we continue to have the nation's largest homeless population, in part due to the State's disjointed approach to addressing homelessness.

In 2017, the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, formerly known as the Homeless Coordinating Financing Council, was established to coordinate funding and build partnerships with the stakeholders to develop strategies to end homelessness. The Council is one of many agencies that receive information on the homelessness in the State. However, with no real one person in charge to ensure true accountability, we continue to see a disconnect.

Given the magnitude of the crisis in California and amount of funding invested, we truly need the system in place to tackle homelessness at both the state and local levels to be consistent and effective. That is why I introduced AB 86. This bill will ensure intergovernmental coordination to end homelessness by requiring the Governor to appoint a statewide Homeless Coordinator.

The Coordinator will set state goals to end homelessness, oversee related programs, services, data, policies between federal, state, local agencies, as well as coordinate the timing of the release of state funds and funding applications for housing and housing based services. AB 86 allows Coordinator flexibility to identify a local leader and the appropriate jurisdiction to serve as a liaisons on to the State. Lastly, in collaboration with local leaders, the Coordinator will provide annual recommendations to Legislature and the Governor.

Members, while there is significant overlap in a lot of existing resources, many times we see individuals going to different programs and losing valuable time when they could have received help. AB 86 is putting a person in charge that people can look for guidance, not about creating a new bureaucracy. A Coordinator can help better manage the system and bring all stakeholders together. Homelessness is an issue that impacts every corner of the state. We must ensure a coordinated approach to addressing this crisis, and AB 86 can help us there. With me to speak in support of this bill is Dane Hutchings with the City of Redwood City. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Dane Hutchings here on behalf of the City of Redwood City in support of AB 86. This measure would create continuity and improve service delivery by establishing a statewide Homelessness Coordinator within the Governor's Office. As part of their change, or excuse me, as part of their charge, the Homeless Coordinator would be required to identify a local leader in each relevant jurisdiction to serve as a liaison and promote collaboration by providing annual recommendations based upon the agency's best practices.

Redwood City staff was unable to be here today, so they've asked I share a case study on their behalf. So these specific provisions are of particular interest to Redwood City with respect to the local coordinator or local city leader. Although Redwood City represents only 11% of the population in San Mateo County, the January 2019 Countywide Point in Time Count results showed that they had over 25% of the unsheltered population in their county, with over 50% consisting of individuals living in RVs in the street.

By August 2020, Redwood City had an average of 110 RVs in their streets every night. In the fall of 2020, the city launched its Temporary RV Safe Parking Program, and within months, they had 91 households registered for temporary RV Safe Parking and had reduced the number of RVs on the street to an average of 10 per night.

By the end of the two and a half year program, over 60% of the households had transitioned to permanent housing, while the remainder found other options or left the program, and there continues to be less than a handful of RVs on the street each and every night. The city's efforts successfully leveraged the resources of the COC, resulting in a 27% decrease in unsheltered homeless population, compared to a 9% increase countywide during that same time period.

The city is now applying lessons learned to its effort to address the growth of homeless encampments in the city, as noted in the 2022 Point in Time Count. The city has successfully been transitioning unsheltered individuals from encampments to permanent housing opportunities, while also working closely with Caltrans and CHP to resolve homeless encampments on Caltrans property.

While the point of the case study is that while it's important to coordinate and solicit feedback from larger population centers, it is also important to recognize that small and medium sized jurisdictions from across the state have created new programs that have successfully coordinated with regional leaders to yield these positive results. AB 86 recognizes this and provides a framework for true multi-jurisdictional collaboration.

We'd welcome the opportunity to work with the Administration, the Legislature, and other key stakeholders in advancing the shared goal of addressing needs of our unsheltered population. Thank you to Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer for your leadership, and we respectfully ask for an aye vote. I've also been asked to express support for the California Association Recreation of Parks and RECs Districts as well.

Thank you so much. Any lead witnesses in opposition here today? Hearing and seeing none, we'll move forward to Members of the public wishing to testify, expressing opposition or support. Please come forward to the microphone. Alright, hearing and seeing none. Moderator, we are going to move to Teleconference Services. Will you please prompt any individuals waiting to testify on behalf of in positions of support or opposition for AB 86 that we're ready to proceed.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 86, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero if you're in support or opposition of AB 86. Madam Chair, we have no one in queue.

Okay, thank you so much. We will bring the conversation back to the Committee. I've got Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, and Wahab.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Assembly Member, I know we've talked about this, and I'm not going to say homelessness isn't a crisis. It's a dire situation we're having in the State of California. After reading the analysis here, can you talk to me a little bit more about... We have an Advisory Committee that meets twice a year with Cal ICH, and they put out a report every single year. I'm wondering how this report would be different than the report that this proposed coordinator would put out.

And then on the data side, we have data collected on the Homeless Data Integration System administered through Cal ICH, and that data is collected. And hopefully, I mean, I would say, I would agree with you. I think we could do, obviously, a better job on handling homelessness in our State of California, obviously in the city of LA as well.

But I'm just wondering if you could walk me a little bit more about this being the approach to fixing some of the systems that we have in place to deal with homelessness.

And that's a very good question, and I look at it more as, not necessarily fixing, but better coordinating everything. We do a lot of studies. We have a lot of information. A lot of it sits up on the shelf, and it really is not activated at the local level. A coordinator not only will make sure that it gets done at the local level, but it'll be done in real time.

We don't wait six months for a report to come out or for it to come back to Legislature to then do more activity or make more recommendations and more budgetary recommendations. What I've learned from watching our mayor, mayor Karen Bass, as she got involved with homelessness at the local level, I've seen more and more people being moved off the street because you have one person in charge, one person that is taking the responsibility to spearhead reducing homelessness in Los Angeles.

And it's from that and also talking to Assembly Member Luz Rivas, who had similar attempts at this before, and she made some adjustments to the council that you're mentioning, but she really wanted somebody to be in charge, somebody which is most important, accountable. If I asked you right now in your district, in your district, in your district, if something doesn't go right with homelessness in your area, who is responsible?

You probably will get a lot of finger pointing, a lot of people saying, it's the county, it's a state, it's a local. It's this agent. In any municipality, you need one person in charge, whether it's the Mayor, Governor, or President. This will actually put somebody we can actually go to at the center point to not only coordinate and bring all the resources, federal, state, and local together to move the ball in a substantive way, but also to set goals.

That's another thing that people are afraid of, to set some tangible goals that we can move on and then make adjustments every year so we can keep going on. But the most important to have somebody responsible for homelessness.

Would you then say on the goals part, I mean, the Cal ICH adopts an action plan for preventing and ending homelessness every single year, and it reflects the current priorities. And this coordinator is to set state goals to end homelessness. What would be the difference there?

Hopefully there is no difference, but it also would hopefully prod and make sure that those goals are met to help them move into that in an area where they can actually get it done. And if they're not getting it done, to be able to coordinate how we can do better, to make sure we can get it done the next year, not wait two or three years, but to be able to maybe even do it in real time, because that's the most important thing, because this is happening now. And we've got to be able to coordinate this in a more systematic, real time coordination.

I shared with you. I'm going to stay off this bill for right now. I'm still struggling to find how we have some entities in place that maybe needs more straightening because they're already in place. I don't think maybe perhaps putting an individual under the governor's office is the best thing to do. I feel like they wouldn't have a lot of perhaps autonomy there, but I'm just not seeing that this is how we need to approach accountability. But for now I'll be staying off.

I understand, but main reason I'm doing this because what we've been trying in the past has not really been working, and we can't keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. So this is an attempt to be able to move the ball a lot better. But I respect your opinion.

Okay. Any comments? I just had a couple of questions. Interesting that my colleague would pose those questions. My question was I always assumed, I think as a state we've always hold the Governor accountable for our homeless situation as far as a plan, and the entities that he has put in place to be able to oversee what's going on. And I think for some of the population in California, they look to the Governor.

I'll be supporting the bill today, but I do have a couple of questions for you with regards to the appointment itself. So would this particular person be appointed by the Governor that would be vetted through the Rules Committee and voted upon the Senate, as we normally do with some of the appointees, or would this appointee be solely at the discretion of the Governor?

Yes, it would. I had to go to my staff.

I didn't see the language in the bill itself. Which is why I'm asking.

I think we can make that clarification for you to make sure that type of appointment goes through Senate rules for vetting.

Vetting and then voted upon by the appropriation, I'm sorry, by the Senate Floor. Got it. Okay, perfect. I think those are the only questions I have for you. I believe so. Hold on. Yeah, it doesn't have the language on there, so the language would be great. So thank you. Would you like to close? Do we have any other comments or questions? No. Okay. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary? Madam. I'm sorry. It's Mr. Secretary.

No problem. File item five, AB 86. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Housing. Alvarado-Gil? Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Hurtado? Menjivar? Wahab? Wahab, aye.

So the motion is with the clarifying language? Was that the motion that we have?

It should be aye with clarifying language from the Rules.

Okay, that's fine. He made the commitment to add the clarifying language, and I think that's enough. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Alright. I believe we have Mr. Assembly Member Carrillo here who will be presenting on behalf of Member Quirk-Silva. Perfect. Welcome Member Carrillo.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair and Members. I am here to present AB 723 on behalf of Assembly Woman Quirk-Silva. Assembly Bill 723 is a simple bill that clarifies the definition of foster youths' school of origin to also include nonpublic schools. A disproportionate number of foster youth attend nonpublic schools which serve students with disabilities whose Individualized Education Program, or IEP, teams have determined that there is no appropriate public education program available to meet their unique needs.

Existing law is not clear that schools of origin includes non-public schools. Additionally, some school districts have policies that explicitly curb out nonpublic schools from the definition of school of origin. In order to promote school stability and educational success, all students should be allowed to remain at their school of origin. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. There is no witnesses in support.

Okay, so no lead witnesses. Perfect. We'll continue with witnesses in support here in room 2200. Seeing none. I believe we do not have any witnesses in opposition. Any lead witnesses? I don't have a list. Okay, so we do not have any witnesses in opposition as lead witnesses, so we'll continue with any witnesses in opposition for AB 723 here in room 2200. Seeing none. We'll now move on to the teleconference services. Moderator, if you would please prompt any individuals in support or opposition of bill AB 723, please.

Thank you. For support or opposition of AB 723, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 48. Line 48, your line is open.

I'm sorry. Line 48, your line is open. Alright, we will move on to line 52. Your line is open. Line 52, your line is open. We move on to line 53.

Hello. Hi. My name is Dr. Henny Cooperstein, and I am in opposition of the measure of Assembly Bill 723. I think that it is inappropriate that special education be forced onto the student in their home school origin where they were placed in foster care to begin with.

It limits and restricts their opportunity to get access to services in different districts where their foster parents might reside and open them up to equity and distribution of resources available to school districts in different places. It's important that you take a closer look into this measure. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam.

