Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services

Good afternoon. I call this hearing of the Assembly Committee on Human Services to order. I would like to welcome everyone to the April 2 hearing, and I'd also like to welcome Assemblymember Ta, who will be replacing Assembly Mathis for today's hearing. Now, for little housekeeping, file item seven, AB 1968 Jackson was amended on March 21, 2024 and is no longer in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee jurisdiction. Should the Bill pass out of this Committee, it will be referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Also file item 13, AB 2343 Schiavo and file item 15, 2452 Quirk-Silva have been pulled by their authors. Once we have established quorum, we'll have 17 bills on the agenda. Four bills 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. All additional witnesses will be limited to saying their name, organization if they represent one, and the position on the Bill.

I also want to note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. Thank you. Once we have Quorum, we will take roll, but I know that Sid Lamborghini Jackson on this Committee has volunteered to go first with one of his bills. Actually, Madam Secretary, let's take the roll since we do have quorum here.

[Roll Call]

Quorum is established. Senator Jackson, you may proceed.

Thank you very much. First, I would like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments and complimenting this Committee and its fantastic staff for their work with my office on this measure. AB 1968 seeks to require the Department of Social Services to create a system to automatically enroll by qualifying individuals age 60 or older who meet the eligibility requirements of SSI SSP, and those who meet those requirements but are not eligible solely due to their immigration status and Calfresh by January 1, 2026.

This Bill idea came from a report last year about the number of seniors who qualify for Calfresh but are not enrolled. And we know that seniors are representing some of the most hard pressed populations, certainly in terms of homelessness and other issues, and food insecurity. So this Bill is to try to scoop up as many seniors as possible to ensure that they are stable and to make sure that this does not become a crisis in the future. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Doctor Jackson. And according to you, there are no primary witnesses and primary support witnesses to testify today? No. Do we have any members of the public in the hearing room who wish to testify and support? Please come up to the microphone.

Amber King with LeadingAge California in support.

Hi, Gabby Davidson on behalf of the California Association of Food Banks and Child Poverty California Grace. Thank you. In support.

Jason Gapbar with the Alzheimer's Association, in support.

Lisa Coleman with the California Commission on Aging in support.

Thank you. Now, do we have any witnesses in the room who wish to side in opposition to this Bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to Committee. Any questions from Committee Members? Any questions? Vice Chair Essayli.

Thank you, Mister Jackson. Your program seeks to expand Calfresh benefits to illegal immigrants in the State of California. Do you know what the cost of that will be to the budget?

No, there has not been scored yet. That will happen in appropriations.

Okay, but you obviously know it's going to have a large cost to the state. So when we're facing a $73 billion budget, where do you propose that we get the funds to cover this?

I think first we have to find out how it scored. And then once that happens, it's my responsibility as also Chair of the Budget Subcommitee to see where we could be able to find those dollars.

Thank you.

Any other questions from Members? All right, I would like to invite the author to close respectfully.

Ask for an aye vote.

Very good. I think that establishing an automatic enrollment system for food assistance programs plays a crucial role in combating food insecurity among seniors. Seniors, of course, who are residents of the state, no matter their documentation status. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. And I will be supporting the Bill. The Bill. The bill's moved and I will second it as courtesy. Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

The motion is due pass as amended, to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

That's three to one it is on call. Thank you, Doctor Jackson. I see that Speaker Emeritus Rendon has come to bring us happiness in this Committee with your three bills today. So whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Apologize for being late. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Just so you know, privacy is meeting downstairs. I sat in there, realized it was the wrong Committee, and I have talking points here.

I know I must bear strong resemblance to that chair.

Yeah. Yeah, I thought it was you. They passed the Bill too, so you guys. Thank you, Mister Chair and Committee Members. AB 1925. We'll start with that one. Will facilitate access to early learning and care for families of infants and toddlers with disabilities, especially in programs that blend federally funded Early Head Start and state funded general child care and development programs. Currently, in order for a family to be eligible for the general child care and development programs in California.

Both parents must meet the requirements of being employed in school when the child has a disability. One parent must often reduce work hours or leave the workforce in order to provide the childcare the child with the care they need. Here to speak in support of this Bill is Luis Bautista, Executive Director of Los Angeles County Office of Education and Early Learning Division, and Sarah Orth, Chief Executive Officer of the Blind Children's center.

Thank you so much. Two minutes each, please.

Good afternoon, chair Lee and Members. My name is Luis Bautista. I'm the Executive Director for the Head Start Early Learning division at LA County Office of Education, or LACOE. LACOE serves nearly 8,000 young children and families in early learning programs annually through partnerships with nine local nonprofits. One of them is here and seven school districts. We also work to strengthen quality and capacity providers countywide through our quality start Los Angeles and the inclusive Early Education Expansion program, as well as other state and federally funded initiatives.

Today, I'm here to speak on a proposal that would build on your tremendous investment in early education over the past few years. In 2021, recognizing that only a small fraction of infants and toddlers have access to subsidized care in California, the Legislature added 200,000 additional slots to serve our youngest learners. Yet, as you know, many of those remain unused.

In our experience, providers are choosing not only to apply, not to apply for slots or are struggling to fill contracted slots due to the challenges of meeting both the eligibility and need criteria, especially when combined with the much different eligibility requirements of programs like Head Start. In fact, funding appropriated to support children and families is returned to the state unused each year despite significant demand. In 2023, the state invested in young children with disabilities by granting automatic eligibility for state preschool via AB 210.

As experts have shown, and you recognize, enrolling children in high quality early learning prepares them for success in school and in life. The earlier we can reach them with a supportive, inclusive educational experience, the more the benefit is magnified. AB 1925 would remove barriers to enrollment for infants and toddlers with disabilities. It would not require additional funding, but rather ensure that funding already appropriated is used for its intended purposes.

Research shows that families of children with disabilities are significantly more likely to both encounter challenges accessing care and to rely on multiple sources of care than their typically developing peers. Often, one parent, especially the mother, will reduce work hours or leave the workforce to care for their child. This precludes enrollment due to the program's requirements that both parents be engaged in work or school during hours of care.

Just as families experiencing homelessness are exempted from the work or school requirement while they strive to improve their situation. We ask the same for families of children with exceptional needs. And for these reasons, I urge you to support AB 1925.

Thank you so much. All right, our next witness.

Thank you very much, chair Lee and Assembly Members. My name is Sarah Orth, and I'm with the Blind Children's Center in Los Angeles. The Blind Children's Center was founded in 1938 to fill a critical gap in early learning programs for children zero to five who are blind and have vision loss. Today, 75% of those children have multiple disabilities and complex medical needs, and BCC began working with LACOE in 2021.

So we've seen firsthand the stress and the grief that parents experience when they get a diagnosis of a child's disability. BCC has also seen the financial toll on families. Based on an analysis from data from the National Survey of Children's Health, researchers found that 40% of caregivers of children with special needs reduce their work hours or leave jobs altogether to care for their child.

Most often, this caregiver is the mother, and research has also found that having a child with disabilities can negatively affect a mother's own health. I'd like to tell you about the Mancilla family, Mister Mancilla Miguel and his wife Holly. When they had they, excuse me, Mister Mancilla. Miguel works two jobs while misses Mancilla Holly cares for their three children under five years old.

When the Mansella twins were born, Holly and Miguel learned that their daughter Micah had a genetic syndrome resulting in visual and hearing impairments, as well as facial structural anomalies. Holly dedicated all of her energy to the care of her twins and managing Micah's frequent Doctor's appointments, multiple surgeries, and therapies. She rarely left home. She was isolated and overwhelmed with stress and her own health concerns.

Thankfully, the Mancillas found the Blind Children Center, and Holly has expressed so much gratitude for the care and support that she's received in our programs. Unfortunately, access to programs like BCC or CCTR for children with disabilities is limited. CCTR's requirement that both parents be working or in school does not consider the challenges and needs of families with children with disabilities. Furthermore, the income eligibility requirements of CCTR do not consider the economic realities and long term costs associated with caring for a child with disabilities.

As Luis shared AB 1925 would remove barriers to enrollment for infants and toddlers with disabilities, supporting families like the Mancillas. It would allow CCTR to be part of the network of support for children with disabilities and their families, thereby providing early intervention, mental health support and respite for parents, especially mothers, who struggle every day to do the best they can for their children. On behalf of parents with children with disabilities throughout California, thank you for your consideration of AB 1925.

Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any Members of the public in the hearing room who wish to testify in support of the Bill? Please come forward to the mic if you wish to sign support.

Jim Frazier with the arc of California United Cerebral Palsy collaborative and full support.

Anderson, the Association of Regional Center Agencies in Support,

Thank you. All right, do we have any Members of the public in the hearing room who wish to testify in opposition to the Bill? Please come forward to the mic now in opposition, seeing none, I'm gonna bring it back to the Committee. The Bill has been moved and seconded, but are there any questions? Mister Gipson?

Thank you very much. I just would like to offer the author of the Bill, if he would be so kind to allow me to be a co-author of the Bill. I would absolutely love to be able to not only support it, but also raise on the floor and support it as well.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Are there any further questions? If not, I'll invite the author to close.

Respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Removing barriers to access childcare for families of children with disabilities is a step in the right direction. Thank you. Bringing this Bill forward, I'll be recommending an I vote the Bill has been properly moved and seconded. Moved by Mister Gipson. Seconded by Senator Jackson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Roll Call

That is two to zero. It is on call at the moment, would you like to present your next Bill?

Yes, thank you. Do AB 1948 thank you very much. Thank you. I'm gonna get the Vice Chair on this one. He's excited about this one. He's ready. Ready. Maybe make the motion on this one. AB 1948 thank you, chair and Committee Members. AB 1948 removes the January 1 2025 sunset date on AB 728 of 2019 by my joint author, Assembly Member Santiago.

This Bill allows multidisciplinary personnel teams, or MDTs, and agencies connected to MDTs in select counties to exchange the personal information of individuals identified as being at imminent risk of being unhoused. This information sharing facilitates early intervention with county services and prevents new and recurring incidences of homelessness. Without this sunset removal, mdts in the specified counties will no longer be able to utilize this authority to coordinate housing and resources for individuals at risk of homelessness.

This Bill would eliminate an important means this extension of this would eliminate continue to eliminate an important means of connecting, contacting, and identifying people who are likely to benefit from these services. AB 1948 will indefinitely extend availability of critical intervention assistance and allow these counties to stop homelessness before it can occur. Here to speak in support of the Bill is Dana Vanderford, associate Director of homelessness prevention at Los Angeles County Department of Health Services.

Witnesses, two minutes a piece, please. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair Lee and Members of the Committee. My name is Dana Vanderford and I'm the Associate Director of homelessness with LA County's Department of Health Services. I'm here on behalf of the county to testify for AB 1948, a Bill that LA County proudly sponsored.

This Bill would allow jurisdictions like Los Angeles County to continue a data sharing agreement that enhances coordination across multiple program areas by removing the walls between programs, facilitating a no wrong doors approach, and streamlining multidisciplinary care for clients who are at risk of homelessness. First, I want to thank Speaker Emeritus Rendon for advancing this important Bill.

My program, the Homelessness Prevention Unit, utilizes the data sharing agreement to establish initial contact with people who are at imminent risk of becoming homeless, connecting them with resources to make sure that they can remain safely in their homes. Assembly Bill 1948 builds on several pass bills, AB 210 and 728, to create a more fluid and seamless exchange of information between agencies supporting clients who are, excuse me, currently homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

While I'll focus on the impact to our homelessness prevention work, the ability to access information that lives outside of our internal departmental systems has resulted in tangible benefits for some of the highest need in LA County. Within housing for health, the Homelessness Prevention Unit is a proactive, data driven program that launched into July 2021 to identify clients at high risk of becoming homeless in the next 12 months.

Once participants are identified, HPU staff perform outreach to clients and work with them over four to six months to help stabilize their housing and improve their overall health. In addition to financial assistance, our clients and families are also linked to health, mental health services, substance use treatment benefits, advocacy, legal aid, employment assistance, and education. To establish contact with individuals identified as being in need of services, we must first perform intensive outreach to our clients.

However, we have incredible challenges in connecting to our clients, losing up to 75% of our prospective clients due to lack of contactability. We use the data sharing protocols that would be extended through AB 1948 to identify crucial contact information that lives throughout or inside our county's integrated data system. One third of our HP participants had phone numbers provided to us under AB 1948.

If you could wrap up, please.

Yeah, thanks.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Do we have any Members of the public who wish to testify in support? I'm sorry, witness. Did you also have. Okay.

Amy Brown, on behalf of the City of Long Beach, in support.

John Drebinger, on behalf of the Steinberg Institute in support.

Chair Members. Brandon Epp, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff, in support.

Good afternoon. Kelly Mcmillan, on behalf of the County of San Mateo

Good afternoon. Josh Gauger. On behalf of the boards of supervisors of Ventura County and Riverside County, in support.

Danielle Bradley. On behalf of the California State Associations in support.

Thank you. Are there any Members of the public in the hearing room to cite in opposition to the Bill? In opposition seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any Committee comments or questions? Assembly Member Gipson?

Thank you very much, and for the benefit of us getting these bills, but on Committee and hearing the bills and hearing the witnesses, certainly that motivates me to want to ask the author to be joint author on this Bill, because I think it's very important. This is a policy that I can wrap my arms around, but also support on the floor.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you, Assembly Member.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I think anytime we are moving a program from being a pilot program to a permanent program, it's important to know if the program is working. So I reached out to my county who was in the pilot program, Riverside County, and they had nothing but great things to say about the program. They said it's really helped them to reduce redundancies, improve efficiencies, and most importantly, provide care to those that need it with less contact.

Senator Essayli.

And so anytime we can make government work better and smarter, I'm in favor. And so a lot of times we look for money to fix problems, but a lot of times it's policies. So I support this. If you'd like it to be bipartisan, I'm happy to be a co-author.

Thank you, Mister Vice Chair. Thank you very much.

Good to see bipartisan support on this Bill. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your. I vote.

All right. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. The Bill has been moved by Mister Gipson, seconded by Mister Essayli.

Roll Call

We'll leave that bill on call. Would you like to present your last bill 2360 This is item 14, AB 2360.

Yes 2360. Thank you chair and committee members. AB 2360 would help the family members of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities, or IDDs, by establishing a pilot program to provide them with counseling and supportive services. Family that have a child families that have a child with special needs face potentially lifelong challenges that impact the mental health, the mental and behavioral health of every member of the family.

When parents and caregivers seek mental health support through their insurance or county mental health services, they often have to wait for long periods of time to see a specialist who may not be familiar with the particular circumstances they face. AB 2360 would require the Department of Developmental Services to establish a wellness pilot program under which the 21 Regional Centers across California would provide counseling and peer support services families of individuals with IDD who are serviced by the Regional Centers.

This will promote a more stable home environment for all members of a family who care for a special needs individual. Here to speak in support of the bill is former Assembly Member Jim Frazier, director of public policy at the Arc of California, and Claire Lazaro, clinical Director at Valley Mountain Regional Center.

Thank you. Two minutes. Witness, please proceed when you're ready.

Greetings, honorable chair Alex Lee and members of the California State Assembly Committee on Human Services. I'm Doctor Claire Lazaro, parent advocate and clinical director at Valley Mountain Regional Center. I serve and represent people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, or IDD, and their families, and I'm testifying in support of the AB 2360 the Family wellness pilot program. As a parent advocate of two children with IDD, I have needed mental health support at some point in my life.

Furthermore, one of my children have needed mental health support at a tender age of 11. Families undergo a tremendous amount of stress, especially when they receive a diagnosis of IDD for a family member. Mental illness is more prevalent than one could imagine. One in five adults experience mental illness, while one in five youth have, or at some point had a seriously debilitating mental illness that could lead into crisis.

Individuals with IDD, like my children, can have co occurring mental illness, and mental illness is three to four times more common in people with IDD than the General population. AB 2360, the Family Wellness pilot program, will address the current gaps in our mental health system for families with IDD, specifically the long wait times of up to six months.

The promotion of innovation and healthcare equity will help people of color like me to access much needed mental health, and expanding services to families and children like mine would keep them from going into crisis and decrease psychological distress in families. There are 19 times more Americans with mental illness than those with opioid use disorder. Yet we have not classified mental illness as an epidemic in the US. With this much prevalence and effect on our IDD population, addressing mental health is of utmost importance.

