Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services

We are going to call the Assembly Human Services Committee hearing to order, and at this time we will operate as a Subcommitee until we have quorum. We want to welcome everyone to the April 25 Bill hearing of the Assembly Human Services Committee. I will now share a few notes about the logistics of our hearing today regarding the public's access to the discussions. For those joining us in person, face coverings are encouraged for all members, employees and the public in all common areas and shared spaces. For those who are dialing in as witnesses, we will be using a moderated phone service through which any member of the public can testify on a bill. The call in number for this hearing is 877-692-8957 and the access code is 131-5127 you can also find this number on the committee website as well as on your TV screen. If you are calling in, please do so now. The operator on the line will give you instructions on how to be placed in queue based on whether you support or oppose a Bill. I highly encourage you to listen to the instructions of the operator or you will soon find out. When calling in, please be mindful of and eliminate all background noise as well. Today, once we have established quorum, we will be voting on 11 bills on the agenda, two of which are on consent. Please note that we limit testimony to two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition. Each witness has two minutes to testify. Each witness has two minutes to testify. Any additional witnesses may add on by stating their name and affiliation. So at this time, we will just begin to hear our bills. First up is Mr. Holden, AB 262, and you may begin when you are ready. It looks like you're supposed to have two witnesses with you. All right, please begin when you're ready.

Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the Committee. I would first like to thank the Committee staff and the Chairman and all of the stakeholders who came together to work on this bill. This coming summer, children from all over California will attend thousands of camps. However, important safeguards are lacking and centralized enforcement of current requirements is non existent. 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 into proactively protecting our children at day camps. 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 will be submitted to the Legislature with the Department of Social Services recommendations no later than June of 2025. While there are many open questions, what we do know is that California's 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 analyst with the County Health Executives Association, and Doug Forbes, who tragically lost his child while she attended a day camp. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, chair and Members Betsy Armstrong with the County Health Executives Association representing local health departments and here in strong support of Assembly Member Holden's AB 262. CHEA commends the Assembly Member's goal to create an oversight and enforcement structure for children's camps that ensure the safety and well being of children in their care. AB 262 requires the Department of Social Services to establish and lead a state level stakeholder workgroup 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 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. 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 requirements 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 and 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 applications, probationary licenses, suspensions or revocation of a license, and licensing and employee exclusions. AB 262 would bring together both state and local stakeholders to divide a statewide system in California that most appropriately provides necessary safeguards to ensure the safety of children attending camps. We believe AB 262 is a thoughtful approach to address 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.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Doug Forbes. Summer Kids Camp stopped the beautiful beating heart of my beloved six year old daughter, Roxy. She drowned because the camp gave fraudulent lifeguard certifications to its counselors. The camp remained open the day they killed Roxy and every day since. I discovered they could do so because millions of children attend thousands of state camps without any reporting requirements or mandated oversight. Children as young as eight shoot semiautomatic rifles with live ammo zipline above tree canopies and jump from cliffs into dark waters. While nobody at these camps is required to be certified in any such activity. I've traveled the nation directing a featured documentary about the challenges of child harm at summer camps. I also run the nation's only camp safety foundation that partners with organizations like the Beau Biden foundation. My investment in this issue is boundless. Sadly, child molestation at summer camps is pervasive. Multiple experts from the nation's leading child abuse authorities have said that child sex abuse at camps outweighs the Catholic Church scandal. I don't have time to list California camp harm. CDSS requires licenses for childcare facilities that do sing alongs and finger painting. Yet camps, which are care with greater risk, are not licensed. They are not required to conduct background checks. Not a single soul at a day camp is even required to know how to perform basic CPR. Resident camp oversight is inadequate and not enforced. Camp lobbyists repeatedly appear at hearings like this to protect organizations like the American Camp Association and the Boy Scouts instead of kids. Yet Child USA says the Boy Scouts alone molest a million children since their inception, with 79% occurring at camps and events. Camp lobby misinformation perpetuates grave harm. Yes, camps should succeed, but our first duty as adults is to keep kids safe. It's about darn time California adopts meaningful regulations for day and resident camps like other states. Please vote yes on AB 262. Thank you.

Are there any witnesses in opposition at this time? Witnesses? No. I know.