Thank you. We do have one more in queue. One moment while they get their line number. And again, we are on AB 723. And we will go to line 54. Your line is open. Line 54, your line is open.

Buena tardes. Mi nombre es Daisy... escuchando el puerto De Abe. Siete.

Okay. And Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you, Moderator. We will now bring the discussion back to the dais. Do we have? I see no other questions or comments. And we have a motion by Senator Menjivar. Member Carrillo, would you like to close?

Would just respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

File item eight, AB 723. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarado-Gil? Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Wahab? Wahab, aye.

Member Carrillo, I believe you have a bill as well. Yeah. Why don't we have you present while you're here?

Okay. Thank you again.

Item number 13, right?

Yes.

Give me 1 second. 13?

Oh my goodness. So we have AB 1536 by Member Juan Carrillo.

Thank you again. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 1536. This bill seeks to expand the current existing Cash Assistant Program for Immigrants, or CAPI, to allow access to the program regardless of immigration status. This bill will also remove the requirement to submit an application to the Supplemental Security Income or State Supplemental Payment SSI or SSP for denial. My personal story. I immigrated to this country when I was 15 years old, from Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.

I came to this country to work and to obtain an education and to achieve the American Dream. My first job was a dishwasher. I know firsthand what it's like to work in a backbreaking job, working long hours and worry day in and day out, if I had enough money to put food on the table. California is home to approximately 17,000 undocumented seniors 65 years or older.

Of these seniors, about 7000 do not have a job or are not in the labor force, and 2200 are at or below poverty level. And over 700,000 undocumented immigrants in California have lived and worked here for over 20 years. For some of us, that's our parents or grandparents, who we've seen for decades contribute a significant money to our economy through taxes and household expenses. California has made historic investments in expanding food assistance benefits and unlocking medical for undocumented seniors.

But we have fallen short in doing the same for the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants, or CAPI. Currently, this life saving program is only limited to qualified immigrants, which excludes our larger undocumented population. These are the very benefits that they have been paid into over the course of their work in our state. We've seen over time how impactful these dollars have been for individuals facing extreme poverty.

I want to be clear that when we talked about inclusivity in our state, I want to remind everyone that it also includes our seniors, especially our undocumented population. I am proud to be working with CHIRLA to further uplift the voices of those who simply want to live the rest of their years with dignity and respect. Joining me here today to testify and answer any technical questions is Rita Medina, Deputy Director of Policy and Advocacy with CHIRLA. Also joining me is CHIRLA Member Alberto Gomez Hernandez.

Thank you. So I'm going to be giving my testimony first, and then Alberto is going to go, and I will translate for him.

Good afternoon, chairs and Members. Rita Medina, Deputy Director of Policy and Advocacy at CHIRLA. CHIRLA is a proud sponsor of AB 1536, and the need for this bill came directly from our impacted membership. Many of the individuals who are CHIRLA Members have been living here for decades, but do not have a path to citizenship in sight and are aging into poverty. And this program begins to address this, starting with the most in need.

California established CAPI in 1998 following the 1996 federal welfare law that cut access to federal SSI for qualified immigrants, a legal term. CAPI is 100% state funded program designed to mirror Social Security SSI by providing a monthly cash benefit to individuals who are aged, blind, or disabled and are qualified immigrants, but ineligible for SSI solely due to their immigration status. By creating CAPI, the state took action ensuring that the most vulnerable individuals would continue to have access to a benefit that they have relied on.

The program serves as a critical lifeline to pay for basic necessities, and CAPI is currently not open to undocumented individuals. But after almost 26 years of its creation of the program, it's time to expand who has access. In 2019, undocumented individuals contributed an estimated 3.7 billion to California's economy through state and local taxes, helping to fund some of the very benefits and retirement programs that they are shut out of accessing.

There are an estimated 17,000 undocumented individuals, 65 plus, as was just stated, and the successful implementation of MediCal for older adults, 50 plus, regardless of immigration status, has shown us that statewide, nearly 350,000 50 plus and older have benefited from that expansion and will continue to age in our state and need care. Aging and disability needs are felt in every corner of the state, from large cities like Los Angeles to large regions like the Central Valley and the Inland Empire, where I'm from.

These regions employ our farm workers, domestic workers and warehouse workers, and more individuals who work labor intensive jobs to survive. And where those who are faced with disabilities have challenges accessing the services they need to live out their life with dignity and ease. Passing AB 1536 is a step in the right direction to ensure those in need have the option to access, support and can age with dignity. With that, I close and ask for an aye vote, and right after me it'll be Señor Alberto.

He will present in Spanish and I will translate in English. Alberto.

Hola, buenas tardes estimados Senadores, mi nombre es Alberto Gómez. Soy un miembro activo de CHIRLA en Los Ángeles. [Foreign Language]

And I'll quickly translate. Dear Senators. Gracias, Alberto.

Dear Senators, my name is Alberto Gomez. I'm an active Member of CHIRLA in Los Angeles. I was born in Mexico and came to Los Angeles in 2006 and I've been living in Koreatown ever since. I came to the country undocumented because I wanted to give my children a better future. My children stayed in Mexico and already 17 years have passed since I've seen them. I've been a street vendor and sell balloons and cotton candy. I sell in public areas like parks and wherever the public is.

When I arrived in the United States, I was 40 years old and at the end of this year I'll be 57. I share my rent with a friend who is also a street vendor and is 67 years old. Like me is undocumented. If it weren't for the incomes of both of us, we wouldn't be able to pay rent since everything is expensive.

As you can imagine, the pandemic was very difficult for me since I depend on the public and during this time I was not able to obtain that income. My sales stopped when people stayed home. If it hadn't been for the state and local government intervention, I would have ended up on the streets. To eat I had to go to public schools to be able to take advantage of the food that they were giving away for the benefit of the community.

The experience with the pandemic made me realize that when I can no longer work because of my age, it will be difficult to pay for the necessary things. I'm already close to retirement age and I'm concerned that I do not have a savings or a pension to be able to live my old age in a dignified, worry free way. I don't want to worry about what I'm going to eat or how I'm going to pay to have a roof over my head

CAPI would be a great help to us immigrants who are a few years away from a retirement age. In all these years I've paid my taxes and I only ask that our work and our humanity would be recognized. Please say yes to CAPI. And then I'm also going to hand, unfortunately, we had a little snafu on our end with the portal, but our coalition sign on letter that everybody will get as well. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Thank you. Seeing none, we'll move forward to any members of the public wishing to express support or opposition. State your name, your affiliation and your position only, please.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and we urge your I vote. Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Elsa, I'm a CHIRLA Member. I'm from Turlock and I support the Bill.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Edwin, I'm a member of CHIRLA. I'm from Merced, California, and I support AB 1536.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Gloria Valen. I'm a CHIRLA Member. I'm from Turlock, California, and I also support the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Cynthia Gómez, State policy advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA in strong support. Thank you.

Buenos Tardes mi nombre es Sermolinda Guadarama [foreign language] organización CHIRLA [foreign language] de Los Angeles y yo apoyo a la AB 1536. Gracias.

Hola, buenas tardes a todos. Mi nombre es Jose Valdes. Vivo en Los Angeles. Y vengo apoyar a la proposición CAPI. AB 1536. Gracias.

Good afternoon. My name is Jessenie Altamirano, I'm from Orange County. Also a Member from CHIRLA. And here supporting AB 1536. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Christopher Sanchez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support.

Thank you. Personas que gustan presentar? Members el publico? No? Okay, thank you. All right, any more witnesses? All right. We will move to the teleconference line. Moderator, please prompt Members of the public waiting to testify on AB 1536 that we are ready.

Thank you. If you'd like to support or opposition on AB 1536, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 46. Your line is open.

Hello, this is Eric Harris, Disability Rights California. Strong support.

Thank you. Line 50, your line is open.

[Inaudible] in support.

Thank you. Line 57, your line is open.

Hello. My name is Ritu Belani. I'm a high school student and President of Sunnyvale Youth Public Policy Institute and I support Bill AB 1536. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Great. Thank you so much. We'll bring the discussion back to the members of the Committee. Senator Ochoa Bogh and then Senator Wahab.

HelIo member Carillo and welcome to the committee. I have a couple of questions because I think there's a lot of concerns and questions as to where we are right now with our budget and whether or not we have funds to give individuals who are undocumented without papers here working in the state of California. So I know we've had a preliminary conversation with regards to this issue.

So I want, for the record, I'm going to ask you several questions so that we can have better understanding, the public can have better understanding of how this process works. So, first of all, with this bill, is there a requirement for how long seniors would have had to pay into the system before they're able to receive the benefits, the financial benefits? Is there a period of time in which they would have to be vested before pulling out these funds?

I don't believe so and I'm going to ask Rita to specify.

That it's not for CAPI because similar to SSI, you could also be entering into the program as a disabled individual. So it may be that you weren't working because you have a disability. So if you're familiar with the Social Security SSI program, it's the same situation.

I'm not. So would you mind explaining a little bit? Sorry, I'm not.

So because it serves both folks who may be aged, blind or disabled, some people may be entering into getting the benefit at an earlier age or may have never been workers. A lot of the CHIRLA Members that we worked with happen to just be seniors who have worked and lived here for a really long time. And that's the way that we have been approaching this program, knowing that it would benefit those individuals quite greatly.

But this could also impact the lives of folks who are disabled and may be various ages.

So with this particular bill, would you be emphasizing people who have who are seniors just coming into the system? Or would it be specifically narrowed to people who have worked and paid into the system before they receive the benefits?

It is not, the differentiation is not, to my knowledge, set up in that way to say that somebody has that you have to have so many years of work, it's just their ability to qualify because there are income levels that you have to qualify at. And so these are for people who are living in extreme poverty but likely do work and contribute. And folks do already contribute through the state and local taxes that they pay regardless of if they've been working.

And when you say so for the public to understand, when you say that people have been paying into the system, what does that exactly look like in your definition for this particular Bill? For the Members that would be receiving this benefit?

Sure. So if we're talking about people broadly, everything from disabled individuals to seniors, the way that we say paying into the system is often through state and local taxes. So that's at a bare minimum, right, everybody, when you buy something, you're paying your state and local taxes.

Or it could be at the other end of the scale, if you have an ITIN number and you are paying your taxes, you're already getting deductions for all of these things, but you're not able to access any actual Social Security benefits.

So I want you to clarify and emphasize that part right there.

Oh, that people are paying? So let's say, for example, I am undocumented, but I have an ITIN, and so I'm paying my taxes through my employer. When I'm paying my taxes, I'm getting deductions just like everybody else. But because I am undocumented, I have no ability to access any of the things like Social Security. If you see it on your paycheck, we get those deductions. But folks don't have that opportunity to actually access the benefit because they are undocumented and at a federal level.