The Family Wellness program is a template of how our government and society can work together to address mental health and holistic evidence based practice intervention and this would lessen the burden on families and the healthcare system and millions of healthcare costs related to mental illness. For families like mine, please support AB 2360. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Mister chair and members. It's important for parents of children with developmental disabilities to prioritize their mental health and seek support when needed. This may include accessing mental health services, attending support groups, practicing self care and reaching out to healthcare professionals for assistance. Research has found that mothers of children with autism have physiological stress profiles similar to those of combat soldiers. We made a promise in 1969 with the Lanterman act to take care of the developmentally disabled. But we forgot about the families.

We can make that right today. I request your aye vote.

Thank you. If we have any members of the public in the hearing who wish to testify in support of the bill, please come up to the microphone if you wish to testify in support.

Tony Anderson, Association of Regional Center Agencies, in support.

Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Please come up to the microphone if you're in the room to testify in opposition. Seeing none, I'll bring back to committee members any questions or comments from Mr Gipson. I mean committee members. All right, I'll invite the author to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Family support plays an important role in care for those with disabilities. The bill proposes to help families and will ultimately lead to better caregiving. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I recommend an aye vote. The bill has been moved by Mr Gipson, seconded by Assemblymember Calderon. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 14 AB 2360. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That's four to zero. We'll leave the bill on call.

Thank you. Thank you members. Thanks very much.

I think I see Assemblymember Reyes. Yes. Reyes in the back. To present. That's not her. zeroOh to present Assembly Bill 1911. Whenever she's ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. AB 1911 will improve residential care facility for the elderly RCFEs. Their complaint investigations so that they can be performed by the California Department of Social Services. First, I do want to note that I'm happy to accept the Committee's proposed amendments. Currently, the experience for individuals who file complaints against an RCFE is inadequate and discourages many from filing complaints.

Oftentimes, CDSS determinations on complaints are not communicated to complainants, leaving them without the information they need to follow up on complaints and unaware of whether their complaints will be investigated. This bill ensures that complainants receive a written notice telling them that their complaint has been received and what to expect during the investigation. If an investigation is warranted. It would also require CDSS to notify complainants when their complaint will not be investigated and would give the complainant the right to seek a review of that decision.

The bill also imposes deadlines of 60 to 120 days for completing the complaint investigations and requires expedited investigations if they involve a threat of imminent danger of death or serious harm. Finally, the bill provides an appeals process for complainants who are dissatisfied with the results of CDSS investigation and enforcement action. In essence, AB 1911 will improve the complainants' process by improving CDSS communication with complainants and by imposing clear deadlines on complaint investigations. Here to testify in support of the bill are Jaclyn Flores and Jennifer Holloway.

Jaclyn Flores is the consumer and policy advocate with the California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform. Jennifer Holloway has filed a complaint against a residential care facility in the past and has first-hand experience with the Department of Social Services complaint process.

Thank you so much. Two minutes per person, please.

Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Jaclyn Flores and I'm a consumer and policy advocate with California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, also known as CANHR. For over 40 years, CANHR has advocated and worked to improve California's long-term care system for older and disabled adults. AB 1911 will improve the complaint investigation process for residents of residential care facilities for the elderly, otherwise known as RCFEs.

Under current law, the Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, or CCLD, is not required to send written notices to complainants on whether their complaint will be investigated, information on what to expect throughout the investigation process, no deadlines on when the complaint should be completed, and there is no appeals process. However, licensees are given four levels of appeal when they are unhappy with the CCLD enforcement determination. Recently, I filed a complaint for a resident about an unlawful eviction.

My complaint cited laws and regulations that were clearly violated, but I never received a response from CCLD about who would be investigating, when I could expect the complaint to be investigated, or if my complaint would even be investigated. After contacting the regional office, I was informed that CCLD would not be investigating my complaint because the resident had filed one herself previously, and CCLD determined it unsubstantiated. My complaint was never considered, and CCLD never communicated with me about the resident's unsubstantiated complaint and how it related to my own.

After many emails with an assistant program administrator and a regional manager, my complaint was reevaluated, investigated, and ultimately substantiated. Basic communication deadlines and options to formally appeal the outcome of an investigation about an RCFE should be the default. AB 1911 seeks to implement guidelines that are already implemented in nursing homes and would provide complainants greater assurance their complaint will be taken seriously.

On behalf of CANHR and Advocates Across California, we respectfully request your aye vote on AB 1911 to improve regulatory compliance and the delivery of care for a vulnerable population. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I am Jennifer Holloway. Oh, thank you. Hi, I'm Jennifer Holloway and thank you to the committee for hearing AB 1911. My father, Dwight Jochems, was in memory care assisted living facility. The facility did not adequately keep us informed of his health changes. The facility or when he fell ill. We were not informed for nearly a week by the facility. Tragically, my dad passed away from his illness approximately a week after that.

Only after requesting records from the facility did I find out he had suffered a seizure, and days later and relying on being fed by staff members, it's clearly showed a change in health condition. I feel as though these lapses in communication from the facility were not taken into consideration by the CCLD investigator. Again, these changes in health conditions were never communicated to our family. I filed a complaint to the CCLD and it took nine months for the investigation to be completed.

No updates or follow-through were provided unless I called. The report finally stated that the complaint was unsubstantiated but not unfounded. I tried to appeal it, and they said it was a closed complaint and would not be reviewed again, even in light of the above information in writing from the facility. It is my feeling that the complaint process findings should be more timely and the line of communication be kept open. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Now, do we have any members of the public in the hearing room who wish to testify in support of the bill? Please approach the microphone if you wish to testify in support of the bill.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. David Feinberg representing AARP. We are firmly in support of the bill and have worked vigorously to reform nursing homes and residential care facilities to improve private care.

Thank you so much. All right, do we have any primary opposition witnesses? Please come up to the desk. If we have opposition witnesses, they can come up here.

Do you want me up here or? Sorry about that. That's not very graceful. I'm Heather Harrison. I'm with the California Assisted Living Association. We represent licensed residential care facilities for the elderly and continuing care retirement communities throughout the state. We are opposed unless amended. I want to thank the author and her staff and the sponsors for the conversations we've had so far and the amendments that have been taken already.

Our remaining concern, our primary concern has to do with the requirement that DSS establish and manage a new appeal process. They're facing backlogs right now in other core areas, so our concern is with their capacity to deliver something new when they're still running behind in other areas. So that's where we stand at this point. We haven't talked to the department. I know there are ongoing conversations and we're happy to be part of those.

All right, thank you so much. Other people in the room who wish to testify in opposition to the bill, please come to the microphone.

Thank you. Amber King with Leading Age California, also here with an opposed, unless amended position. Really appreciate the conversations that we've had with the author's office so far and look forward to continuing those conversations. Thank you.

Afternoon. Bob Naylor, representing 6Beds, Inc., an Association of small assisted living. We have the same position as CALA on this. Opposed unless amended because of concerns about staffing.

All right, bring it back to the committee members. Any questions? Comments? Mister Gipson?

Right. Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, and thank the author. I was reading the analysis, and I'm supportive of this, and I understand that the opposition is asking for more time to get things to together. You know, I had to put a loved one in a facility nine days ago. Nine days ago, and it's really changed the trajectory, and our elders don't have time to wait. They need facilities up and running to be able to address their needs right away.

So, can you give me more than just saying you need more time?

Well, yeah. So the concern is. Well, certainly we need more care facilities. I think that's something we all agree on. The Department of Social Services right now, our concern is with their capacity to deliver a nuke, part of what would be their licensure system. For example, the administrator. Every RCFE is required to have a certified administrator. It's taking anywhere between seven to nine months to get those administrator certifications approved right now. There are some backlogs in other core areas.

And that's what our concern is, is with the department's ability to deliver. The bill increases - the bill requires, it's kind of a double whammy because it requires the Department of Social Services to do complaints faster, which we're not saying is a bad thing at all, but it also requires them to, so it requires them to do complaints faster and then also set up an entirely new appeal system.

Our concern is that they don't have the capacity to do that and then will backlog and slow down other functions that they need, like annual inspections and the administrator certification. So those are just, those are unanswered questions right now.

Have you reached out? I'm just curious: have you guys had a conversation with the Department to see where you can find that middle ground to help expedite some of the concerns that you've raised thus far?

Yeah, we have been working with them on the administrator certification, for example. We have been working with them, and they are trying to recruit new staff and set up some technology to help. So that's in process. But we haven't engaged in conversations with them on this bill in particular at this point yet.