Okay. I hate opposing Mr. Holden's bills. I'm Cathy Barankin, and I represent the California Collaboration for Youth. As was mentioned in the opening testimony, this bill would become effective, would give a report to the Legislature in 2025. We probably won't see any regulations until 2027. I suggest that what we do is that we. Oh, and the sergeant was going to pass out these. This is the Organized Camp Act, and this is what resident camp acts operate under. What we're suggesting is that we just make a simple change to law and we say that organized camps include day camps as well as resident camps. This could go into effect this summer. If there are areas in here that are not sufficient, then we should talk about those. We should increase safety where it's needed. But this particular bill is like saying, why don't we take the licensing and registration away from DMV and give it to the Department of Insurance, have them write a new vehicle code and operate that agency as also another DMV? That's basically what this bill is doing by moving it over to the Department of Social Services. Department of Social Services does childcare, has nothing to do with camp. They have no expertise. And it asks 17, at a minimum, organizations to come together to make recommendations. We think that if we adopt a bill that just simply moves day camps into the resident camp regulations, that this could be effective immediately. So we are going to continue to work with the author because he's wonderful and hopefully we can come to some resolution. But I'm sure a lot of you have been to camps. I'm sure you send your kids to camp. I sent mine. I went to camp. It is nowhere near the picture that the witness in support of this Bill claims. So I hope you think about that. Think about when was the last time, tragic what happened to Roxy. It's horrifying. We want to make sure that doesn't happen again, and we want to be at the table to make sure that there are better regulations where needed, and particularly in that area. Swimming should be one on one for a child with special needs should be one on one, anytime a child that has special needs participates in any kind of program, that should go on the regs, and we'd be happy to see that happen. Thanks so much for your attention.

You want me to there? Here? Mr. Chair Members, my name is Andy Meshberger. I'm here representing Gold Arrow Camp as well as the California Collaboration for Youth. We also regret that we must oppose Member Holden's Bill because we think there are deep flaws to its approach to this issue. Everybody in the room wants the same thing. We want the children of California to be as safe as possible while also getting valuable outdoor opportunities for summer learning and growth. Unfortunately, as Cathy mentioned, this bill attempts to reinvent the wheel. Local health departments have overseen organized camps in California for more than 40 years, this Bill asked the Department of Social Services to make recommendations about camp safety. Giving this task to the Department of Public Health instead makes more sense because more than 70% of California county health departments, including all 10 of the largest by population, are already inspecting camps. Under recently adopted camp regulations. The largest county in the state, Los Angeles, regulates day camps within their health Department. Health departments are already connected with the Office of Emergency Services. Losing that connection endangers California children in cases of natural disaster like earthquake, flood, or fire. The Department of Public Health is already the state body that tracks childhood injury prevention, drowning prevention, and maintains the epicenter, which reports on injuries and accidents in California. If we're looking for data on camp safety, CDPH is the place that makes sense for that. Nothing against the Department of Social Services, but they're ill equipped for this task. They oversee and license care, which is not camp. They don't have experience regulating commercial kitchens, water systems, staff housing, bed spacing, archery ranges, horse corrals, or swimming pool chemical balance. Camp is by definition a primarily outdoor setting. DSS does not currently regulate outdoor programs. CHIAC has expressed concerns in the past about local health departments having the ability and capacity to add day camps to their workload. This has been their concern every time our organization has proposed a bill to move day camps into the organized camp act to assure the safety of California's children. That is not a reason to leave day camp unregulated. Add day camps to the Organized Camp Act and they can come under the same regulatory oversight without the need for a work group, without waiting for years for day camp oversight. This bill, as Cathy mentioned, gets 17 entities, including state agencies which are in no way affiliated with camps, into a room to provide recommendations for camp safety, spending time, effort and resources. Do something that's already done. We believe the solution, as she said, is to move day camps into the existing organized camp act and urge you to hold the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're going to pause for quorum real quick, Madam Secretary. Please call the role.

[roll call]

We have a quorum. Is there anyone in the room who would like to add on for support? Please come on up. Please state your name and affiliation.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. And Members. Christina Marcellus, on behalf of the California State Alliance of YMCA's, is in support.

Good afternoon. Caroline Sorencioni, on behalf of the League of California Cities. Given the most recent amendments, we're now in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Jolie Unadera, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties as well as the urban counties of California, in support.

Okay. Seeing none others. Is there any additional people in support on the phone line?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak in support of this bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero at this time, we have one person who signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment, please. And we're going to go to line 14.

Isabella Argueta on behalf of the Health Officers Association of California, in support.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak in support.

Thank you. We have a motion. We have a second. Is there anyone in the room in opposition? Please come on up. Seeing none, is there any opposition on the phone lines?

If you wish to speak in opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero. Mr. Chair, no one has signaled that they wish to speak.