That was why Cappy was created, is because there needed to be a lane for folks who were paying into things like Social Security SSI that in 1996 when welfare reform happened at the federal level, people were excluded from that. So they're still paying into Social Security at the federal level but we all can tap into it here if we're citizens and so it's really just allowing for that equity.

Okay, and then another question that I have for you is would the amount received by the individuals be in proportion to what perhaps they've paid into the system as workers or as individuals? Is there a minimum, how do you stipulate the amount that is being received in proportion to what they've contributed or is there a correlation?

As far as I am familiar with the program, as this is the first year that we've been doing this, that's not so much a correlation. So the benefits are pretty set. There's a chart that CDSS has where it depends on how you come into the program. So somebody who is a single individual who is blind may get a little bit more money than a couple that comes into the program and are aged.

So you could be blind, aged or disabled but the amounts aren't necessarily correlated to anybody's specific contributions. But I think that people would love it if they were in some cases because we know we all work many hours and even though this CAPI benefit is significant compared to the cost of living, there's still a lot to be said for the support we can give folks.

And the last question I have for you are these benefits that you have to if this bill were to pass, are these benefits supposed to be received by people who live in the US and stay in remaining the US. Or if they leave the country and they go back home, their native country, would these benefits continue to be paid out to these individuals when they leave, once they leave or would you have to have proof of residences here in California,

California residence. Yes.

So you would have to be living in the State of California in order to receive these benefits and once they leave the country to go back to their home country they would cease to receive these benefits.

I will get back to you on specifically that answer. But for a lot of folks, if you're entering on the program and you're undocumented, there is very little chance that you would ever be leaving the United States because you would be barred from re entering. And so for a lot of folks because of that, if they're undocumented and they're getting this benefit, should they choose to apply for this benefit, because I think just as a reminder, this isn't an automatic benefit.

A person has to be eligible based on the income and then they have to apply to actually access the benefit. But because they are undocumented, they are here in the United States, and once they leave, they are often not able to come back because of the 3 and 10 year bars. And so it is very unlikely that somebody would have that experience where they are receiving a benefit but living somewhere else.

And just for clarification for the public's benefit, I need you to specify who exactly would receive this benefit.

It would be folks who are undocumented, meet the eligibility requirements in terms of being eligible for Social Security, SSI. So there's lots of stipulations on what that looks like.

Is that a minimum age of 62, 65?

So you can enter into the program being 65 and older, you can be blind or disabled. So that is all of it. Thank you.

And Senator Ochoa Bogh, if I can give you a personal experience? When I came here in 1988, I came at the age of 15 years old, and I came to work, I was undocumented for approximately five, six years. We became documented through the amnesty program where my parents qualified. So as their children, minors of 18, we qualified. We got our work permit, which we had to renew every year. During my working years, I was paying taxes through payroll.

During those five years, I was not able to report income taxes because I was undocumented. I paid my taxes, but I was not able to receive anything back during those five, six years. And as you know, there's a large number of undocumented people that come here to work for decades, maybe up to 40 years, maybe because we don't have an immigration reform.

So all of these seniors now that worked during their young years, 30, 40 years in the fields, in construction, you name it, they've been paying their taxes through employment taxes, but are not able to report because they don't have a Social Security number. They're undocumented. So there are billions of dollars that are paid into the state and the federal level. And unfortunately, because the lack of immigration reform, they're just not able to file their income taxes.

So what we're asking in this bill is just to leave them a little bit back, recognize their hard work for decades so that they can actually live with dignity after they are 65 years old, because in our culture and immigrant cultures, we do take care of our parents. They live with us, and a lot of times they live with their grandkids as well. And they're just very limited as what they can do to enjoy their life with their grandkids.

Essentially, what this bill is asking is to include that sector of the population for a program that is already in existence and just to give them back a little bit of what they contributed to the economy of the state.

Madam Chair, if I may just thank is so the reason I was asking those series of questions is because I think, in general, many in California, especially US. Citizens, are under the impression that many undocumented would be receiving benefits without paying into the system, which is why I asked a series of questions so that the public could understand and better understand the system and how it works, especially with the fact that we don't have an updated immigration system here in the United States.

And that's why we had those questions, and I wanted to make sure that we the other thing I think might be beneficial is, in our conversations, you also express what the cost would be with something of this magnitude and for the public's benefit. I think it'd be helpful if you have those numbers with you, what the cost of this program would be and with the impact of how many seniors or people with disabilities it would impact.

The estimate of the cost of this program would be about $35 million. And the number of people that would benefit, I believe it's about 2,200 people that live in their poverty. That's about 2,200 people.

And my final remark would be that when we think about our seniors, when we think about people who are disabled, who can't see just on a humanitarian sorry, just from a humanitarian perspective, I think it behooves all of us to ensure that we do care for those who can't take care of themselves. And this is where the safety net comes in.

And this is why I'm such an advocate of being very careful in the programs that I do support that doesn't incentivize people to come here without documents, because I hate knowing that there are people living in the shadows. But by the same token, as a society, I think there's a level of humanity that we have to respect. Those who cannot would not be able to survive without a little bit of a human or government assistance.

So I will be supporting your bill today, and I hope that for the public's sake, we've actually addressed many of the concerns that many people would have with regards to whether or not people have been paying into the system to be able to receive those benefits. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Any other questions? Comments? Okay, we have a motion from Senator Menjivar.

Senator Carrillo, I want to thank you because you met with me very early on on this bill, and you shared your story, and I think for me, being able to work with you on this bill from the beginning and have my questions answered. You've gotten to a place where you have a room full of support here from all over California. And I think that that is just remarkable. This has been an issue from when I was a young person.

And through your story you've shared that is that we have so many workers that for whatever reason, are not able to be documented and enter their senior years. And these are workers that have contributed for years into our tax base and for many reasons want to stay in this country, whether it's to see their grandkids grow up or just be part of family. Right? So I think this is the least that we can do as Californians for our workers.

And I just want to thank you for bringing forward your story and for bringing forward this Bill. Egualmente, quiero dar las gracias a todas personas que vinieron de todos partes del Estado para dar su testimonio hoy. All right, thank you so much. So we have a motion from Senator Menjivar. Please call the roll.

File item thirteen, AB 1536. The motion is due passed and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Alvarado-Gil, Aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, Aye. Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Wahab?

Vote is three ayes. Thank you. That'll go on call. Thank you so much. So moving forward, I see Assembly Member Holden is here. Thank you so much. We're going to proceed with item number six. Hold on. Need my glasses here. Because this four point font I can't read. And Assembly Member Holden, you'll also be presenting on Assembly Bill 1755, is that correct?

Okay.

That's correct.

Alright. Okay, so we'll start with Assembly Bill 262 when you're ready.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 262 today. This coming summer, children from all over California will attend thousands of thousands of camps. However, important safeguards are lacking and centralized enforcement of current requirements is nonexistent. Unfortunately, we have too many examples of injury, abuse, and even deaths of children while attending camp.

Through the many conversations on this bill, it is evident that there is a wide variety of factors to consider as we step in to proactively protect children at camp. AB 262 directs the Department of Social Services to convene stakeholders and practitioners across state government agencies, local governments, child advocates, and safety experts to focus on developing appropriate regulations for the child camping industry. This group will consider specific questions, including should a single agency regulate camps or should there be a collaboration between multiple agencies and levels of government?

How do we differentiate between camps with lower risk activities and those that provide higher risk activities? How best do we provide camp safety information to parents? At the conclusion of the stakeholder group, a report must be submitted to the Legislature and recommendations from the Department of Social Services no later than June of 2025. While there are many open questions, what we do know is that California laws must change so parents across the state may rest assured their child will return home safely from camp.

Here with me to testify today in support is Betsy Armstrong, Senior Policy and Analyst with the County Health Executives Association, and Doug Forbes, who tragically lost his child while she attended a day camp. I'd like to thank you and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We'll move forward with our lead witnesses in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Betsy Armstrong with the County Health Executives Association of California, representing local health departments in the state and here in strong support of Assembly Member Holden's AB 262. CHEAC commends the Assembly Member's goal to create an oversight and enforcement structure for children's camps that will ensure the safety and wellbeing of children in their care.

AB 262 requires the Department of Social Services to establish and lead a state level stakeholder work group to gather information and provide recommendations to develop a children's camp framework that establishes child supervision requirements, physical facility standards, graduated requirements for camp licensure and or regulation appropriate qualifications for camp staff, including specialty training for potentially dangerous activities such as horseback riding, swimming, or gun instruction, as well as staff emergency training.

Counties believe that the Department of Social Services is the most appropriate state agency to lead these discussions because their Community Care Licensing Division that includes childcare facilities and children's residential care facilities, focuses its efforts on three priority areas: prevention, compliance, and enforcement. And in terms of prevention, CDSS works to reduce the predictable harm to children by providing an orientation prior to licensure, performing background checks, maintaining staffing requirements, health screenings, pre-licensure inspections, and providing information regarding laws and regulations.

Through compliance, CDSS ensures care facilities operate in accordance with existing laws and is maintained through unannounced facility inspections, complaint investigations, issuing deficiency notices, consultations, education and support, and follow up. And finally, enforcement is taken when an entity fails to protect the health, safety, and personal rights of children in their care, or is unwilling to maintain compliance with laws and regulations.

This is done through civil penalties and or administrative legal actions, such as denials of application, probationary licenses, or revocation of a license, and licensing and employee exclusions. AB 262 would bring together both state and local stakeholders to devise a statewide system in California that most appropriately provides the necessary safeguards to ensure the safety of children attending camp. We believe AB 262 is a thoughtful approach to addressing the long standing issue of day camp oversight. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today and respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 262.

Thank you. Next witness in support.

Madam Chair, Members. My name is Doug Forbes. I have sat in similar seats in similar chambers, telling a similar story for four years, since a camp killed my six year old daughter, Roxie. Their vile acts ravaged my entire family. My daughter is dead. My wife is dead. My mother is dead, and the life of joy I knew is dead. All of us here were once wide eyed children with a chance to leave the world a better place than we found it.

My girl was well on her way to doing just that before Summerkids Camp savaged her huge heart. Harm at summer camps is widespread, enduring, and costly. In fact, taxpayers shelled out $15 million for a child's preventable death right here at Camp Sacramento. Also, pervasive child sex abuse at camps is one of America's darkest secrets. And it's not just the Boy Scouts. It's a perennial issue at private and public camps nationwide.

As President of the country's only camp safety foundation, I have engaged countless experts, stakeholders, and victims. And as a journalist, I know facts matter. The fact is millions of children attend thousands of camps without any mandated oversight or reporting, despite the fact that children as young as eight shoot semiautomatic rifles with live ammo, zip line over valleys, and jump from cliffs into dark waters. CDSS requires licenses for childcare facilities that do sing alongs and finger painting.