Thank you very much. Again, I would. I mean, I think this is absolutely needed because we have a growing age. You know, elderly population is growing. I was on Aging and Long Term Care, and there was a saying in terms of our aging, but nonetheless, it is something that we have to look at, and we have a population that's growing. I have in my district, in the month of May, we'll be celebrating four individuals who live in my district, just sharing.

Two of them are 104 and one is 103, and three is 105, and they're all in one facility.

That's wonderful. Happy birthday. That's going to be a good start.

And so I just described and elevate that, that we have to do everything that we can for that population. And tomorrow, some of them can't wait. We have to address it now. So thank you very much. I'll be supporting the bill. And did we move it already? Oh, I would like. I thought I did. I'll move the bill. Yeah. And you seconded. I know it's been a long day.

You did move it. Apologies. Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? All right, Seeing none, I invite the author to close.

Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I would also like to thank you and your staff for working with the Committee to work on some amendments to clarify these timelines and make sure that is practical and with urgency and speed. To make sure that the investigations happened in a timely manner. Especially as our population continues to age, it's so important that the care of our aging individuals are done so with dignity and resident safety in mind. So thank you for bringing this bill forward and I'm recommending aye as amended.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item three, AB 1911. The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

The bill is passed and we'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you all.

Our Assemblymer Dixon I think I see out there. Dixon, I see you though out there, though. Mister Gipson.

Thank you. May I proceed? Good afternoon Chair. Thank you Mister Chair and Members, I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 1952. 1952 addresses a lack of support for young parents who are dependent upon the foster care system. This is an area that I never knew existed until this matter was brought to my attention. The infant supplement is currently offered to parenting foster youth to help care for their child. While the parenting foster youth is a ward of the state, their child is not.

The infant supplement is one of only two foster care supplements that are not automatically increased yearly by a California Necessities Index also called CNI based on cost of living adjustment. The infant supplement has not been increased since 2016. AB 1952 will increase the supplement for $1,379 a year to $1,896 a year to account for inflation since its last increase per child. Correct?

Additionally, 1952 will add the infant supplement to the list of foster care programs that increase annually for CNI. We have a responsibility as the State of California to take care of these children. The infant supplement should receive the same support as other foster care supplements. This is a very unique and vulnerable population of California today.

I have with me Jill Dominguez with Mary's Path and Adrienne Shilton with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services to further explain the great work they do and how impactful this funding is. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Please proceed as two minutes per witness, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee and Members of the Committee. I am Jill Dominguez, Executive Director of Mary's Path. We are a short-term residential therapeutic program, also known by our acronym STRTP, and we are located in Orange County, California. Our program serves a very special population, pregnant and parenting teens in the foster care system with a mental health diagnosis. We are one of only five agencies that serve the entire State of California.

The teen moms we serve are aged 12 to 21, although the vast majority are 12 to 18. The average age of the mother at birth is 15 and a half years old. 90% are victims of commercial sexual exploitation of children, C sex, which is child sex trafficking. 100% are from very low-income communities. 66% are Latinx. 33% are African American.

100% of the time the baby equates to the family they were not born into and the unconditional love that they so desperately seek. At Mary's Path, we provide around-the-clock support as they navigate being new moms and work on dealing with the trauma that led them to Mary's Path. In a safe space, we provide mental health treatment, our own school so moms can continue with high school and education, doula support, birthing classes, parenting classes, and on-site childcare.

We are struggling to provide the most basic care and supervision for these babies. Our rate for the care for the babies has not been increased since 2016. Despite the annual rise in inflation. The cost of diapers has gone up by over 90% in the last two years and formula over 11%. We feed, house, clothe, and transport babies to and from doctors appointments, baby wellness, business, and community outings.

We provide extra staff so that when the moms are overwhelmed, we can take a moment and hold that baby for them. And yet we have been neglected and ignored in our request for additional funds in the infant supplement rate. We are only asking that this rate be risen to meet the rate of inflation and be included in the CNI.

I am respectfully asking for your support of AB 1952 to include the one-time current rate to the infant supplement to a rate that reflects the current rate of inflation and ensure the rate is included in the CNI in future years. Thank you for your time.

All right, thank you so much.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. I'm Adrienne Shilton, representing the California Alliance of Child and Family Services. We represent 165 nonprofit, community-based organizations across California that are serving children and youth, and families in public systems, including foster youth and their caregivers, and the programs that support them. And we are proud to support Assembly Bill 1952 today. This proposed increase that we're talking about would ensure that qualified programs have the resources that they need to care for vulnerable mothers and their babies.

California has a huge stake in the success, too. Without intervention, roughly half of children that are born to foster youth will be the subject of a child protective services report by the time they are three, and nearly 20% will be removed from their parents. There is a huge need for these programs across the state, as you've heard. And so we are proud to support this Bill today and ask for your support.

Thank you so much. Are there any witnesses in the room who wish to testify in support of the Bill? Please come up to the microphone now. Witnesses in the room.

Thank you. Kim Lewis representing Aspiranet in support.

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

Tony Anderson, Association of Regional Center Agencies, in support.

Kate Tuig with California Youth Connection in support.

Thank you. And now, do we have any witnesses in the room who wish to speak in opposition to this Bill? Opposition. Seeing none. Bring back to the Committee any Committee questions or comments? No, you don't have to. You don't have to. Okay.

I mean, I think, I think the topic is so right now and I think that I just had a traumatic experience in public safety. Anyway, we won't talk about that. But we need to. We need to address this issue, especially with our children being exploited for human sex trafficking. And I would just ask that you consider me being part of your Bill.

Thank you. Thank you. I'm grateful.

Thank you so much. It's totally your option. I'm just giving you the venue to. So thank you, Mr. Gipson. Assembly Member Dixon, would you like to close?

Well, I'm very grateful. And thank you for my guests for coming up to speak today. And I'd be honored to have your respectful Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Ensuring that our parenting foster youth are able to meet the needs of their children is important as these young parents try to stabilize and achieve independence. The state has an obligation to ensure the proper care of foster youth. And I appreciate you elevating the needs of this vulnerable population. I'm recommending an Aye vote. And this Bill has been moved by Assembly Member Essayli and seconded by someone Gipson, your new co-author. Madam Secretary, please read call the roll.

File item six, AB, 1952. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

That Bill has three votes. Three to zero. It's on call. Thank you. Assembly Arambula, when you are ready, please come up. This will be for file item 11, 2150.

For students, accessing safety net programs is fraught with complications and steps that are sometimes not well understood even by the administers of these programs. To help students navigate these complications, I authored Assembly Bill 1326 in 2021 that established a single point of contact in every county, called a county liaison of higher education, that institutions of higher education could contact for guidance. Unfortunately, students in desperate need of food or financial support are experiencing inconsistent support across counties.

AB 2150 establishes quarterly meetings to share information, ideas, best practices to ensure that counties aren't left on their own to create this expertise in a silo. Testifying in support of Assembly Bill 2150 is Gabby Davidson with the California Association of Food Banks.

Thank you. Please proceed. Two minutes.

Hi, Gabby Davidson with the California Association of Food Banks. College is hard enough without worrying about where your next meal will come from or how you will afford rent.

Yet the California Student Aid Commission found that 66% of students are food insecure and 53% are housing insecure, with students across intersectional identities such as race, class, gender, and immigration status experiencing disproportionately higher levels of need. When students don't have access to or they face barriers to receiving resources to mitigate these challenges, the toxic stress of poverty, hunger, and homelessness that may follow has devastating short and long-term consequences for students.

Many colleges have established food pantries and basic need centers, but these alone can't address hunger and homelessness. Programs like MediCal, CalWorks, and CalFresh ensure students can access the resources needed to stay fed, healthy, and housed, while also bringing funding to county social service teams and improving both the local and state economy. Studies consistently find that these social service programs positively impact students and communities.

I know this firsthand as enrolling in CalFresh when I was a college student made a big difference, and countless students have said the same when I helped them enroll when I used to be a CalFresh outreach assistor. However, many students, despite being eligible, are not enrolled in these vital programs. An estimate from CDSS shows that only about 18% to 30% of likely eligible students are enrolled in CalFresh.