Okay. Is there any questions for questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none, sir. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We have a motion by Garcia, second by Calderon. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [roll call]

The Bill is out. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will go to our consent calendar. Do I have a motion for the consent calendar? It's been moved by Bonta. Second by Calderon. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The consent calendar file item two, AB 373. Gibson, file item 11, AB 772. [roll call]

Okay, consent is out. Next, let's see who else we have here. McKinnor, are you ready? Excuse staff's technical difficulties. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Chair and Members. When a child is removed from the custody of their parents, parents are typically entitled to reunification services in order to stabilize and regain custody. During this reunification period, a social worker must provide reasonable services to a parent that are tailored to resolve the issues that led to the family separation.

Currently, if a county fails to provide services within the 18 month window for parents to utilize services, there is no guarantee that the courts will extend the timeline to give parents a fair chance to reunify. An example of this issue was decided in the Supreme Court this past week in the case of Michael G, where a family was denied additional reunification after not receiving appropriate services until the end of the 18th month window.

This resulted in the permanent separation of a family that had shown positive improvements and engagement in stabilizing the favorite of a unification outcome. Currently, there is an exception to extend services for parents if they are incarcerated, in custody of ICE, or seeking substance abuse counseling and cannot adequately receive or utilize services. AB 937 will apply this exception for all families seeking reunification services as long as the courts determine that it is not detrimental to the child to reunify the family. My witnesses on the line today are Julie Hannigan with Legal Dependency Service and Jody Rogers. Thank you.

Okay, we will begin with Ms. Hannigan on the phone line as a witness.

Thank you and good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Julia Hannigan, and I am the policy director for Dependency Legal Services, which represents parents and children in child welfare proceedings in six Northern and Central California counties. I also work as an attorney, and I have spent a little over 10 years directly representing parents in dependency court. During this time, I have seen many clients make astonishing life changes through supportive services. I typically meet parents about 48 hours after their children have been removed.

For most of these families, this is the worst moment of their lives. I meet parents that are deep in their addiction or in the midst of a prolonged cycle of domestic violence. After a successful period of reunification, I have clients that lead lives that are unrecognizable from the ones that led them to child welfare intervention. I have clients that work so hard to make the changes that are necessary to create a safe home for their children and to make sure that they are never separated again.

However, I've also seen the opposite. Failure to provide proper referrals to housing support, consistent visitation, or proper therapeutic services can stop a parent's progress in their tracks. I have seen families forever separated because of insufficient visitation or parents who are referred to services hundreds of miles from where they lived, parents who are desperately trying to reunite. But the social worker never read the court ordered psycheval or provided those recommended services.

AB 937 ensures that if a court does find that a social service agency has not provided reasonable services, the parents shall, in most instances, be entitled to more time to put their families back together. This will ensure that there is consequences to the agency's failure in their obligation to work towards reuniting families, and it will ensure that families that have the capacity to reunite will be given a fair opportunity to do so. Thank you for your time, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Now we'll have Ms. Rogers on the phone.

I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to be heard today. My name is Jody Rogers. I am a mother who has navigated reunification services with my own children. If it weren't for the services I received when my children were removed, I would not be standing here today to tell you why this support is so important to families. I would likely still be homeless, addicted to drugs, and an abusive relationship, mentally and emotionally broken, and living without my children.

My children would not have the opportunity to watch their mother heal and grow and show them that support can come back. I'm sorry. And show them that with support we can come back stronger and better, that we can heal from our trauma and live a healthy and productive life. With that said, I cannot begin to tell you how important support services are for parents trying to reunify with their children while facing the challenges of the child welfare system.

Families heal and overcome these challenges when support is wrapped around them. Today I have the privilege of mentoring many parents in their reunification process. When supportive and timely services are given to these families, I see so many great changes. I see parents recover from homelessness and drug and alcohol addiction. I see them learn to manage their mental health as well as their physical well being.

I see them break the cycle of domestic violence, and I see them reunited with their children and living a life they never imagined. Very much like myself. I have also seen parents who have not received these services that they should in the same way that I did. Without services like visitation, housing, supports, drug rehab, and therapy, families won't succeed. These supports give us the tools we didn't have before to become strong parents for our children. If reasonable services are not offered, then nothing changes. Thank you for your time, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone additional support in the room at this time? Please come on up and state your name and affiliation. Seeing none, is there any support on the phone lines at this time?

For those who wish to speak in support of this bill, please press one, then zero at this time. We're going to go to line 17.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support.

Line 27.