Day camps are also childcare facilities, but with far greater risk. Yet they are not licensed, not required to conduct background checks, not even required to know basic CPR. Resident camp oversight is not enforced, if not entirely anemic. Camp lobbyists have forever told government they know what's best. Again, facts matter. Camp lobbyists protect camps, not kids. It's why harm persists. They've even disparaged my own dead daughter. My foundation passed landmark camp safety legislation in the nation's largest county, LA County. Yet the rest of the state remains without critical protections. Your aye vote proves that my child's preventable death matters and that California's children deserve better. Thank you. From the bottom of my heart.

Thank you and condolences to you. And thank you for bringing Roxie forward in your venture to protect other kids.

Thank you.

Any lead witnesses in opposition in the room today? We'll have equal amount of time, so we'll have two lead witnesses. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Cathy Barankin, here representing the California Collaboration for Youth, which is made up of camp accrediting organizations and traditional youth serving organizations like Girl Scouts and Campfire who offer camp programs. I think it's important to understand the distinction between day camps and resident camps.

Resident camps have been regulated for over 40 years, and you have a little booklet in front of you that gives you a picture of what the supporters are saying doesn't exist. And it actually does exist. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here because I understand from the author's office that this bill is going to be substantively amended. We were promised a copy of those. We have not seen them. So I'm basically speaking to a bill that I haven't seen yet.

It strikes me that this being the last policy Committee where the bill is being heard is not a good idea for passing legislation. It's a better idea for making this bill a two year bill. So we have the interim to talk about it and make sure that there's a thoughtful bill going forward. You know, despite the fact that Mr. Holden wants this bill to become effective as soon as possible, this bill does the opposite.

It gives the Department of Social Services, who has no experience with camps whatsoever, two years to come up with recommendations. Then it goes to the Legislature, where I assume it's going to take one or two years to pass legislation. Then it goes to whatever state agency is going to be responsible for one or two years to develop regulations, regulations which Department of Health has already developed. So we're talking about potentially a six to 10 year period of time before day camps have any standards.

Our organization has sponsored four bills. They're in your analysis to try to get day camps regulated. Day camps themselves are sponsoring legislation to get them regulated. They don't want problems to happen in day camps or resident camps. And despite the ridiculous claims that camps are dangerous places, that they're dying all of the time, if that was the case, you'd be seeing it in the papers, you'd be hearing it on television. You don't. Camps are a safe place. Do we want them safer? Absolutely.

Do we support that? Absolutely. I'm going to introduce Mike Stillson, who is the chair of our board, and he's going to give you some additional points. But I strongly encourage you to think about allowing sufficient time to make sure there's a thoughtful bill and that we do it as quickly as possible. Mr. Stillson is going to tell you how we can make that happen immediately.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Mike Stillson. I'm the Executive Director of Valley Trail Summer Camps, and I'm the board chair for the California Collaboration for Youth. I bring 35 years of camp experience to you today. AB 262 will create a Committee to come up with an approach to regulated day camps, which will only draw out the process for several more years. Under current state law, California DPH regulates an oversees permitting of resident camps.

So what we're asking now is to simply insert the word day into the Organized Camp Act the Current Regulations. We could begin the important work of regulating day camps as early as next summer. We do not need to assemble Committee to reinvent the wheel to accomplish Mr. Holden's ultimate goal of regulating day camps. Local health departments have been overseeing day camp organized camps for over 40 years. They have the experience and the knowledge to permit and regulate both day and resident camps.

I personally served on the LA County Department of Public Health task force establishing the new day camp regulations that we have in LA County, which include the definitions of a day camp. The task force is made up of Members of local agencies, but most importantly, professional stakeholders. Without the input of the stakeholders, we never would have been successful in creating the regulation. The permitting process we created in under a year can easily be implemented statewide today.

CHEAC has concerns about local health departments having the ability to add day camps to the workload. This is just an excuse every time that we propose a day camp bill and try to move forward with the Organized Camp Act. That is not an excuse to leave day camps unregulated. More than 70%, including 10% of the largest counties in California, already regulate and inspect camps. It's already being done. DPH oversees childhood injury prevention, drowning prevention, and more. This is what their workload is about.

Nothing against the Department of Social Services, but they're ill equipped to do this task. DSS oversees licensed daycares, daycare facilities. They do not have the experience regulating commercial kitchens, water systems, challenge courses, archery ranges, horseback corrals, swimming pools, or programs are operating majority outdoors. I operate two camps, one in LA City and one in unincorporated LA County. As the LA City has not adopted the regulations, only one of my programs is actually permitted and regulated. How does this make sense? It doesn't. As an industry, we care about the safety of our campers and our staff. We are not asking for regulation. We are actually begging for it. We've been begging for this for 16 plus years.

I'll have you wrap up your thoughts.

Yes. We want to make sure that all programs are safe. Again, 262 will only extend the amount of time that will take to get to this point and ensure that all day camps are meeting the necessary standards based on the state regulations. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now open it up to members of the public. Anyone wishing to express support or opposition to this bill, please come forward with your name, affiliation and your position only.

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and the Rural County Representatives of California, here in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Jolie Onodera with the California State Association of Counties, in support.

Thank you so much. Okay, any other witnesses? Alright. We'll now move to the teleconference service. Moderator, please prompt anyone wishing to give their support or opposition to AB. 252 that we are ready to begin.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero. For an opposition or support, we'll go to line 32. Your line is open.

Isabella Argueta with the Health Officers Association of California and support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, again, if you're in support of opposition, you may press one and then zero. And Madam Chair, we have no one else in queue.

Great. Thank you so much. We will bring the discussion back to the Members. Yes, Senator Menjivar, please.

Thank you, Senator Member for this Bill. I mean, I participated in daycamp my whole youth, right? I think it's so important to have a robust working entity or group to establish rules across the State of California. I'm glad that we represent areas in LA County that already have this. And I think it's really important for the rest of the State of California, For the opponents who say that CDSS doesn't have jurisdiction over this. CDSS have jurisdiction over anything related to do with children. I think it would make sense for them to be involved with this. They oversee childcare, they oversee the Regional Centers, things to do with youth. I think it's imperative for us to bring them to the table to ensure that it's not just public health that is at the table that is overseeing these jurisdictions. So, Madam Chair, when appropriate, I'd like to move this Bill.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa-Bogh.

So thank you for the comments, my colleague. I do for clarification purposes. This bill is a study bill, right? So it would not prohibit any of these policies to be compromised at this time? There would be nothing that would be compromising any rules that we currently have in place. But just do a study and then from that study, have something else be brought forward later on via policy. And it's also my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the CDSS would be working in collaboration with CDH, correct? So it's not one or the other. So we just want to make those clarifications for those that express some concerns with the bills, because I'm listening and I'm trying to figure out where we find that balance. So sometimes we focus on one part of the policy. And so that's why I think Committee vettings of the bills is so important to have those discussions so that we can board the public's for the public's interest or in the public's interest. We have clear clarity as to what the intent is for those policies. So with that in mind, I will be supporting the Bill moving forward. Just wanted to make those clarifications.

Thank you. Thank you so much. So, Assembly Member, I just want to make sure that we are responding to the opposition's concerns. You heard what they had to say today in terms of there already being regulations. Can you speak a little bit about what the gap is or what is that missing need?

Well, in terms of day camps, there is not the kind of regulation that we need that's robust and clear in terms of agency that has the correct oversight. Senator Portantino ran this bill before I ran it. I ran the bill after him to try to be more prescriptive in terms of how we would regulate day camps and every turn, whether we were creating a program or oversight, there was clearly no agency that wanted to take hold of it. Everyone agreed that it needed to be regulated, as you've heard today. But here we are six years later. Five years later. Doug, how many years later? And now we've brought it back to just a steady Bill to provide stakeholders an opportunity to come together outside of this process of kind of trying to figure out how to go back and forth and where's the right place and to really get a working group that can be very clear about how and the best way to move forward, where it should be housed and what kind of oversight moving forward and engagement for the public and all stakeholders, including the opposition.

Great. Okay. That's the only question that I had. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. I believe we had a motion from Senator Menjivar. Correct. All right, let's move forward and call the roll.

File item six, AB 262. The motion is due, pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarado-Gill, Alvarado-Gill aye. Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogh aye. Hurtado. Menjivar, Menjivar aye. Wahab.

There are three ayes that bill goes to call. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And we'll move forward to your next bill. Yes.

On behalf of the chair of the Assembly Committee on judiciary, I present AB 1755, which makes several changes to the statewide uniform child support guidelines in order to bring California's formula and procedures into conformity with recently issued federal guidelines. This will also ensure that California will continue to be eligible for federal funds. Under existing law, the California family code establishes procedures for the issuance and enforcement of child support orders, and it establishes a formula for calculating the amount of child support owed. As a condition of receiving federal funds, however, these state child support guidelines must comply with title 4D of the Federal Social Security Act. In January of 2017, the Federal Department of Health and Human Services published the flexibility, efficiency, and modernization, and child support enforcement program regulations, also known as the final rule. This Bill will bring California into compliance with the final rule by addressing a number of shortcomings identified in review conduct by the Judicial Council of California. The changes recommended by the Judicial Council and codified in this bill will increase the ability of non custodial parents to pay their child support. Most notably, the bill updates the child support formula to better reflect current economic realities, and it requires local child support agencies and courts to conduct more thorough investigation into the parents actual economic situation. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Do you have any lead witnesses with you today?

I do not.

Okay.

Any Members of public or lead opposition witnesses today hearing? Seeing none. Any Members of the public wishing to express their support or opposition that would like to approach the microphone today. Great. We will move to the teleconference service. Moderator please prompt anyone wanting to speak on AB 1755 that we are ready to proceed.

Thank you, for your supporter opposition of AB 1755, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 78. Line 78, your line is open. All right. And Madam Chair, we have no one else in queue.

Thank you very much. We'll bring the discussion back to our Members. Okay. We have a motion from Senator Menjivar. Right. I did want to say something here. So the issue of child support for me is very sensitive, and we did not hear any child support bills in the Senate. And the Assembly has done such a great job to bring forward very detailed, robust bills. And for the first time, that I've been sitting on this Committee, we've got some child support bills in front of us. I will say that the one that you're presenting on today, it helps me to look at the root of the problem, how the system is created for the crevices or the cracks. Right. Both for the custodial parent and guardian, for the child, and also for the absent parent. I think that the family unit has evolved over the years and over the decades, and child support is that safety net for that child and for the custodial parent to be able to provide for that child and for their family. So I was actually very happy to read this bill and see that there's a will to create better policy. So I'm going to be supporting this bill. And it sounds like we have some consensus here, but before we vote, would you like to do a closing?