We're grateful for the important work done to establish county liaisons as the point of contact for higher education institutions in the counties. We believe AB 2150 will build on this to ensure that counties, institutions of higher education, and stakeholders are trained on the complex eligibility requirements and can maximize the opportunity to learn from each other, identify best practices, and increase awareness of these programs so that students across California can receive the safety net benefits that they deserve.

CFB is proud to co-sponsor and we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much. Are there any folks in the room who wish to testify in support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone.

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

Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Heather Willoughby, former student parent on CalWORKS in strong support.

Anna Matthews, Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges in strong support. Thank you.

Johnny Vu with the California Student Aid Commission in support. Thank you.

And then I was also asked to give support for California Competes.

Good afternoon. Just quickly, Maggie White with the California State University in strong support. Thank you, sir.

Great. Are there any witnesses in opposition that was to testify who are in the room, please come forward. Any witnesses in opposition?

Thank you and good afternoon. My name is Eileen Kubanski with the County Welfare Directors Association. We are regretfully in opposition to this bill. We have a few concerns with it. In particular, we are only recently implementing the bill that established the county liaisons and counties are in the process of completing the protocols that were required to be developed by that bill. I think there's a lot of exciting work, and I do regret that the rollout of that has been slow.

It has been about a year that we've been trying to get those protocols in place and implement. I'll just note that counties have been doing a lot of that work. We've absorbed a lot of that. We never received funding for that. And so certainly some of that capacity constraints has led to perhaps this taking longer to roll out than we intended. Furthermore, we are having to consult with every public college, university, community college in the state and develop individual protocols with each of them.

And that does take time. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that notwithstanding some of these implementation challenges, we don't know that this process hasn't yet been successful. And so letting the protocol process complete itself and allow those relationships to be established, which I think is very key to us, feels like a more productive, immediate use of our county resources and time. We do have concerns with the time involved in the training, additional training that's required by the bill and the workgroup meetings.

Just taking away from some of the further work that we have to do around implementing the protocols and establishing those relationships. So those are the sources of our concern at this time.

All right, thank you. Are there any other witnesses who wish to sign opposition to the bill in the room? Seeing none, I'll bring back to the Committee, any questions or comments from the Committee Members. All right, I'll invite Assemblymember Arambula to close.

Thank you Mister Chair. I'm just going to echo the comments of our witness today that there are 70% to 80% of students who qualify for CalFresh who are not receiving that assistance.

Rather than having each county develop their own plan, we should have those that are doing it well help to inform and train other counties so that we can learn those best practices and increase participation into our social safety net. Ultimately, we'll benefit as a state and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Arambula, for working in this space to ensure that our students don't go hungry and make sure there's less friction in the system, especially for eligible students. I'll be recommending an aye vote on the bill. Do I have a motion? A second? Do I have motions? It's only one word. The bill's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 11, AB 2150. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Higher Education Committee. [Roll Call]

That Bill has four votes. We'll keep the roll open for absent Members. Assembly Member Bains, you have file item 1820, AB 2828 when you are ready. Whenever you are ready, you may begin.

Awesome. Good afternoon Chair Lee and my colleagues on the Assembly Human Services Committee. Today I'm presenting my Bill, AB 2828 which makes long overdue and critical changes to how kids plates funds. One of the state's specialty fund sources for children's safety programs are distributed throughout the state. At its core, AB 2828 is a Bill that modernizes a very successful program. Vehicle owners contribute to the Kids Plates Fund by purchasing a specialty license plate.

You have likely seen one on the road with a heart or hand print or a plus sign. Former congresswoman, Assembly Member and now supervisor elect Jackie Speier created these special license plates plates to strategically fund child abuse prevention, childcare safety and childhood injury prevention. The funding and pricing for the kids plates established 30 years ago do not meet the current needs to ensure that all 58 counties receive their fair share of the funding for essential childcare and child safety services.

This update to the existing law addresses three core issues within the Kids Plates programs. Number one, the original Bill set the Department of Motor Vehicles pricing for kids plates in 1992 and has not been updated since. AB 2828 will align kids plates pricing with similar specialty plates like Save the Whales and Yosemite Park Foundation, among others. Modernizing the price will double the funding available for child safety programs and allow for the distribution changes in my Bill.

The distribution of these funds should benefit all 58 counties, but currently it does not does not. AB 2828 corrects the distribution problem. It leverages existing programs in all 58 counties, resulting in no new costs and a more equitable distribution of these funds. For example, my Bill uses the existing county level childcare resource and referral networks and the 58 first five county commissions to ensure all counties get their fair share of these contributed funds.

It is also worth noting that the Bill does not change the child abuse prevention funding distributed through the 58 child abuse trust funds. Number three, our state child care licensing and Department of Public Health Injury prevention programs depend on a portion of kids plates funding to continue their child safety responsibilities. AB 2828 ensures these agencies receive the kids plates funding they need to keep California children safe.

In summary, supporting AB 2828 will double the funds to help with children's safety at no cost to the state's General Fund and make common sense changes to ensure equity in distributing these funds for all 58 counties. Since the kids plates hit the roads in California, this special license plate program has raised more than 80 million for child safety programs. By passing AB 2828 we can double that amount.

Supervisor elect Jackie Speier supports these changes to the Kids Plates funding program, as do the two original co sponsors of the 1992 legislation, the Children's Advocacy Institute, based at the University of San Diego School of Law, and the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health. The First Five Association of California representing the 58 first five county commissions also supports this.

My witnesses today are Steve Barrow with the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health and was one of the original team members who helped with Assembly Member Speier to draft the 1992 Kids plate legislation. And we have Lucas Frerichs from District two, Yolo County supervisor and member of the first five Yolo County Commission, and can speak to all three child safety issues, childcare, childhood injury prevention and childhood abuse prevention local needs.

Thank you, Doctor Bains. Two minutes per witness, please.

Hi, my name is Steve Barrow. I'm the State Program Director for the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health, which is a 30 year old organization or coalition in California that helps pass, successfully pass, a number of our safety bills the Helmet Law, the Pool Safety Act, child car safety, etcetera. I was on the team that helped then Assembly woman Jackie Speier draft the 1992 Bill, AB 3087, and everything worked really well then.

The landscape, as the author has said, has greatly changed in 30 years. This is long overdue. We really appreciate the assemblywoman carrying the Bill to get these changes brought up to date. We strongly support changing the pricing we set. The pricing that Governor Wilson wanted us to set back in 1991 hasn't been or 92 and we haven't changed it since. Like she said, it's going to double the amount of money in this fund.

And it's all contributions from vehicle owners wanting to buy these plates to dress up their car or their truck and help out children's safety. It's only, it's important that this Bill passes to make sure that the money goes back to all 58 counties. Currently it does not. And so there's no equity in how the money's redistributed to these people that make these donations. So we support the change of using existing First Five, the child care resource and referral networks in all 58 counties.

And we also support leaving the child abuse prevention through the Child Abuse Prevention trust funds. We also support leaving enough money to help the Department of Social Services child care licensing.

30 seconds, please.

Thank you. Great.

As far as how much money it gets, so asking for your aye vote I'm here to answer any technical questions.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee and Assembly Members. My name is Lucas Frerichs. I'm a Yolo County supervisor and I'm also fortunate to serve as the Chair of the Yolo First Five Commission as well. As has been eloquently stated already, there's been need to update this program for a number of years now and so really appreciate Doctor Baines willingness to take this issue on this year. The reforms in AB 2828 ensure that all 58 counties will have some access to some of these funds.

So we really appreciate that and reaching those children and families most at risk. I think it's also just important to note that even small amounts of funding like this will be strategically used to help leverage additional funding. So a little bit of money from this program could actually be used to leverage for a lot of benefit across California's 58 counties.

We're grateful for Congresswoman Speiers original legislation creating the Kids program plate program over 30 years ago, and we appreciate Doctor Baines leadership now in authoring AB 2828. Respectfully ask for your aye vote

Thank you so much. Are there any Members of the public in the hearing room wish to testify in support of Bill. Please come up to the microphone now.

Mister Chair, Members. Cathy Barankin, California Collaboration for Youth we strongly support and we were also on that original team to create the kids plate, so encourage you to support the Bill.

Fantastic. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill, please come forward to the microphone. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none, I would like to offer Doctor Bains a close.

Merely saying keeping California's children safe should be a priority for everyone. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I'm recommending an I vote. Do I have a motion? Moved.

Second.

Moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Roll Call

Five to zero that bills out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Assembly Member Kalra, since we're going in file item order, you are next, and I appreciate the patience of our other Members. Assembly Member Kalra, this is item eight, AB 1993.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair, AB 1993 would help address the housing needs of California's growing aging population by expanding the number of individuals residential care facilities for the elderly, or RCFEs, can serve by replacing the six bed cap with the 10 or fewer cap. RCFEs are community based homes that offer housing arrangements for various levels of non medical care and supervision. Older adults are the fastest growing population of unhoused individuals in California and are at greater risk of becoming homeless.

They often have a harder time finding accommodations that can meet their specialized care needs in a setting best suited for them. Existing law caps small RCFEs to six or fewer residents. In order for these facilities to expand by just one bed, if they're at the max of six beds, they must obtain a conditional use payment from their permit from their city or county, regardless of whether they already have this space.

And if anyone's worked at the city level, you know how hard it can be to get a conditional use permit. Unfortunately, these types of permits are rarely issued and can be a complicated process for small RCFE operators, which limits their ability to expand and as a result, is a barrier to an otherwise available bed.

By allowing RCFEs to expand and serve more people, AB 1993 can help ensure older adults who choose an assisted living home can remain in their communities while also receiving the 24 hours non-medical care they need. Additionally, ensuring these homes meet the safety and building standards to expand is a priority. So under this Bill, RCFEs would still be required to be consistent with the Department of Social Services and Community care licensing.

Thank you to the chair and Members. My name is George Kutnerian and I'm here with SixBeds, which is a statewide trade association representing the small residential care facilities for the elderly, or RCFEs, serving six or fewer residents. I'd like to start by thanking Assembly Member Kalra for continuing to champion this important public policy issue.

With me to provide testimony and support is Meea Kang, California Commission on Aging, and George Kutnerian, Senior Vice President for Six Beds.

All right, thank you. Two minutes per witness, please.

The original statute that this Bill seeks to amend was enacted back in 1986, almost 40 years ago. At the time, it was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that spawned the creation of what is today a SixBed RCFE ecosystem comprising approximately 5500 facilities. However, times have changed. Our population has changed. By 2030, there will be 10.8 million older adults in California, compared to only 3 million in 1990. 1.8 million Californians 60 and over live alone, and older Californians are living longer with more chronic illnesses.

Not only has California's population changed, so have the economics of aging, with over 2 million Californias aged 60 plus being economically insecure, facing rising costs of housing, health and care. In fact, among the unhoused older Californians are the fastest growing age group. California's small RCFEs, like the older Californians they seek to serve, are facing some of the same challenges, such as higher than ever housing costs. Unfortunately, the current statute has fallen behind the times.

AB 1993 can change all of that by allowing RCFEs the option to go up to 10 beds without being subjected to the complicated, time consuming, and highly discretionary conditional use permitting processes that are often fraught with NIMBYism that has the effect of limiting housing and care access for older Californians.

Leveraging an existing supply of SixBed RCFEs, many of which already have three or more bedrooms and can currently house more than six residents, AB 1993 could result in thousands of additional beds in a very short amount of time. Today, this Committee has an opportunity to take a step towards California, once again taking a leadership role by advancing innovative legislation that furthers the public policy goal of California, improving access to housing for all ages and stages.

We respectfully ask for your aye votes, and I'm happy to answer any of the Committee's questions. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee and Committee Members. My name is Meea Kang, and I'm a Commissioner on the California Commission on Aging. We're a proud cosponsor of this Bill. Housing has been one of our major priorities in the California Commission on Aging, and I can attest from my experience as an affordable housing developer building many senior communities that the need of the older adult population is in great need. Many older adults have financial resources that don't qualify them for in home support services.

Others require more care than what in home supportive services can provide, and others have insufficient resources to afford the extraordinary cost of 24 hours in home care. Any of these individuals may decide that living in a residential care home may be their very best option. In California. The Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing, CCL inspects, regulates, and determines the number of beds. The RCFE is approved for.

This determination based on the licensing skills, staff ability, and building features, among other things, require that no more than two persons are allowed per bedroom. Currently, in most cities and counties, private home RCFE operators are limited by local zoning and use laws, and this limits the productivity of the homes. RCFEs can serve more than six beds. They must get those conditional use permits that are often impossible to get.

AB 1993 would change the six bed caps to 10 or fewer to allow private homes RCFEs, when approved by CCLE, to expand the number of individuals they care for while still being considered a residential use, which is critical. So these folks can remain housed in the very communities in which they have been living.

This increase in capacity will allow more older adults and their families who choose to live in assisted living to remain in these very familiar neighborhoods also receiving the 24 hours non-medical care they need. We want to thank Assembly Member Kalra for authoring AB 1993, which prioritizes older adults and their families. And we respectfully ask this Committee for an aye vote.

Thank you. Now, do we have any witnesses in support in the room which should come express their support? Please come to the microphone, please.

Good afternoon. Lisa Coleman with the California Commission on Aging want to thank the Member and strong support,

Heather Harrison with the California Assisted Living Association. And strong support,

Amber King with Leading Age California in support.

All right, now, do we have any opposition to this Bill? Please come forward. Any Members of the public seeing? None. I'll bring back the Committee. Any questions or comments? Vice Chair Essayli?

Yeah, I had a question. My understanding is these are kind of like homes that have been converted into residential facilities. Six people seems like, you know, a lot.

Jason Gapart with, the Alzheimer's Association in support.

Yeah, certainly. I understand the concern. Title 22 already regulates this, so there's a max of two residents per bedroom.

So if we increase it to 10 are there going to be some safeguards to make sure that some unscrupulous people aren't just packing a bunch of seniors in like bunk beds and little rooms? Is there some safeguards to make sure that we're just not going to pack seniors into to spaces that can't really give them dignity in space?

Respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Community care licensing is in the buildings every year inspecting, so this is already an area of oversight for them. Okay, so these are ready. It's already in place via title 22 regulations. That's right.

That's all it.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? See none. I'll let the author close.

Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I'm recommending an I vote. Do I have a motion? And a second. So moved and seconded. Moved by someone. Ortega? Seconded by someone.

Call their own. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Roll Call

Five to zero that bill's passed. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Now, Assemblyman Bryan, if you are ready, please come up to present file item 17, AB 2664.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and colleagues. Today I rise to present AB 2664 a bill that would clarify family reunification timelines in the child welfare system. Once a child is removed from their parents' care and enters the custody of the court, parents typically have 18 months before their parental rights are permanently terminated and they are forever separated from their child.

In most cases, the court will order the parent to complete family reunification services within that 18 months to assist with rehabilitation and to work towards a safe reunification for the child. However, a recent appellate court decision has led to some confusion about when the timeline begins and ends.

In that case, a child was temporarily detained but soon after returned home with no orders for removal and no reunification services provided or required. Later, child welfare officials removed the child 26 months later from the home and entered them into the foster care system, and terminated parental custody on the spot.

For families in these circumstances, uncertainty about timing can now lead to situations where court prematurely terminates parental rights because a judge determines the timeline for reunification begins at the initial temporary detainment, even though the child was not yet ordered into foster care, was still residing at home with the parent, and the parent was not receiving any reunification services in that time period. This runs counter to decades of General practice in the field. What we would like to do is codify that practice in state law.

Essentially, your 18-month shot clock or so shouldn't start until the court has ordered the child to be removed from your custody and ordered a reunification plan. Starting it any sooner than that date robs families of the valuable time they need to potentially heal and stay connected. With me to testify today is Julia Hannigan, a policy Director for dependency legal services, and Dave Schuster, a mentor with the Dependency Advocacy Center.

Thank you. Two minutes each witness, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon, honorable Chair and Members of this Committee. My name is Julia Hannigan and I'm the Policy Director for Dependency Legal Services. We represent parents and children in child welfare proceedings in six counties in California. We are co-sponsoring this Bill to ensure that families are not needlessly permanently separated. Dependency cases are controlled by timelines.

Parents are given a tiny window to reunify and up until recently, consensus was that if a child was temporarily detained but returned shortly thereafter with a family maintenance order at disposition, the 18-month timeline requirements were not triggered. The child had not been legally removed, nor had the final, sorry, formal foster care orders been made. This application of the law made sense with the statutory scheme. The timelines were meant to prevent children from languishing in foster care, and these children were not languishing in foster care.