Good afternoon. Luciana Svidler with Children's Law Center of California as co-sponsor of the bill and in strong support. Thank you.

And we have one more person who signaled that they wish to speak. We're going to go now to line 13.

Hi, this is Lily Kotansky with the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter. And we are in support.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Okay, now we'll move on to opposition. Is there any opposition in the room? Please come on up. Seeing none, is there any opposition on the phone lines?

If you wish to speak in opposition, please press one, then zero. There is no one.

All right. Questions or comments from Committee Members at this time?

I'll move the bill and certainly want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I think you and I have had a chance to talk about this bill in several different caucuses, and I know that you have an incredible passion for ensuring that we are creating every opportunities for families to reunify and think this is a very important bill to that end, not to be able to not have the system take over what should be a natural process of families trying to be back together again. So thank you for bringing this forward.

We have a motion by Bonta. Any second? Seconded by Garcia. Any additional questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Members and Chair, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Five to zero. The bill is out. Thank you very much. Next we have Boerner Horvath. Please come on up. Assembly Bill 580. Oh, yeah, I got this. 589. Yes. And then it's Boerner. What did I say?

Boerner Horvath. But I'm glad you learned it right the first time.

I remember. Thank you. But before you begin, we got to get ready here, make sure we're ready for our bill here.

The Chair did ask me to bring in an inflatable unicorn, which you didn't.

Hold your bargain, of course.

I know.

And so we are ready for the Unicorn Homes Bill. And so you may begin when you're ready, because I am.

You've made my day, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. First, I'd like to accept the Committee amendments and would like to thank your staff for working with us on this bill. AB 589 would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, establish a five year pilot project of the Unicorn Homes Transitional Housing for Homeless LGBTQ Youth Program in the counties of San Diego, Los Angeles, and Sacramento.

LGBTQ centers within each county would administer the program, providing crisis intervention with a traumainformed approach to house eligible youth and LGBTQ affirming host homes. In 2020, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, reported that there were over 12,000 youth experienced homelessness in California, accounting for 36% of the national homeless youth population. People who identify as LGBTQ are experiencing homelessness have greater difficulty finding shelters that accept and respect them.

Oftentimes, the LGBTQ community is at greater risk of assault, trauma, and early death compared to their heterosexual peers. Transgender people are particularly at risk due to a lack of acceptance and are regularly turned away from shelters. Addressing the housing crisis is a key priority for the state, but there is no state housing program targeted directly at LGBTQ youth experiencing homelessness.

Unicorn Homes is a program within the North San Diego County LGBTQ Resource Center that aims to provide crisis intervention and transitional housing to LGBTQ youth or experiencing homelessness due to family rejection, with an ultimate goal to reunite families when possible. Having staff who identify as LGBTQ creates a safe space, allows for delivery of services with a trauma informed approach for LGBTQ youth during this vulnerable time.

Similar programs called Host Homes exist in the downtown San Diego LGBT Community Center, LA LGBT Center, and 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 for the Sacramento LGBT Center had to end its operations a few months ago. They made the difficult decision to divert funds from the Host Homes program in order to continue operating their youth shelter.

Young LGBTQ adults want to be accepted and seen as holistic and valuable humans with multidimensional identities and stories of both struggle and resilience. Establishing a Unicorn 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 the LGBTQ centers. The Unicorn Homes program does not require development of a new built infrastructure, making it a low cost, flexible, and valuable stepping stone while youth wait for more permanent solutions.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I have here with me Max Disposti, Executive Director of the North County LGBTQ Resource center, who came in from San Diego today. So thank you, Max.

Thank you. I go next? Okay. Hello, everyone, and good afternoon. My name is Max Disposti and I am the founder Executive Director of the North County LGBTQ Resource Center. Usually I'm loud and this is louder. I'm also the founder of the program, Unicorn Homes.

The need of these programs really came about from the urgency to address the housing need of the population that happened to be 40% of the homeless youth in the streets of California, but also to address the great disparities in our foster care system that sees our LGBTQI youth among the most vulnerable and often disregarded population.

Because of the historical disparities, many of the institutions now in existence, like housing related services and youth providers, are often not culturally equipped to address and resolve the disparity and marginalizations that our youth is still experiencing. Every LGBTQ center in California and elsewhere can share stories of abuse and violence, but also youth resilience over the stories of human trafficking related dynamics and substance abuse. Unicorn Homes was born out of necessity.