Well, first of all, I thank you for your comments. I'm sure the author of the Bill, Mr. Manchin, would be very appreciative of your recognizing the due diligence that he and his Committee put forward behind this. And it is going a long way to do some really important things. So with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much. We have a motion.

Senator Skinner had a child support Bill

And exactly. It was very similar. Right?

Yeah.

Okay. My apologies. It must have been on consent because we didn't talk about it. Yeah. Thank you so much for that. My apologies. Senator Skinner. Yes. We've got to give our Chair of the budget some credit there, so. We're too close to the end of session not to. All right. Thank you so much. Well, please call the roll

File item 32, AB 1755. The motion is due, passed, and re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarado-Gil, Alvarado-Gil aye. Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogh aye. Hurtado. Menjivar, Minjivar aye. Wahab.

All right, so the vote is three ayes, and we'll put that Bill on call. Okay, thank you so much. All right, moving right ahead, we do have a very full agenda today. We've got some of our Assembly Members presenting other bills. So we are going to move forward with item number 9, Assembly Bill 366, Petrie-Norris, which will be presented by Assemblymember Addis. And then Assemblymember, you also have two other bills in front of us today. Will you be prepared for all three? Great.

Okay, we'll start with Assembly Bill 366 when you're ready.

Perfect. Well, good afternoon and thank you. Madam Chair and Senators, I'm happy to present AB 366 on behalf of Assemblymember Petrie-Norris to help understaffed county human services departments grow their workforce. The county human services departments do some of the most important work in our communities for our most vulnerable citizens: children, the elderly, the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged. However, across our state, they face huge vacancy rates. AB 366 helps address this workforce shortage in two ways.

First, it allows counties with vacancy rates of 20% or more to use alternate hiring qualifications outside of the merit system services requirements under CalHR. And second, the Bill establishes a grant program for community college students who have an interest in public child welfare work. This allows the state and counties to leverage a 75% federal match.

Madam Chair, I know that you want to make sure that rural counties without a community college are able to access these grants, and so the author has committed to making that change in the next Committee. Here to testify. In support is Amanda Kirchner from the County Welfare Directors Association.

Welcome.

Hi. Good afternoon again. Amanda Kirchner on behalf of County Welfare Directors Association. We know that there are workforce shortages throughout California, but when county human services agencies don't have enough staff, it impacts clients getting food assistance, employment assistance, and medical coverage. Counties are doing their best with limited resources, but we can do better. AB 366 puts into place some flexibility and funding to help current hiring needs as well as build out our future workforce.

With that, I'm just going to ask for your support today in the interest of time. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. That was great. Any lead witnesses in opposition? Members from the public that would like to express support or opposition, please come forward.

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Urban Counties of California here in support.

Thank you.

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco in support, and Humboldt County Board of Supervisors as support as amended.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right.

Jenny Trice, on behalf of County of Santa Clara in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay, we'll now move to the teleconference service. Moderator, please prompt any individuals willing to provide testimonies, willing to provide their position of support or opposition to Assembly Bill 366, let them know we are ready.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 366, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 56. Your line is open. You took yourself out. You have to push one and then zero. We will go to line 50. Your line is open.

With CIE California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 56, your line is open.

My name is Dr. Henny Cooperstein, and I bring consumer opposition to this grant program. As we know, lack of standardization leads to abuse. And if people who are under the. jurisdiction developmental.

I'm sorry to cut you off, but this is name, affiliation and position only.

Henny Cooperstein. Consumer in opposition.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. And one moment. We do have one more in queue.

And we will go to line 80. Your line is open. Line 80, your line is open. Madam Chair, we have no further in queue.

Great. Thank you so much. We'll bring the discussion back to the Members.

I don't know what she's doing. Don't speak good English.

Hello? Are you looking to all right, moderator. Is that okay? Everything good?

Yes, please go ahead.

All right. Sounds good. All right. I did want to mention I know you're presenting on behalf of Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. So my concern about some of the language, and it sounds like she's willing to amend that, is that the way that the bill reads right now is that the City of the community college, if they attend that city, they would be eligible for grants. And I was asking for the amendment to be considered of the primary resident of the student. So that's the language that I'm looking for, because we do have some counties that don't have community colleges. So I'll be looking for that amendment moving forward. Okay, great. Thank you. Did we have a motion? Moved by Senator Menjivar. Please call the roll

File item nine, AB 366. The motion is due, pass, and rerefered to the Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement. Alvarado-Gil, Alvarado-Gil aye. Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogh aye. Hurtado. Menjivar, Menjivar aye. Wahab.

Okay. Vote is 3-0. And that bill goes to call. Thank you. So let's move forward with our next one. Assembly Member I have AB 839.

Thank you. Thank you, honorable Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm going to jump right in. I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today and Committee staff and my own for their hard work on this bill. I'm here because residential care facilities for the elderly are an incredibly important part of our state's health system.

Supplying housing and care to individuals over 60 years of age, these facilities are generally seen as an intermediary between independent living and 24 hour supervised care, providing personal care, assistance, room, and board, among other services, to seniors. California, like many other states, has an aging population, and by 2030, we are expected to have over 10.8 million individuals over the age of 60.

The qualifying age for the residential care facilities for the elderly care. By 2060 is projected that adults age 60 will make up 30% of our state's overall population. So, as you can see, such care facilities are going to become more and more impactful as California's demographics continue to shift. In sharp contrast to the need for such facilities, existing staff shortages have been exacerbated by the pandemic, which led to a host of other common problems, especially for smaller and nonprofit facilities.

So this bill, AB 839, would directly support nonprofit facilities by opening up access to lower interest rate, tax exempt financing via the California Health Facilities Financing Authority. And the bill would also clarify the age of elderly, although none of us like this age, but the age of elderly is 60 years old because that aligns the definition to relevant code sections. So this bill is a modest change that can have profound impacts. And I would like to introduce witnesses that are going to come forward with their testimony.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members. Amber King with Leading Age California, representing nonprofit providers serving in the continuum of care for older adults, including affordable housing, residential care facilities for the elderly, skilled nursing care, home and community based services, home health and hospice care. We are proud to sponsor AB 839 to allow nonprofit residential care facilities for the elderly, or commonly referred to as assisted living facilities that are not connected to a skilled nursing facility, to take advantage of CHFFA's lower tax exempt bond programs.

These programs will ultimately save those facilities funds in lower borrowing costs, and those cost savings would have to be passed on to the older adults that are living in their community. That is a requirement of the CHFFA program, which is why we are here today. As the author mentioned, the demographics of older adults in the state is rapidly changing. And the way older adults are choosing to age and receive care is also evolving.

While skilled nursing care is a critical component of the delivery system, we are seeing more and more of our members shifting away from skilled care and providing more assisted living and memory care in particular, as the demands of older adults really require that. Older adults are also choosing to live in their homes for longer. And this bill would increase the availability of assisted living to really meet those needs of older adults. In addition, AB 839 furthers goal one, housing for all ages and stages of the Master Plan for Aging, which aims to allow older adults to live in communities that are age, disability, and dementia friendly. And with that, we would urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any lead witnesses in opposition? Any members of the public wishing to address the Committee? Please approach the microphone. Alright, we'll go to the teleconference services. Moderator, do we have any members of the public wishing to express opposition or support for Assembly Bill 839?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 839, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 81. Your line is open.

Yes. My name is Angelica Vasquez. Hello.

Please go ahead.

Hello. Yes, Angelica Vasquez. We are opposing to the late 1147.

Okay, we're on Assembly Bill 839 right now, so we're going to hear 1147 next.

Okay, thank you.

Alright, don't go too far.

Thank you. Line 85, your line is open. Line 85, your line is open. We'll move on to 86. Your line is open.

Hi, good afternoon. Heather Harrison with the California Assisted Living Association, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you so much, Moderator. Bring it back to our Members of the Committee. No questions. Okay. Do we have a motion? Oh, excuse me. Would you like to close before we...

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you so much. Moved by Senator Menjivar. Please call the roll.

File item 17, AB 839. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Ochoa Bogh, aye. Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Wahab?

Okay, three ayes. And that bill goes to call. We'll move forward with Assembly Bill 1147.

Well, thank you so much, Madam Chair. I'm here to present AB 1147, which is a bipartisan piece of legislation to expand and improve access services for Californians with disabilities. I do want to thank our advocates, organizers, and supporters who have spent countless hours working on this legislation, many of whom have flown to the Capitol or taken buses to the Capitol to give testimony on this bill. I especially want to thank the Chair for her interest in this issue and in supporting folks with disabilities and to the Committee for their dedication in working on this issue. As all of us here today know, there is an immense gap between the services that individuals need and the ones that they are receiving. And I have personally witnessed this as a teacher of students with special needs, as children and families struggled to access needed care when they were with me in my classroom. This problem is especially apparent at California's 21 Regional Centers, which contract with the Department of Developmental Services to provide assessments, determine eligibility, and offer case management services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. So, in June of '22, the California State Auditor found a number of deficiencies, particularly for people of color. Disability Voices United found that people of color are treated differently and receive significantly fewer services than Caucasian people. The Public Council's report on racial and ethnic inequities among children served in Regional Centers found similar disabilities, particularly for Latino children. And finally, the Little Hoover Commission held public hearings on the Regional Center system this past fall to identify the underlying causes of disparities and improve the consistency as well as timeliness of service delivery. The DDS has embarked on a number of initiatives over the past several years to address service access and equity and performance incentives for Regional Centers and service providers. But despite these initiatives, more help is needed. So what this Bill does is it focuses on three main areas for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: equity, accountability, and transparency. And specifically, the Bill would create the following: standardized individual program planning, timely access to services and programs, availability of services to all persons, coordinated statewide performance measures, accountability through new information technology systems and racial ethnic reporting. So, with these reforms, California can and will support and meet the needs of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. And we do have witnesses here to testify and answer technical questions as needed.

Thank you so much. We'll move forward with lead witnesses.

Thank you. My name is Ruby Saldana and I'm the mother of three children served by Regional Center and one of the founders of the Integrated Community Collaborator, a co sponsor of AB 1147. First, I want to thank Senator Alvarado for your support for our bill and your commitment to our community. The Integrated Community Collaborative is led by Latino parents and self advocates with disabilities. We represent the data that shows Latino receive only 43 cents for every dollar spent on whites. And those are just the Latinos who are lucky enough to get services. In some Regional Centers, over one quarter of Latinos receive no services at all. Services they are entitled to. Behind those numbers are real people, real families, real stories. We work with them every day and hold their hands as they try to navigate this overly complicated system. We are the shoulders that parent cries on because the Regional Centers don't treat them with respect. These parents are already overwhelmed with raising a child with disparities, with disabilities. And the system puts up barriers after barriers and makes them beg for services they are entitled to. These families are now awoke because of AB1147. Hundreds of them traveled to Sacramento, to Riley for the Bill. Hundreds have called into hearings and sent letters to support the bill. The system needs more equity and accountability. Most people in my community don't trust the Regional Centers. That's sad. How can let it continue this way? We can no longer sit and wait until DDS and Regional Centers fix the huge problems. They have known about the racial disparities in our system for over a decade and nothing has changed. Many in our community have gone too long without services. Others have died waiting. If it was your child, how long will you be willing to wait? My community can't afford to wait any longer. On behalf of the over 160,000 Latino children and adults served and not served by Regional Centers, I urge you to vote yess on AB 1147.