They were home. Moreover, the standard for a temporary detention of a child is quite low. Children can be temporarily detained based on very little evidence, a mistranslation from a nurse that didn't really speak Spanish, or a substance abuse test that turned out to be a false positive. The protections that families have against these situations is the subsequent hearing requires the agency to actually prove that children cannot be with their parents by clear and convincing evidence.

The removal at those hearings is what triggers the application of the timeline. However, with Damien L., the court may now be required to consider these children residing at home on family maintenance as if they were in foster care for the 18-month timeline. Consequently, a future removal may mean permanent separation for the family without any opportunity to reunify.

It also presents a basic due process problem for the non-custodial parent who is not entitled to services while the children were at home with the custodial parent, but could be timed out of services without ever getting these services. We do not believe that this was the intent of the Legislature and we are asking for this fix to ensure that families get the help that they are entitled to. We thank you for your time and ask you for your Aye vote.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, honorable Chair Lee and Committee Members. My name is Dave Schuster and I work for the Dependency Advocacy Center as a mentor parent program manager. I have lived experience in the child welfare system as a parent whose child was removed and who successfully reunified. And now I support parents as they navigate juvenile dependency as they navigate their juvenile dependency case.

What I've learned working in the system for the past 12 years and having been in recovery now for 15 years is recovery is a difficult and unique process without set timelines. The essential part of recovery process is honesty and taking accountability and asking for help when needed. However, in some cases, when a parent does this, they pay the ultimate price. They lose the right to parent their children and the child loses the right to be parented by their parents.

This is a life sentence. Under the current law's interpretation, when a child is removed, even for just one day, and then quickly returned, the clock-free unification services continues to tick even though the child is with the parent and no reunification services are being provided. The recovery and change process is not always linear. Sometimes people do get it on the first try, but many don't. And however, long-term recovery is still possible with the right services and supports in place.

The current system encourages parents to hide their struggles and not ask for help when they may need it the most.

30 seconds.

This is in direct contrast to recovery model which promotes honesty, taking accountability and talking about your struggles, and asking for help. AB 2664 will clarify that when the child is returned to the parent at this position, this should be a subsequent removal. The parent or parents will still have the right of reunification services.

I have supported multiple parents who have been able to successfully reunify after services when ordered services following the 387 removal, even when they originally the non-custodial parent was not receiving services at family maintenance. Instead of giving up on these families, let's give them the ongoing support they need to change. Thank you for your time and I respectfully ask an Aye vote on 2664.

Thank you. And are there any members of the public in the hearing room who wish to testify in support? Please go to the microphone.

Yeah. Kevin Aslan, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, in strong support. Thank you.

Julie McCormick, proud co-sponsor from the Children's Law Center of California. Thank you.

Rachel Clift, law student, in support.

Thank you. Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Please come up to the microphone. Any witnesses in opposition? All right, seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Any questions or comments? All right, seeing none. I'll invite the author to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All of the literature shows that when we are able to provide the supportive network of resources and accountability that allows for families to stay whole, it's in the best interest of the family, the community, but most importantly, the child. The child welfare system has to be a last resort. And in this instance, the confusion is leading to where children are being permanently separated from their biological families without family reunification offerings, and without the potential for healing, for accountability, for restoration.

And that is counter to the goals that we've set as a state. This is a Bill that codifies best practices, has no opposition, and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. It is vital that all families involved with the child welfare service system are given adequate time to reunify. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward and your continued work on these issues. I am recommending an Aye vote. This Bill was moved by Assembly Member Gibson and seconded by Assembly Member Ortega. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File tem 17, AB 2664. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. [Roll call]

Five to zero, that bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Assemblymember Pellerin, if you would like to come up. Thank you for Members for being flexible and your patience. This is file item 19, AB 2866 by Assemblymember Pellerin.

Thank you. Thank you. I'm done. Okay, so thank you, Mister Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present AB 2866. This is actually a really critically important bill in my district. On Monday, October 2, 2023, 1-year-old Peyton Cobb and 18-month-old Lillian Hannon lost their lives in a horrific accident. These children were at a licensed home daycare located in San Jose when three toddlers accessed the swimming pool located on the premises that were unsupervised.

After being transported to the hospital in critical condition, two of the children were pronounced dead. I introduced AB 2866 to try and prevent this tragedy from ever happening again. The daycare had met the current requirements for pool safety. The pool was deemed safe under current safety standards by California code requirements. The current pool safety code regulations are outdated, having been enacted in 1996, the Swimming Pool Safety Act requires a two-stage safety system to be installed in a home pool.

However, the Swimming Pool Safety Act had left an exemption for any facility which was regulated by the State Department of Social Services, which includes daycare facilities, group homes, and senior facilities. The State Department of Social Services only requires a fence to prevent accidental drowning, the main issue arises from the potential hazards associated with a single safety mechanism. The ability for a single mechanism to be bypassed or a failure allows for a drowning hazard.

In the case of the daycarer responsible for Lillian and Peyton, the homeowner the previous night had bypassed the gate and propped it open. This resulted in the gate being unable to serve the intended safety function. AB 2866 will create a multifaceted safety requirement to update the existing standards to allow for better drowning prevention standards. The bill would require an updated safety requirement in addition to the fence that meet current standards, as well as either a pool cover or an alarm system.

This would create a two step system that, in the event of a failure of a secondary safety precaution, will be able to prevent a drowning. Additionally, AB 2866 will create a requirement for a daily assessment log to document that the pool at facilities are being secured by the two step system in accordance with the law before the center opens. Thank you for allowing me to present this bill to you today.

Thank you Assemblymember. Do you witness with you or not?

I'm not sure. I don't think they made it.

That's okay. Are there any members of the public who wish to testify and support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone.

Mister Chairman and Members John Norwood, on behalf of the California Pool and Spa Association and the Pool and Hot Tub Alliance National Association, we're pleased to support the bill. Thank you.

Tony Anderson with the Association of Regional Center Agencies, we support this bill. Thank you.

Now, are there any members of the public in this hearing room who wish to testify in opposition to this bill? Opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Calderon.

Yes, I'd just like to thank the author for bringing this bill forward, and I would love to be a co-author. Thank you.

Seeing none, Assemblymember Pellerin to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Updating swimming pool safety standards in daycare facilities. A lifesaving measure. While the installation of additional safety features may significantly increase costs for licensed child day care facilities, especially those in under-resourced communities, the benefits of these investments far outweigh the cost, which is preventing accidental drowning-related injuries and deaths. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I recommend aye vote, we don't yet have a motion second. The bill's been moved and seconded. Moved by Mr. Gibson. Seconded by Assemblymember Ortega.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 19, AB 2866. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Health Committee. [Roll Call]

5-0 that bill's out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you. Now, Assemblymember Zbur.

Miss, file M16 whenever you are ready, please proceed.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair, Members. I first want to thank the Committee for all its hard work and your staff and I would like to accept the congratulations. Committee's proposed amendments, AB 2477 will uplift our youth by allowing them to transition from foster care into adulthood with the chance to grow the best financial safety net. Existing law states that foster you that youth in foster care are only allowed to save up to $10,000 should their savings surpass this amount.

Youth may undergo a redetermination assessment and potentially lose their benefits due due to income or resource ineligibility. While many foster youth never accumulate that much in savings, some do, and having a financial safety net is something we should encourage foster youth to build. To help with this problem, new guidelines issued by the Department of Social Services have changed how the counties should look at existing law by allowing foster youth to save more than $10,000 without worrying about losing their support in foster care.

However, because this important policy clarification has not been codified in statute, busy caseworkers who are unaware of the nuance of this policy can still cite the $10,000 savings cap as a trigger for redetermination of eligibility. In addition, not having it in statute, the guidelines can change. AB 2477 clarifies ambiguities by aligning state law with recent departmental guidance, removing any suggestion that youth cannot accumulate cash assets while in foster care.

LGBTQ youth and children of color are overrepresented in our foster care system due to greater rates of family rejection and systemic inequalities. So this Bill is about increasing financial security and equity for all our youth in foster care and about the Legislature's duty to support marginalized populations under the state's care. With me today are Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth, and Kristin Power for the alliance for Children's Rights. Sponsors of the Bill provide additional information and assist with questions.

Thank you so much. Please proceed. Two minutes per witness.