It was created in order to move fast and provide a roof over our youth heads where they can be assessed, supported, and, when possible, unified with their family origins. Unicorn Homes recruits a network of families willing to step up and in and offer a room at no cost. During this period assessment the centers provide mental health resources, case worker and most important, they hope to start again and move forward to prevent chronic homelessness to occur.

With few financial resources and community stepping in, we were able in 2022 alone to permanently house and connect over 65 youth and to refer many others to prevent them from falling into homelessness. So thank you again for the opportunity, your attention today, for also exploring the opportunity to expand this program in other needed regions of our state. Thank you so much for listening.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the room in support? Seeing none. Is there anyone in support on the phone lines?

If you wish to speak in support, please press is one then zero at this time. We're going to go to line 28.

Good afternoon. Craig Polter on behalf of Equality California in strong support.

Then we'll move on to opposition. Is there any opposition in the room at this time? Seeing none. Any opposition on the phone lines?

If you wish to speak in opposition, please press one, then zero. Mr. Chair, there is no one.

Okay, then we'll move it on to questions or comments from the Committee. Anyone at this time? Ms. Bonta

I'm happy to move the Bill and just want to thank the author for bringing it forward. I know that this is a three county pilot for not my county, but certainly counties in need, and my staff are in particular gratitude for being able to move this forward, particularly recognizing that our LGBTQ youth are probably the fastest growing segment of homeless populations because of the lack of our ability to accept them in the way that we should. So I'm very thankful that you're moving forward this Bill.

I have a motion. Is there a second? 2nd by Calderon. Any additional questions or comments for Committee Members? Obviously, the homelessness crisis with LGBTQ community has been a crisis for quite some time before. We recognize what we're in now as a housing crisis. So thank you very much for this Bill. Looking forward to support it. We have a motion. We have a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The Bill is out. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have AB 770 by Assemblymember Kalra, and I will hand over the gavel to our Vice Chair as I step out.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Members, first, I'd like to thank the Committee for their Work, and I'll be happily accepting the Committee amendments. A few years back, I was chair of the Aging and Long Term Care Committee in this house and learned a lot about what we were doing to care for our elderly population.

But even more importantly, what we were not doing or not doing enough of, and certainly access to care, access to beds for those in need, is something that we're still in a crisis mode at this moment in our state, especially given the demographics and how the elderly population is clearly the fastest growing population in our state. I think we need a lot of different tools in the toolbox, and AB 770 could be one of them.

By expanding the number of individuals that residential care facilities for the elderly can serve by removing the six bed cap in California code. Unlike larger facilities, RCFEs can only spread the cost over six individuals, even if they have additional rooms or the space to serve more beyond the six beds. This, coupled with the increasing cost to operate, has placed these smaller residential facilities at risk of shutting down. RCFEs are not owned by corporations or licensed to provide hospice services.

Instead, they are operated by small business owners that offer care and services to help elderly Californians age in a home and provide an affordable option to other facilities. AB 770 will move the six bed cap, allowing RCFEs to expand their operations to serve more residents within their existing housing supply and help reduce the costs. This Bill would ensure RCFE rooms and space are consistent with Department of Social Services regulations and building standards.

By allowing RCFEs to expand and serve more people, AB 770 helps address the increasing demand for housing in California's aging population. With me to testify in support is Meea Kang, California Commission on Aging and Olive Deanda, residential care facility for the elderly RCFE operator and we also have Patrick Smith with the California Commission of Aging available for questions. Thank you.

Good afternoon chair and Members of the board. My name is Meea Kang and I have been a Commissioner on the California Commission on Aging for over seven years. We travel around the state hearing from communities, and the number one issue we find in every single community is the need for more housing. Our older population is growing rapidly and right now it's about 20% of the California's population, and as Assembly Member Kalra said, it's the fastest growing population.

It's also one of the fastest growing populations for seniors who are at risk of homelessness as well. And as this demographic shift occurs, it's becoming increasingly important to develop innovative solutions to meet housing needs of the older adults to ensure that they can age with dignity and Independence. In 1973, the California Community Facilities act established a residential care facilities for the elderly, the RCFE act to be a more homelike alternative for nonmedical round the clock care.

The law specifies that residential residents are considered a family regardless of whether or not the individuals are related, as long as the family serves six or fewer persons with no conditional use permits or zoning variances that are consistent with family dwellings. However, if there is a facility that might have four beds and they have the capacity for eight, adding those extra two beds requires a special use permit, and often these permits are very hard to get and often termed down.

It's an impossibility to actually convert usable space into additional beds because of the six bed cap. Therefore, unlike a lot of the other facilities, we are seeing a loss of beds. According to the California Department of Social Services, nearly 4000 facilities have closed their doors between 2015 and 2020. That represents 72,000 beds that were off that have been turned out of business.