Thank you.

Ingles no es mi idioma, es Español. Yo estoy aquí como madre. Y les dejo esto a ustedes, es un bill grande porque el problema es grande. Me dijeron que hablara con mi corazón, pero mi corazón no siente nada, porque mi corazón solo hoye historias de injusticia y abuso the poder. De parte de instituciones, eso supone deberían a proteger a la comunidad más vulnerable. La cual es la comunidad con disabilidades. Gracias.

Gracias

Mi nombre es Janet Cardenas, soy mama de un maravilloso nino con discapacidades del desarrollo. Y vengo a apoyar todo lo que dijo Ruby Saldana y apollar y lograr que ustedes voten por la ley AB1147. Gracias

Lead witnesses in opposition? We can hear two. Okay. Any Members of the public wishing to, opposition? Okay. Please. Yes.

Good afternoon, Honorable Member and Chairs. My name is Amy Wesling and I am the Executive Director of the Association of Regional Center Agencies, also known as ARCA. We represent all 21 of of California's Regional Centers. First and foremost, I would like to thank the Committee staff for the detailed and thoughtful analysis of this Bill. ARCA and the Regional Centers it represents remain committed to a strong Developmental Services system for the more than 400,000 Californians who rely upon it. We recognize California's unique in the nation entitlement to critical Developmental Services, coupled with the role of nonprofit boards in connecting Regional Centers to local communities, make this system special. We appreciate the proposed amendment in the area of terms for Regional Center board Members, as it reflects a recognition of the critical function of boards and oversight of Regional Centers and the value of the experience and expertise of individual members in that role, as well as the importance of the mentorship seasoned members provide to new ones. This amendment goes a long way towards addressing ARCA's opposition to this section. We look forward to continuing the conversation with the sponsors about other provisions of this section and have had productive discussions related to community outreach for prospective board members. The role of Executive directors in referring potential board Members to the Nominating Committee while not participating in their election the importance of consistent, robust training for board members and providing facilitation to them to support their participation. Through collaborative efforts, California's Developmental Services system can continue to evolve to better serve those who are eligible for its services and their families.

Thank you. Next witness.

Honorable chair and Committee Members. My name is Rosemary Perez. I serve as President of the Board of Directors of North Bay Regional Center, which serves the clients in Sonoma, Napa, and Solano counties. As board members of Regional Centers, we take on a fiduciary duty to oversee and monitor the management and operations of our Regional Centers, which are part of a complex and dynamic system. Developing an understanding of every component of our agencies requires time. As board members, we must reach a level of understanding necessary to monitor and make informed decisions because we are accountable for the decisions we make. I want to thank Senator Alvarado-Gil for her amendment. Eliminating the changes to the terms of office of Regional Center board members. Shortening the term of office and lengthening the time between board terms would have conflicted with the development of strong, effective Regional Center boards of directors. Increasing and deepening our training is a better strategy for balancing power between boards and executive directors. Requiring board members to participate in an aligned series of board training modules developed centrally would give board members an aligned knowledge base from which to govern. This would increase consistency in the governance of Regional Centers. As a board member, I strongly support addressing the needs of those having difficulty with the system. I know we need to continue to work to bring about true equity in the system, but I also know that the Regional Center effectively serves a vast and diverse number of individuals and families every day. I hope we can continue this work together to develop solutions and to advocate to bring about the changes needed to strengthen the efficacy of the regional system. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other Members of the public wishing to express support or opposition like to approach the microphone? Your name, affiliation, and position only, please. Ingles o Espanol?

Español. Soy Grisel Estrada y vengo de Stockton, y yo estoy aquí para apoyar la ley AB 1147. Gracias, tengo dos niños con discapacidad, y todo este tiempo el Centro Regional no ha dado acceso a los jóvenes, pequeños, adolescentes, y adultos. Gracias

Gracias

Hi, my name is Mary Ann Estrada, and I'm a community member from Stockton as well, and I'm in support of AB 1147.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Dora Conturis and I'm with the Integrated Community Collaborative, which is a group of moms and parents and self advocates who strongly support AB 1147.

Thank you.

Hi. David Panush, Disability Voices United. I am in support.

Thank you. All right, we're going to move now to the teleconference servicing. Moderator will you please prompt any Members of the public wishing to express support or opposition for Assembly Bill 1147? Let them know we are ready.

Thank you. For support or opposition of AB 1147 may press one and then zero.

We will only be taking name, affiliation and position, please. We have several people on the line, so we want to make sure we can hear from everyone.

Thank you. We'll go to line 46. Your line is open.

Hello, Chair and members. Eric Harris. Disability Rights California. Strong support.

Thank you.

Line 59. Line 59, do you have us on mute?

Hola

Please go ahead.

Moderator do we have translation services?

No.

Let me repeat the directions in espanol. Estamos recibiendo comentarios públicos para el bill 1147 por favor damos su nombre, la afiliación o donde representa, y su posición.

Okay. Mi nobre es Selena Bautista, tengo tres clientes del Centro Regional, y apoyo la ley AB 1147.

Gracias.

Thank you. Line 88. Line 88. Your line is open.

Buenas tardes.

Buenas tardes. Nombre, su afiliación, y- Okay.

Mi nombre es Nancy Miguel, tengo un hijo cliente de Centro Regional. Y estoy apoyando la ley AB1147. Gracias

Thank you. Line 49.

Buenas tardes, mi nombre es Andrea Hernandez, so madre de un cliente de Centro Regional y estoy apoyando firmemente la ley AB1147. Muchas gracias por toda su ayuda, por escucharnos, gracias.

Gracias

Line 94.

Buenas tardes, mi nombre es Stacy Spoon y estoy apoyando firmemente la ley AB1147. Gracias

Line 95.

Buenas tardes, mi nombre es Lidia Reveles y como todos los padres estoy ya cansada de tanto abuso de poder, y estoy apoyando firmemente la ley AB1147.

Line 44. Line 44. Your line is open.

Buenas tardes, mi nombre es Jose Flores, padre de un joven con autismo quien es paciente de Centro Regional. Necesitamos, por favor, que nos apoyen con el proyecto de ley para la ley AB1147. Necesitamos, por favor, que todos nuestros senadores nos apoyen, muchas gracias.

Line 101.

Buenas tardes, mi nombre es Maria Diaz, tengo un hijo que es cliente de el Centro Regional, y estoy apoyando la ley 1147.

Line 102. Please go ahead.

Soy Loresta Aguilar, y soy madre de un nino con necesidades especiales, cliente de Centro Regional de Orange. Apoyo la ley AB1147, y también les pediría que por favor ustedes consideren tener un traductor para español en estas reuniones para que nosotros podríamos participar de una mejor manera.

Muchas gracias. Gracias. Si, tiene razon.

104. Linea 104? Yes, please go ahead.

Yes, I am here. I'm Luis Obama. And I am in support of AB 1147.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Line 92.

Hi, my name is Kavita, and I represent Pragma for Neurodiversity. We serve South Asian families and Southeast Asian families here in the San Francisco Bay Area, and we are strongly in support of AB 1147. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Line 82.

My name is Christiana Morales. I'm from Autism Support Community, and we support AB 1147.

Thank you.

Line 75.

Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Monica Rodriguez. Soy mama de un niño de 13 anos y apoyo firmemente AB1147, por favor escuchen nuestro petición.

Gracias.

Line 43.

Hola mi nombre es Carolina Shuarte. Soy madre de dos niños con autismo, clientes de Centro Regional Valle De las Montanas. Estoy aquí para apoyar firmemente la posición de ley AB1147, gracias. Yesoya. Keeper memente. Gracias.

Gracias.

Line 93.

Hola, buenas tardes, mi nombre es Maria Angela Flores. Soy madre de un cliente del Centro Regional en Norte Los Angeles, y apoyo firmemente la ley AB1147, gracias.

Gracias.

Line 106.

My name is Elena Tiffany. I'm a consumer with North LA County Regional Center, and I oppose AB 1147.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Line 61.

Hello. My name is Sonia Morales. My son is client of the Regional Center of the East Bay and I support AB 1147. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 83.

Is that me? Hello. Yes, this is Nester self advocate with the ICC and I support AB 113047. Please pass it right away.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 100

Hi, my name is Yasmin, I'm a parent of a consumer of Alta Regional Center. I am calling to support AB 1147. If you can, please support this. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Line 103.

Hi, my name is Fabiola Cruz. I'm from Integrated Community Collaborative. I have a child from, a client from the Regional Center. We are tired of the injustice system and I am in full support of the AB 1147. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 68.

Good afternoon. Ingrid Rivera Guzman, policy and advocacy Director with Special Needs Network, in strong support of AB 1147. Thank you.

Line 110.

My name is Dr. Henny Cooperstein and I'm an autistic consumer with the San Diego Regional Center. And I have registered opposition to Assembly Bill 1147. You may ask your analysts for a. Written version of my opposition, which they are in receipt of today.

Thank you so much. Just your name, affiliation and thank you.

Please refer to your analysts for a printed version of our opposition. We are 400 consumers.

Hi, my name is Evelyn Solario and I have a sister in the Regional Center and I strongly support AB 1147. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Line 115.

Thank you.

Line 97.

Line 97, your line is open. We will move on to 119.

Good afternoon, I am business owner [inaudible]

Line 119, your line is open.

I am here to represent my child.

We're going to move on to 96. Your line is open.

Hi, this is Brian Capra, senior staff attorney with Public Counsel and the author of the Disparity Report that was referenced by Assembly Member Addis. And I'm calling strong support for AB 1147.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 118, your line is open.

[Foreign language]

Thank you, Gracias and Madam Chair, we have no further supporter opposition in queue.

Okay, there was a couple of lines that we opened up that we passed. Can we just double check that they're not still there?

Yeah. If you did not get your supporter opposition in, you may press one and then zero.

Si no has dado su testimonio y todavia quiere dar su testimonio dobre el proyecto de ley 1147, por favor, apresura el numero uno.

And we do have a few queue enough that do not have a line number. One moment, please.

Okay.

Line 120, your line is open.

Hi, my name is Clara Herrera Viltez, and I am the mother of a young man that is served by the Altar Regional Center and I am in favor of AB 1147.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 89, your line is open.

Hi, Gracia, my name is Veronica [inaudible] and I have a daughter with special needs and she's a Renal Center Member and I support AB 1147. Por favor.