Good afternoon, Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth, and we appreciate the work of the Committee staff with us and are grateful for the leadership of Assembly Member Zbur on this issue. Financial capability for all our young people transitioning to adulthood is important, but it's critical for our young people transitioning out of foster care who have already faced numerous other challenges. For youth who have experienced foster care.

Typically, they have greater economic hardships, like not having available resources to pay for housing, deposits, rent or utility bills, or buying a car for transportation to work or school. In one study of outcomes for our young people transitioning out of foster care, 45% of participants reported experiencing at least one of five material hardships during the past year, compared to 18% of their peers. In many families, young adults have a parent, extended family member or sibling that they can reach out to when they need assistance.

A strong and secure safety net can be the difference between a crisis being resolved are turning into a chronic stressor and this is a simple and effective measure and we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and Members Kristen Power at the Alliance for Children's Rights. We're pleased to co-sponsor AB 2477. As the Assembly Member noted, existing law states that youth in foster care can only save up to $10,000. While many youth in foster care can never accumulate that much in savings, some do. And of course, that's something we want to encourage. As you know, the cost of living in California is very high, and just one life crisis can set a youth back tens of thousands of dollars.

State law has been interpreted over the past decade to exclude youth from extended foster care once they hit the $10,000 mark. Luckily, the state guidance Assembly Member mentioned, released in 2022, clearly states the youth in foster care can save more than 10,000. But that important policy change has not really been codified into law and meaning that we have not made effective use of that policy change. To put a face on this issue, I'd like to share a story of one of our clients.

Alyssa is a single mother of two who recently exited the foster care system at the age of 21. She has struggled to maintain stable housing, childcare and unemployment because she was not able to save a financial safety net. To support her through that transition, AB 2477 would codify the state guidance and by an aligning statute with policy, ensure greater consistency and implementation so that we can support our youth as they transition out of foster care. Thank you.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any Members of the public who wish to add their support to this Bill? Please come up to the microphone.

Kevin Aslanian and Coalition California Welfare Rights Organization strong support. Thank you.

Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center on Law and Poverty and support.

Craig Pulser for Equality California in support.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Kutzona here on behalf of the California Academy for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in support. Thank you.

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

Amanda Kirchner, CWD and support good evening.

My name is Carolyn Travis. I am representing California Youth Connection as well as myself as a former foster youth who received payment. This is critical because I had to pay over $10,000 simply to secure a one bedroom, one bathroom apartment on my own as a foster youth and being able to save silk payments past 10,000 will be essential to ending chronic homelessness amongst foster youth. Thank you.

Hi, everyone. Christopher Hernandez, California Youth Connection in support.

Hi, my name is Kate. I'm with California Youth Connection. Currently one of the CYC Members that I work with is being harassed by her caseworker because she has saved over $10,000 and currently, as she's 20 and getting ready to exit foster care. She was preparing for this by saving money and her caseworker is threatening to exit her early and so ask for support in this Bill. It's critical that people be able to save up in order to for life after foster care. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Now, are there any witnesses in opposition in the room? Please come forward to the mic in opposition. Seeing none, do we have any questions, comments from the Committee Members? All right, I'll invite the Assembly Member to close, the author to close.

Thank you very much I asked for an aye vote.

It is important that there are no, there are not inconsistencies in the information. Youth are being told about the amount they can keep in their savings. And it's crucial that we do what we can to support youth with a successful transition to Independence. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I remember what it was like a couple years ago to finally have $10,000 in my savings account so I can understand the monumental achievement it is for foster youth to do the same thing.

I'm recommending an I vote. It has already been moved by Senator Gipson, seconded by Senator Ortega. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Roll Call

Five is zero. That Bill is out. We will leave the roll open for absent Members.

Thank you very much.

Senator Gipson, would you like to present your Bill? This will be file item 10.

Thank you very much. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2141. Thank you for moving this Bill. This is a real common sense Bill. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote and defer to my witness for testimony in support of the Bill.

I'm with Coalition California.

One second, please. Senator Gibson, do you accept the Committee amendments?

I do. And thank the Committee for working hard on this Bill.

Thank you so much. Now your witness, please. Two minutes.

Okay. Again, my name is Kevin Aslan, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations. And it's kind of perplexing that a lot of people get their money on the EBT card, then it gets skimmed, and there's about $60 million a year that is being skimmed. So this Bill would basically make sure to tell people that they have an option. If they have an account, they could have that direct deposit.

Just like my paycheck and your paycheck is direct deposited, CalWORKs recipients should have the same opportunity and we ask for an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other members of the public who wish to add their support to this Bill? Please come up to the microphone.

Hi, Gabby Davidson with the California Association of Food Banks in support.

Thank you.

Rebecca Gonzales, Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Monica Miller, representing the National Council of Jewish Women LA Chapter in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, do we have any Members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to the Bill? Please come forward.

Good afternoon. Eileen Cubanski again with the county Welfare Directors Association. I just want to start by saying that the comments I'm about to make are the version of the Bill in print. We have a copy of the amendments and are looking at those and going over them with our counties to see if those address our concerns.

So just wanted to let you know that this all may be outdated, but our issues with the Bill are with respect specifically to the general assistance requirements that are in the Bill. State law does require counties to offer general assistance to residents, but the law also provides explicitly for individual county discretion in terms of the amount, duration, and local rules for receiving general assistance. We read the current language of the Bill is requiring us now to provide a direct deposit option for recipients of GA.

And that is the crux of our concerns around the costs associated with that requirement and the imposition of those kind of statewide mandates around that program. With that, again, we are looking at the recent language and hope that that addresses our concerns.

Any other Members of the public wish to express their opposition to the Bill? Please come forward to the microphone.

Good afternoon. Josh Gogger on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and Rural County Representatives of California also opposed.

Thank you. Now bringing back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Vice Chair Essayli.

So it costs more money to direct deposit into people's accounts than it is to print and mail a card?

Right now. Not all counties offer direct deposit for general assistance, so we'd have to establish that, help recipients set up those accounts. And it's the notification requirements around their right to have a direct deposit option. It is dictating to counties how they have to provide the benefits, and that's somewhere the cost is.

The amendments basically leave it at county option so there's no cost. It's up to them.

Oh, so now it's optional?

It's optional, absolutely. Yeah.

I just think long term it makes sense to get away from plastic and mail and all that stuff, and so I was just confused by that.

We do not disagree and we are simply looking to preserve the county ability to have flexibility and discretion in terms of how they operate these General assistance programs.

Okay, thank you. No other questions.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none. I'll invite the author to close.

Thank you very much. Assembly Bill 2141 will expand the ability of direct deposit for general assistance beneficiaries. It would also require the county Department of Human Assistance to inform applicants of their particular options. Again, I think the amendments will address the opposition's concerns. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote with this Bill, Assembly Bill 2141.

Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I understand EBT skimming is a big problem for recipients and counties and desire for direct deposit to be used as an alternative. However, EBT cards offer protections against bank fees, so it is imperative that we make sure recipients are aware of their choice to use an EBT card or direct deposit. I appreciate Senator Gipson's office working with the Committee on the amendments that I think will address some of the concerns you heard today.

So with that, I am recommending Aye vote as amended. I already. And the Bill has been moved by Assembly Member Calderon, seconded by Assembly Member Ortega. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 10, AB 2141. The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Five to zero. That bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Members, we will now move on to the consent calendar. The consent calendar has been moved by Assembly Member Gipson, second by Assembly Member Calderon. Madam Secretary, can you please read the consent calendar and then we'll take a vote.

File item one, AB 1808, by Stephanie Nguyen. Do pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. File item two, AB 1876. Jackson, do pass to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. File item nine, AB 2108. Ramos, do pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. File item 12, AB 2317. Stephanie Nguyen do pass to the Assembly Education Committee.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar is out. I'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Members. Thank you for sticking through it. zero, and we're gonna do. Thank you. I was gonna say thank you for the Members who have stuck around. We're gonna do vote add ons for Members who are present. So, Madam Secretary, please call the roll for absent Members.

[Roll Call]

All right. We will leave the roll open for absent Members, but we can call the roll once again for Assemblymember Ta.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. I will allow for five more minutes for Members to add on. This is for the Assembly. Human service Committee is complete. The hearing is not yet. Well, I'll leave it open. Okay. I will allow for five more minutes for Members to add on. Okay.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll for the absent Member.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We will continue to leave the roll open. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. The Assembly Human Service Committee is complete. The hearings now adjourned.