And so the six bed RCFEs are closing at the same rate they are opening and therefore we're really not keeping pace with California's older adult population. The operators under this Bill would be still held to local building standards, fire standards, local health and safety standards, and we really urge this Committee's ivote so that we can increase the supply of housing to meet our older adult population.

And we are very respectful for Assembly Member Kalra's tenacious long term leadership for older adult's rights and we wish this Committee respectfully an aye vote.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Olive Deanda. I'm a Member of sixbeds.org. I own and manage one residential care home facilities for the elderly in San Mateo County. I have been a provider for 25 years.

Today I'm here in person to express my strong support of Assembly Bill 770. AB 770 is a crucial tool to allow RCFE to expand their capacity beyond six beds and provide much needed housing to more residents, provided they have the capacity and in compliance with both local building departments and the Department of Social Services. The six beds cap is arbitrary and as a result, many seniors are being denied the ability to live in the small family type settings.

Please note that with AB 770, the increase in capacity will lead to more efficient use of existing housing and help alleviate the bed shortage for seniors. AB 770 will also promote economic stability for small RCFE. Unfortunately, due to rising cost, RCFE have been struggling to make ends meet and a result many six beds homes have had close. The Department of Social Services estimates that nearly 4000 facilities with 72,000 beds closed their doors between 2015 and 2020.

AB 770 would allow for the remaining homes to provide much needed additional rooms for some of the most vulnerable amongst us by allowing them the opportunity to spread the cost across more residents. The vast majority of our residents are Low income, unable to pay for their housing on their own, and are subsidized by family and or Members, adding to the value that these RCFE will provide to our communities.

In addition, most residents that find housing in the RCFE are coming from their home with assisted care that simply isn't sufficient any longer. As a result, when they move to an RCFE, their home re enters the housing market, assisting in chipping away the California housing shortage. Yes. Lastly, as an RCFE operator, I have dedicated my life in providing a safe, comfortable ordering environment for our seniors. I would like to personally thank Assemblymember CarLA for your leadership and for authoring this essential piece of legislation. Thank you.

Do we have any additional support in the room? Okay. Seeing none. Do we have any additional support on the phone?

Anyone who wishes to speak in support, please press one, then zero. We have at least one person who's signaled that they wish to speak. One moment. Pleased. Thank you again for your patience. Just another moment, and we're going to go to line 30. Line 30, your line is now open.

Hi, my name is Sheila Ellis, an AARP California Capital response team Member in support.

And there is no one else.

Any opposition in the room?

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Jennifer Svec, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, the sponsors of the Bill are correct. We are facing a housing crisis. We are facing an affordability crisis, but we're facing an affordability crisis across the board. Since the great Recession, we've seen a massive incursion in the single family housing stock with a result of private real estate investment trust converting single family ownership opportunities into investment opportunities.

We see this particular Bill, which is increasing the cap on residential bed limit to exceed the six person limitation to be another commercial incursion within our single family zones. I should remind the Committee we have a 2.5 million unit shortage in affordable housing in, say, the State of California.

1.5 million of those units are single family entry level housing opportunities that continue to not be available for our families who are also struggling to maintain home ownership and to have an opportunity to realize the California dream of wealth stability and income equality and generational wealth opportunities. That's only facilitated through homeownership. We've seen a doubling in the median price of housing since the great Recession.

We used to have a median home price in California of three to $400,000, and now we're looking at $820,000 with much higher interest rates. Unfortunately, while we understand the concern and the struggles that are facing these providers, our concern specifically is for the families of the State of California and their opportunities to have generational wealth as well.

And as we continue to shift the single family one to four housing into either commercial uses, for profit and non profit ownership opportunities, we're again diminishing those opportunities for families to also have stability and homeownership in the State of California. And unfortunately, we have to ask for a no vote on this measure.

Any oppositions on the phone line.

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition, please press one, then zero. There is no one.

Does my fellow Committee Members have any questions? Just want to address the opposition. Comment within the frame of the reality of what's happening for our seniors. Our seniors are being caused to not be able to live near their families while we have more of them coming into the need for care.

So it's kind of unimaginable to me that we wouldn't create a space and an opportunity to, as you said, Mr. Kalra, to allow for us to have another tool in our toolbox to keep our seniors while they are aging in place, where we know that they will be healthier, live longer, and be able to continue to contribute to our community as they have for their lifetime. Why that would be something that we wouldn't want to do. So I'm obviously very supportive of this Bill and thankful to you for bringing this forward as something that we can focus on.