Thank you.

Thank you. We do have one more that came in. One moment. Again this is for support or opposition. You may press one and then zero. And we'll go to line 122. Your line is open.

Yes, hi, good afternoon. My name is Sandra Guerra and I support the bill 1147. Thank you.

Thank you.

One moment and we'll go to line 123, your line is open.

Hello my name is Mary [inaudible] and I support ICC and the AB 1147. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 121, your line is open.

Hi. This is [inaudible]. I'm in support of AB 1147. There's no way you can get tax money without [inaudible].

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you. Line 97. Line 97, your line is opening. Okay, and Madam Chair, we have no further opposition or support in queue.

Okay, thank you so much. I want to just acknowledge that this is an imperfect system we don't have. Translation I'll do my best as we continue to hear from public comment, but I think you see some of the Members on this Committee were like, how do we solve this? Particularly for the Human Services Committee. So, gracias a todos que que vinieron para dar su testimonio en publicar este es un sistema imperfecta que no tenemos traduccion ahorita pero estamos haciendo lo mejor posible para escuchar a todas.

So I'll bring the discussion back to our members on this bill. No? Yeah. Senator please.

Just very quickly. As Chair of Sub 3, I've been dealing with this issue this year and we had a very long and wonderful hearing, informational hearing on this. And I know we're going to potentially have some trailer bill language later this year that's going to be aligned to this. So, summary Member, thank you so much for working on this. This is really near and dear to my heart.

I know there needs to be a lot of uniformity across Regional Centers, a lot of more accountability, asking for CDSs to bring a lot of more accountability to a Regional Center. So thank you for your leadership, and I'd like to move the Bill when appropriate.

Thank you. Thank you. So, Assemblymember Addis, I want to thank you and your staff. Julie, is that who your staff, yes, your primary lead on getting us to this place, because you worked very openly and willing to address some of the amendments, particularly to help the opposition get to a better place. And I heard that today. At the same time, you kept the integrity and the intent of your Bill. And I think that that, to me, is the expertise that you bring forward as a Legislator.

So thank you so much, particularly with this topic that you and I share a very close connection to. One thing that I do want to say is that I am a big supporter of the Regional Centers. So I was excited to see the North Bay Regional Center here today because I was a client 2005 with my young daughter who didn't walk, didn't talk, and had some severe mobility issues as well.

And as a young mother, knowing that you have a child with different abilities and wanting to know how to parent your child, that doesn't come with a handbook. Right? The Regional Centers for me were really that place that I could ask questions without judgment, where it was like my one stop where the team really came together. And I will say that I've evolved over the years in terms of my ability to advocate and really be a spokesperson for the disability rights community and particularly in education.

But I know how difficult it is to be a parent at the same time being an advocate for a system that is broken. And so I really feel very close connection to all the parents and community members that came out today to speak on behalf of your children. And this Bill, for me is that movement towards the partnership, that collaboration with the Regional Centers and our consumers and our clients because it is such a close, much needed partnership to be able to serve our kids.

My daughter's, now 19, doing wonderfully. She shares her Easter sales experience with her own clients. Now. She works with kids with special needs in the schools and has just made a phenomenal journey in her life. And I could not have done that without the Regional Centers and the team. So I want to point that out. And with that, we will move forward. Okay, so we have a motion. Oh, would you like to close before we...

Thank you so much, gracias. Garcias a todos a la presidentia del comite por su comentario. Yo se que es una una cosa muy cerca a su corazon y gracias. And thank you so much, gracias al Senator Menjivar, for working on this so hard. Yo entiendo que su trabajo es muy importante tambien y quiero decir tambien gracias a todos que han llegado han venido para su testimonio es muy muy importante que han venido aqui para nosotros para huir lo que esta pasando en te pido respetuosamente tus votes de ahi.

Full of surprises. Good job. Thank you. I would just say the courage to speak in your non native language. I think we often forget when we hear from public comment, and I know a few Members of the public said this English is not my first language. English was not my first language either. But the courage to be able to come up in language that's not your primary language and bring such emotion, experience, and real facts to front of this Committee is so powerful and much needed.

So don't stop. Keep doing it. All right, let's go to the, please call the roll.

File item 18, AB 1147. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Hurtato Menjivar aye. Menjivar aye. Wahab.

Okay, so that's 3-0, and we will put that Bill on call. Thank you so much. All right. I feel like we need a little stretch break here. Okay, we have item number 11, right? Just got to bring some blood to my legs here. Assembly Member Boerner. I know you're waiting. Assembly Member Jackson, Dr. Assembly Member Jackson. Is that okay? All right, I'm just doing a little stretch break. Okay. All right. Very nice. Thank you so much for that.

All right, so we are going to move to item number 15, Assembly Bill 588. Assembly Member Boerner, when you're ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairs and Members. First of all, thank you to our Assembly Human Resources Chair for letting me jump the line. I do have a flight that I have to catch. But AB 589 would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, establish a three year pilot project of the Unicorn Homes Transitional Housing for Homeless LGBTQ Youth Program in the counties of San Diego and Sacramento. LGBTQ centers within each county would administer the program, providing crisis intervention with a trauma informed approach to those eligible youth in LGBTQ affirming host homes

People who identify as LGBTQ are experiencing homelessness have greater difficulty finding shelters that accept and respect them. Oftentimes, LGBTQ community is at greater risk of assault, trauma, and early death compared to their heterosexual peers. Addressing the housing crisis is key priority for the state. There's no state housing program targeted directly at LGBTQ youth experiencing homelessness.

Unicorn Homes is a program within the North County San Diego LGBTQ Resource Center that aims to provide crisis intervention and transitional housing to LGBTQ youth who are experiencing homelessness due to family rejection, with the ultimate goal to reunite families where impossible. Similar programs called Host Homes exist in the downtown San Diego LGBT Community Center and the Sacramento LGBT Community Center that help house LGBTQ youth experiencing homelessness and LGBTQ affirming homes.

Unfortunately, due to challenges attributed to the pandemic, the Host Homes program here in Sacramento LGBT Center had to end its operations a few months ago. They made the difficult decision to divert the funds from the Host Homes program to continue operating their youth shelter. Establishing a Unicorns Homes pilot project would not only provide stable housing for LGBTQ youth experiencing homelessness, it would also provide paths to mental health resources, job readiness, and independent living skills through LGBTQ centers.

The Unicorn Homes Program does not require the development of new built infrastructure, making it a low cost, flexible, and valuable stepping stone while youth wait for more permanent solutions. With so much intolerance and hostility towards the LGBTQ community lately, it's imperative that we have a safety net for a population of youth that experience family rejection at a higher rate than outside of the LGBTQ spectrum. I respectfully ask for aye vote, and here with me today is Craig Pulsipher, Legislative Director of Equality California.

Great. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California. Proud to be here today in support of AB 589 and appreciate the Assembly Member for bringing this bill forward. According to the Trevor Project, nearly a third of LGBTQ youth reported experiencing homelessness or housing instability at some point in their lives. And these rates are even higher among Trans and nonbinary youth and LGBTQ youth of color.

Many of these youth have been disowned by their families or escaping emotional and physical abuse because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. But family rejection is certainly not the only cause. Aging out of the foster care system, poverty, and shortages of shelter and housing programs can also leave many LGBTQ youth with nowhere to go. LGBTQ youth who experiencing homelessness or housing instability experience higher rates of mental health challenges, including depression, PTSD, and suicide.

They're also at an even greater risk of violence, trafficking, and further emotional or physical abuse in shelters or on the streets. Low-barrier housing programs are desperately needed to support these youth, especially those that are welcoming, affirming, and include access to other support services. Several LGBT centers across the state, including Sacramento and San Diego, currently have programs that provide transitional housing and support services for LGBTQ youth, and AB 589 would help to build and evaluate these existing programs.

This three year pilot would provide funding to LGBTQ community based organizations to help identify and train volunteers who could provide these youth with a safe and affirming place to stay. The program would help to promote housing stability with an ultimate goal of reuniting them with their families whenever possible. Over the past several years, the Legislature has rightly made homelessness one of its top priorities. Yet programs to address the specific needs of LGBTQ youth remain far too limited. This bill is an important step to help address the unique challenges facing these vulnerable youth, and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Any lead witnesses in opposition? Okay. Members of the public wishing to express either support or opposition, please approach the microphone.

Izzy Swindler on behalf of the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We'll now move to teleconferencing services. Moderator, please prompt any members of the public wishing to express opposition or support for AB 589 that we are ready.

Of course. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. We'll be going to line 79. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Moira Topp with the City of San Diego in support.

Thank you.

And there's currently no one else in the queue at this time.

Okay. We'll bring the discussion back to the Members of the Committee. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member, for bringing this up. I know this year. I'm not sure how the previous years have gone, first Member here, but I really appreciate a lot of the legislation that's moving through both houses to address the crisis, both on homelessness, to address the disproportionate representation of my LGBTQ plus youth in the variety of crises that were... crisis... crises that were dealing in the State of California. So I want to thank your leadership on this.

And I know the comments of the analysis. Madam Chair, you're a huge champion on rural areas. I know you always want to make sure that it's robust for the entire state. There's still a lot of work to do in our rural areas to bring those community centers to those areas. And I know your intention is to have already a staple in a community that you can build off of.

And I think one of the first steps that we need to do in rural areas is to actually create staples, community centers that could do the work and then put pilots in those areas. But for now, I know you looked to find pilots or you looked to find entities that were doing some work and build off of that. So thank you so much.

Well, actually, if it were up to me and budget was endless, I would just put one in every county, to be frank. Like, that's what I would do. But in North County, our Unicorns home program in North County LGBTQ Center, serves about 22 families, 22 youth a year. And I really feel like we need to make sure.

And part of the goal of this pilot is one to reestablish the Sacramento program, but also to get that data that verifies the impact that, when done consistently with funding, what the impact will be on our LGBTQ youth who are experiencing homelessness. And then based on that, I'm sure you're going to see other bills and budget come back forward.

And actually, over the weekend, with the Assembly Member, we visited the grand opening of the first ever in Riverside County, if I'm not mistaken, LGBTQ plus transitional housing for youth and elders as well, the first of its kind. So I know we need more of those across our state. So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Hello. And thank you, I had the opportunity to vote on this policy here. This policy, first in, I believe it was housing. Was it in housing when we heard it? I supported the bill, and I'm going to continue to support the bill because it is a pilot program, and I think it's an opportunity to gather data and information.

I know there's been some concerns, and you feel free to comment on it, but there's concerns with regards to the fact that it prioritizes one group of people versus need in general for our youth who is homeless. So that's the only concern that I have heard with regards to prioritizing one demographic over, just in general, the youth who are suffering from homelessness. So that's the only setback or the only concern that I would like to express. And you're free to comment on that if you'd like, but I will continue to support this because it is a pilot program, and it will give us an opportunity to gather data.