Thank you.

And with that, you may close.

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote appreciate the comments.

[Roll Call]

Madam Chair Members, the goal of AB 922 is to combat hunger and food insecurity in California's unhoused communities. The Bill will codify a restaurant meal delivery pilot program serving unhoused and homebound communities, which has successfully operated in Alameda County. This pilot program was born during the pandemic, when there was both a significant need to feed the unhoused and a desire to keep local restaurants open and their employees working.

Alameda County wants to share and build out this model program that successfully delivers nutritious food while investing in local economies. Thank you to this Committee for its analysis, which points out that the language in the current Bill needs to be clarified and more specific to avoid any unintended consequences. You have my commitment to work on this with your staff, and those amendments should move this Bill forward today. Here to testify in support are Marisa Raya, a board Member of community kitchens, and Lynn Peralta with Alameda County social services agencies.

Thank you, Committee Members. Hello, and thank you to Members of the public, it's an honor to be here today in support of AB 922. My name is Marisa Raya and I'm a board Member for Community Kitchens Oakland, a nonprofit that started during the pandemic lockdown to support restaurants and provide meals to Oakland's unhoused encampments, homebound seniors, foster youth and other communities in need of food. We have since provided 10,000 meals a month in partnership with Alameda County.

During the lockdown, I led the City of Oakland's small business emergency outreach effort as well as our economic recovery advisory council, and I want to say that partnering with restaurants to provide meals is one of the best things that came out of that very transformative time period and should be a standard going forward. There's excellent policy research showing that we can actually end hunger if and when we use multiple avenues to connect people with food, including restaurants and prepared meals as part of the solution.

At community kitchens, our deliveries provide healthy, dignified and even celebratory meals combined with events and other services at a below retail cost. I also want to emphasize what a significant impact pandemic meal deliveries have had on our local economy, helping restaurants to survive the pandemic, and what a meaningful and appropriate opportunity it is for them to be able to participate in a county program like this one. This is a great model for localizing and equitably distributing the resources that we put into caring for each other.

It helps both food access and local businesses, and enshrines one of the best systems for mutual aid and support that came out of the pandemic. I urge you to support AB 922 and all efforts to engage and leverage our local communities to support our homeless, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Good afternoon and thank you, Vice Chair and Members, for the opportunity to voice our support for AB 922 the prepared meals delivery program my name is Lynn Peralta and I'm the policy Director for the Alameda County Social Services Agency. The County of Alameda is proud to sponsor this Bill, and we're thankful for Assemblymember Wicks for championing this request. The meals delivery program came to us from Members of our community who led a grassroots response to addressing food insecurity in encampments of unhoused individuals.

When the Covid-19 pandemic temporarily closed restaurants, they shifted efforts to the unhoused, preparing nutritious, quality meals and delivering them to encampments. Currently, there are over 9740 who are unhoused in Alameda County as of the latest 2022.0 in time count. Across the state, there are over 161,000 individuals who are homeless, representing over a quarter of the nation's homeless population. Most were single adults, about a third were chronically homeless, and black Californians were overrepresented in account nearly fivefold.

Free congregate meal programs or soup kitchens, while critical, are too often inaccessible to those who live in encampments. The Calfresh Restaurant meals program is similarly limited, providing access to few meals other than fast foods. Meal provision is a critical tool in nurturing trust and collaborative partnership with the unhoused. Supportive services with free meal programs have proven to be effective at establishing trust with the unhoused community.

The prepared meals delivery program would provide counties with resources to enhance their work with community groups and help ensure their committed resources contribute to lasting food security and a path to stable, permanent housing. We are honored to lift up this program and test its application in more communities throughout the state. Thank you in advance for your support of this Bill.

Do we have any additional support in the room? Any additional support on the phones,

Press one, then zero. If you wish to speak in support of this Bill, press one, then zero. There is no one.

Any opposition in the room? Any opposition on the phone?

If you wish to speak in opposition, please press one, then zero. There is no one.

With that, you may close respect now. zero. Any questions or comments from the Committee?

Thank you, Alameda County. Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. Very proud to have this meal program be hopefully if it gets through launched in Alameda County. And we just today spoke about the food insecurity that exists and this is an incredibly positive solution and I wish we could do more with that.