Yes, and thank you for bringing that up. I think when you heard the statistics about what portion of youth experiencing homelessness are LGBTQ, that is the reason that you're targeting it, because people don't feel welcome in shelters. They are subject to more abuse on the street. There's a different proportionality of what's affected. And because of family rejection, that's a very specific thing that happens in LGBTQ communities. I know when my sister came out when she was 23, I think she was terrified... This was a long time ago, but she was terrified that our family would reject her, which didn't happen. Took one parent longer than the other to figure it out. But she was also 23. And what if she had been rejected? How would she have dealt with this?

And so I think when you have a group that has an undue impact, an undue risk and undue harm, then it behooves us to have these programs. Because we have programs for youth shelters, but not all LGBTQ youth feel comfortable going to those shelters. And this Host Home program really has really LGBTQ affirming trained host homes and with the goal of reuniting families, which I think is so important when you look at reducing homelessness. So that's what my statement would be on that.

So just to follow up on that, how would you respond to the individuals that might feel that you are isolating just the LGBTQ to a group of housing versus having them embedded inclusive in other housing?

So they're in host homes. They're in host homes. They're not in a shelter. So they're in families that have been background checked and who have been trained on how to help encourage and mentor and support LGBTQ youth. And so they're not in a separate shelter. They're in these homes where they can have that loving support that maybe they didn't feel in their homes. In cases where you can't reunite families, then in giving them the skills, so that they don't end up on the streets where more harm will come to them.

So I was smiling as Senator Menjivar was mentioning kind of where my position is in terms of rural communities. And I love that because that means that we've been working together for quite some time, and I depend on her as the Chair of Budget. It's Budget three, right? Yes. To make these great policies, get the funding, and then move it forward. So I feel very fortunate here.

Now, when I first saw the bill, and it's interesting because my own team says, oh, there's no rural representation in this bill. You're not going to like it. And I looked at it and I said, one thing that I do really like is that you looked at Northern and Southern California. That, to me, shows that you were very thoughtful and know all data is not equal. Right?

What I do know is, I opened my home for about five or six years, and the majority of the youth that I got were young people that were at risk of homelessness, that had been rejected from their families, were LGBTQ youth. And it wasn't a program. It wasn't something I set up, but it became a safe place for youth to come and be themselves. And I'll tell you, they were all coming from different places other than where I lived and where they landed.

They kind of just landed there. And so one thing, I'm going to be interested in your study, because I want to know where was that origin of the place where the kids started to then go down the track of homelessness services, and how did they then find the Unicorn Program? Because I think that data for me is going to be very telling in terms of how we serve and represent the urban or rural communities, LGBTQ youth in rural communities.

Because I'll tell you, I think I was up in Sonoma then, or Sonoma County then, and the youth that were coming to me were out of the Central Valley. That's a lot of miles to travel to come to a safe place. And so I know we need to do better for our LGBTQ plus youth. And I'm excited to see this data. So I'm going to keep poking at you.

It works in San Diego, Sacramento. So let's bring it back.

Let's see what lessons we can learn from that data.

I'm happy to partner with you. And as I said, my first version was like, let's have it in every county. Let's just do it everywhere. And then we started looking at it, and I think Edwin Borbon from my team, because I gave him this idea, I was like, we need to do this. And he's, like, been with me for, like, two days, and he's like, oh, that's a different Assembly Member. And so there's a lot of work that still needs to be done. But I think really having, when you fund a program, and you do it well, what does it look like? That's...

Exactly. And what are the lessons that it tells us that we can apply in other areas.

Exactly.

Great. Okay. Thank you so much. Any other questions? Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Menjivar. Let's call the roll.

File item 15, AB 589. The motion is do pass, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Ochoa Bogh, aye. Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Wahab?

Okay. Vote is 3-0, and that bill will go on call.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you so much.

Great. Okay. Dr. Jackson, welcome. My fellow co chair in the Assembly.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, it is indeed my honor to present Assembly Bill 426.

Thank you.

This Bill will ensure our state most vulnerable foster youth are not forced to sleep in places that endanger their welfare, such as office buildings or juvenile detention centers. When youth enter California's foster care system, we, the state, become their custodial parents. We have the duty and responsibility to make sure their health and well being are the top priority. These children are already enduring a traumatic event of being separated from their family, and it is the state's job to prevent any further trauma.

As many of you may have seen or heard over the last few years, there are reports of children being forced to sleep in places, quite frankly, that are not healthy or not even meant for human beings to sleep. In Fresno County, our foster youth were sleeping on top of desks without access to a shower and relieving themselves in water bottles.

In Sacramento County, our foster youth were placed in former detention facility where there was a single shared bathroom for 14 youth that locked from the outside and that they had to ask permission to use. I want to remind everyone that these are children in California's foster care system. If we wouldn't accept our own children or family Members living in these conditions, we shouldn't accept it for these vulnerable youth either.

Currently, there are few mechanisms for the state to step in and assist these counties when they are struggling to find proper placements. When the state becomes aware that there are foster youth being housed in unsafe conditions. This Bill authorizes the state to notify counties that they have 60 days to find appropriate placements. With the support of the state and technical assistance from the state in order for them to be in safer, healthier places and before a temporary placement manager is installed and civil penalties are increased.

The current penalty for placing youth in unlicensed facilities is $200 per day and has not been updated since 1985. As outlined in the analysis, $2 in today's equivalent is $596. This Bill will set civil penalties at $500 per day per child for the first 60 days of noncompliance and then will increase to $5,000 per day per child on day 61 if the youth still are languishing in unsafe facilities.

Over the last 10 years, and thanks to Members of this Legislature, we have reformed our child welfare system to be child centered and focused on removing children from congregate settings because studies have shown how harmful and detrimental they are to youth well being. I myself have worked in a level 12 congregants facility in order to get through college, so I've seen firsthand the type of environments that young people could find themselves in.

However, counties have reported challenges in shifting their focus away from congregate care settings and toward homelike settings with family Members when possible. So let me be clear. I recognize this Bill will not fix those particular challenges, but it is my intention next year and working with my colleague in the Senate on the Human Services Committee to finally update and fix the very complex challenges that our counties are facing. But at this point, the status quo is not acceptable throughout the state.

Tonight, there will be young people sleeping in office spaces. The question is, are we okay with that? And we have got to do everything that we can when they are in our care to be able to do this. So this Bill is simply aimed at keeping our foster youth out of unhealthy, unlicensed places. I am committed again to working on these challenges in the future. And the purpose of the child welfare system is to keep our youth safe and protect them from further neglect and abuse.

It is urgent that we act now so that all foster youth have the opportunity to thrive and these settings are not conducive to supporting children. This is just the first step in making sure that all foster youth have a safe place to call home. I respectfully ask for an Ivote.

Thank you. Do you have lead witnesses with you today?

I have no witnesses at this time.

All right, thank you. Any Members from the public or lead witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Amanda Kirchner on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association, we very much appreciate the author's engagement on this issue. But regrettably, we do oppose AB 426. No one wants any of our foster youth to spend even one night in an unlicensed placement. But unfortunately, that's simply the reality that counties have been dealing with for at least the last two years. There's simply not enough treatment options or treatment settings for our youth. And this Bill, unfortunately, doesn't really solve that problem.

Since implementing the continuum of care reform, California has made great strides in reducing the use of congregate care. But we've also lost many of our treatment options, as some group homes did not transition into short term residential therapy placements or Strtps. Federal policy additionally has resulted in further reduction. At the same time, community based supports for families haven't kept pace with the need, leaving counties with literally nowhere to turn for our youth who have the most complex and cross cutting needs.

Based on CDSS' own data, California has lost over 1,000 beds and STRTPs in the last year alone. And let me just be clear that this isn't a money problem. Counties regularly pay $40,000 per month, sometimes double that for STRTPs of one, so that a foster youth can be in a licensed, service rich placement to address their complex needs. In some counties, those costs have actually exceeded $100,000 per month. As an example, Sacramento County recently agreed to fund an STRTPs of one for $75,000 per month.

That does not include mental health services, so that will be an additional cost. Sacramento county asked CDSS to expedite the approvals so that the child was not in an unlicensed setting for any longer. CDSS has yet to do so. Counties are willing to pay what it takes to ensure these children are in service rich, appropriate placements, but there's just simply not enough to go around.

CDSS has already has two separate enforcement mechanisms to hold counties accountable through either the community care and licensing administrative authority or also under Welfare Institutions Code 10605, where in egregious cases, they can take over county child welfare departments. If we're not meeting our legal responsibilities to our foster youth, the bill's additional provisions, penalties, and the ability for the state to take over a particular facility does nothing to solve our underlying problem of why the children are in an unlicensed setting in the first place.

We're committed to finding a solution for this crisis, but unfortunately, this version of AB 426 does not do that. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your opposition to the Bill today.

Thank you.

Kelly Brooks here this afternoon on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and the Rural County Representatives of California, we share many of the same concerns mentioned by the Welfare Directors, and I won't repeat any of them. I just want to note that the Bill adds new penalties on persons working for the county, so on social workers or on supervisors or I guess potentially county supervisors. The language is not clear. And I want to acknowledge we've had conversations with the author about this.

We are very concerned about that having a chilling effect on our already difficult recruitment and retention issues if there are potential $5,000 civil penalties per day placed on the staff that do this work on the child welfare field. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member. Did you want to address any of the points in the opposition?

Sure.

Balance the time, because I know that.

Sure not a problem. I think that the first thing is that what the opposition is bringing up is a totally separate issue from what this Bill is trying to achieve. This Bill is specifically designed to make sure that children are not sleeping in places that were not meant for human beings to sleep. This is not about whether it's licensed or unlicensed, right?

And the state even recognizes, the Department of Social Services even recognizes that, sure, we would not want a young person to even have to sleep in a hotel room, right? But it's meant for a human to sleep in. So we'll give you some wiggle room there. But office spaces is not okay. Some counties have even used airbnbs in order for a temporary location, right? So there's even safe, unlicensed places for young people to be in.

So this Bill is just making sure that we are treating our young people with the dignity and humanity that they deserve. Now, in terms of the child welfare system reforms that have created this issue. That's a whole separate issue that needs a broader and more substantive Bill that I have agreed to making sure that we tackle for next year so that we can get it right. But this issue has been going on for over four years. Children that are in the state's care.

That means they're our children, have been sleeping in places that none of us would put our children in. And that in itself is wrong. The penalties part, and we've also had discussion about this, is that we will be offering language so that penalties is not based upon people. It's based upon the state and the county. Right now, mind you, these civil penalties is current law. We're just updating the penalty based upon inflation.

But I agree that it shouldn't be on an individual that's working for a county. And you have my word that we will make sure that that change occurs because we agree on that fact.