Thank you, Senator Bonta. And with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion from Calderon and a second from Bonta and we will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Three to two it is on call. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, we have a very busy day. We're all running from Committee to Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1522 and thank the staff for their diligent work on this with my team. In recent years, we have witnessed a record breaking number of LGBTQ.. anti LGBTQ measures proposed and passed across our country. 2023. We've actually seen a record setting year for state legislation targeting our LGBTQ plus adults and youth.

At least 417 LGBTQ bills have been introduced in state legislatures across the United States since the beginning of this year. Another inconvenient truth is that LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in our foster care system, and the traumatic experiences of our LGBTQ plus foster children are often overlooked. In fact, California has the largest share of unaccompanied youth experiencing homelessness. Despite what one might hear on certain cable news channels, our LGBTQ children are children, too. They deserve the same respect.

They deserve the same rights, love and protection as everyone else. Due to the excessive rate of homelessness among youth involved in our child welfare system, our state's policies should truly reflect the importance of developing independent living skills for all youth in the child welfare system before they are prepared to exit care for youth who identify as LGBTQ plus, disclosing their sexual identities to family Members can mean facing verbal physical harassment, perhaps even resulting in out of home placement or homelessness.

Therefore, the high rates of rejection and abuse among these youth have led to an overrepresentation in unstable housing and in our child welfare system. Foster youth, especially youth of color, also experience different forms of institutionalization without permanency, but rather these experiences create instability, multiple placements, leaving them often with nowhere else to go, and they are then aged out of care.

It is necessary to examine whether our youth, our LGBTQ youth, are more vulnerable when they are in a foster care or forms of unstable housing and the intricacies of their racial and ethnic groups. We do need to move forward towards recognizing these gaps as we seek to support foster youth through appropriate case plans and transitional independent living plans for older youth as they age out.

It's necessary to take into account whether outcomes differ for Latino, African Americans and American Indian youth by LGBTQ status and living situation. Assembly Bill 1522 will remedy and heighten the need for protections for our LGBTQ plus foster youth to ensure care that affirms their sexual orientation and gender identity. It will ensure that we start making the necessary steps for accountability measures and how we really provide needed oversight for support and resources for these individuals to receive the best practices and prevent housing instability and homelessness.

At the end of the day, we want to make sure the Department of Social Services convenes a work group to create a report with recommendations to prevent housing instability among our LGBTQ youth and foster care.

This would require that the work group does submit a report to the Legislature before January 1 of 2025, and we need to just be reminded that here in California, I'm a proud Member of the LGBTQ caucus and where many of us are fighting to stand up and protect and embrace and empower our LGBTQ youth, especially in our foster care system, where the numbers are over exasperated. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Do we have new witnesses today? No. Any additional support in the room? Any additional support on the phones?

Wishing to speak in support, please press one, then zero. We have at least one person to signal that they wish to speak. Just a moment, please. We're going to go to line 28.

Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California and strong support.

And now we're going to go to line 32. Line 32, your line is now open.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of this Committee, my name is Patricia Maria Gonzalez with the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies. CBHA is in strong support of AB 1522. Thank you,

Madam Chair. There is no one else.

Are there any opposition in the room? Any opposition on the phone, please press one, then zero. If you wish to speak in opposition, there is no one

Questions or comments from my Committee. With that, you may close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 1522.

We have a motion from Calderon and a second from Bryan. Please take the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Madam Vice Chair and Committee Members appreciate the opportunity to come before you to present 991. And on the outset would like to just personally thank the people who do a lot of the hard work on this, which is the staff from the Committee, and also want to thank the chair of the Committee for Giving us the opportunity to come before you today.

While many Californians and families in California rely on public benefit programs, a lot of them have to work jobs that have hours that are obscure or work at times that county social services offices are not open and available to them. The families that would be affected the most are the ones who do not have the luxury of having flexible jobs or work hours.

However, when households fail to report requested information or provide an update of their information about a change in income or their address in a timely manner, their public benefits can be negatively impacted. The failure to report changes can result in the relinquishment of the public benefit program that they are participating in. We are forcing beneficiaries to jump through some hurdles and hoops to obtain the assistance that we all know that they need to meet their basic needs.

This Bill will give an opportunity for beneficiaries to not have a wrong door for reporting changes or providing requested verification in order to continue to receive their support and public benefits. AB 991 seeks to create a parity with other public benefit programs such as medical, to modernize the way that recipients of these programs communicate with counties.

My staff and sponsors have met with departments, and we appreciate spending that time with the departments to better understand these departments are the ones that would be impacted and we all, I think, share in the intent, which is to be able to provide services to those who really need them, but also make sure that we provide the opportunity for safety and privacy.