Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

The Senate Human Services Committee will come to an order. Good afternoon, everyone. We are holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building, room 2200. I will ask that all Members of our Committee come to be present so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. I also ask for any authors that are going to be heard here today to come forward so that we can get down to business. We have 11 bills on today's agenda, and two of those are on proposed consent.

So before we hear the presentation of our bills, let us establish a quorum today. Assistant, please call our roll.

[Roll Call]

All right. We have a quorum present. Thank you so much. We will. We have two bills on proposed consent calendar. File item five, Senate Bill 1322. And file item six, Senate Bill 1443. Do any Members wish to remove bills from our consent? No. Okay. We will now take up bills on consent. Do we have a motion for the consent calendar? Thank you. Moved by Senator Menjivar. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

So, looking for authors, I see Senator Roth is in the audience, and we will hear item number three, Senate Bill 1249. Senator Roth, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. This Bill, Senate 1249, seeks to address the needs of California's rapidly aging population by modernizing California's older Californians act. Specifically, the Bill proposes to reform the OCA to conform to recent changes in federal regulations which implement the federal Older Americans Act and introduce accountability and performance measures, update governance structures, and establish timeframes for the California Department of Aging to engage in stakeholder consultation. By 2030, one in four Californians will be aged 60 or older.

This dramatic demographic shift, as well as the changing needs of families and communities, requires that we re examine how the current system delivers aging services. This system was built in silos without an eye toward planning for the future. Today, we recognize the importance of integrating healthcare, social services, housing, and transportation, all of which are critical to meeting the needs of older adults and their families. Aging services do not and should not any longer be handled in a silo format.

Currently, aging services are delivered by 33 area agencies on aging, AAA, covering all 58 counties. The network was first put in place nearly 50 years ago, when the older adult population was in fact much smaller and less diverse. As noted in the Committee analysis, under current law, there are no defined core services that an area agency on aging must provide, nor are there any metrics to track the effectiveness of these services.

This has led to a patchwork of inconsistent services that does not fully serve California's rapidly growing older population. This Bill modernizes and strengthens the system, providing services to our aging population in the following ways. One, it conforms the Older Californians act to the federal Older Americans Act, ensuring our state is in full compliance.

Two, it requires the California Department of Aging to develop on or before September 2026, in consultation with area agencies on aging and stakeholders, key new provisions, including a performance measurement methodology, core programs and services, a funding formula, and a statewide engagement plan to improve outreach to underrepresented populations and underserved communities.

In appropriate cases and in accordance with federal regulations, it gives counties the option, starting in January 2025, to petition the Department to assume control of the area agency on aging that serves the local jurisdiction, where such control would provide counties the opportunity to better integrate aging programs with other county provided services such as IHSS, adult protective services, behavioral health, veteran services, among others. This would involve an extended process with significant public transparency and input, and a transition period. At a minimum, prior to any change.

There's no on and off switch. The full and fair public process will ensure that any action taken will only be taken if it is in the best interests of older adults to do so. The intent is to ensure that changes, if any, will be noticed with adequate time, due process and appeals again, at its core, Senate Bill 1249 focuses on ensuring that older adults receive the most coordinated care delivered by the entity that would serve them the best, and I believe that that addresses the opposition letter that the Committee received fairly recently. With that, at the appropriate time, I would request and I vote.

I'm pleased to have here with me today to testify in support of the Bill and answer any questions. The sponsor of Senate Bill 1249, immediate past President and current Commissioner of the California Commission on Aging, Ellen Schmeeding, as well as my constituent and the Director of the Riverside County office on Aging, Julie Lee.

We'll now move on to lead witnesses and support. We're going to hear from these two witnesses for a total of two minutes each. Thank you so much for coming forward. I'll have you state your name and your affiliation prior to beginning.

Okay, I'm Ellen Schmeeding and I'm with the California Commission on Aging.

I'm Jule Lee, and I'm the Director for Riverside County office on Aging, an area agency in aging.

Sorry about that, Julie. I think our microphone was off there. We'll begin with your colleague here first, and then when we go to you, we'll have you repeat. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm Ellen Schmeeding, representing the California Commission on Aging. I'm the immediate past President and a current Commissioner, and I'm here in support of SB 1249. This is sponsored by Senator Roth. As you know, I have 28 years of experience and worked as the former Chief Operating Officer with St. Paul senior services and the Director of the AAA in San Diego. county. In that role.

In those roles, I've seen the pressing challenges that are facing older Californians, and they require a new way of thinking. Challenges we have, like housing, homelessness, behavioral health, and increasing rates of Alzheimer's and dementia. SB 1249 will modernize California's network of aging services, something I've been advocating for my entire career, to ensure that all of our older Californians and their families have access to consistent, high quality services and supports.

The bill's provisions build on years of stakeholder engagement, resulting in our master plan for aging, the state's 10 year blueprint. In 2022, the Department of Aging convened key area agency on Aging and county stakeholders, including the Commission, to launch the California 2030 initiative. More than 200 stakeholder interviews were held, with all 33 AAA's in the state participating in the process. This Bill responds to the 2030 feedback and provides timely recommendations.

Our current planning and service area boundaries were last adjusted in the late seventies, when the state's population over 65 was just 10% and the majority of our elders were white caucasian. We now have a demographic imperative to ensure the current diversity of our population is reflected in the services we provide.

This Bill responds to new federal regulations that direct the Department to identify core services, create performance metrics, focus on those with the greatest social and economic need, and develop policies and procedures that affirm the critical role of local government in providing aging services. We're on a timeframe. These changes have to go into state law by October 1, 25. I would like to thank Senator Roth for prioritizing older adults and their families by authoring SB 1249. And I asked the Committee for an I vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll move to our second witness, and please state your name and affiliation.

Good afternoon. My name is Jule Lee, Director of Riverside County Office on Aging, an area agency on aging thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Jule again, Director of the Riverside County office on Aging. I'm pleased to testify today in support of SB 1249, and I would like to begin with my personal experience as a local AAA Director.

The aging population in the Inland Empire is growing faster than any other region in the state and with more complex health and social needs than ever. We saw these complexities play out during the pandemic as we struggled with enormous challenges to deliver services to people who lived in isolation due to language, rural locations and medical conditions. These adversities pushed us, our AAA, out of our comfort zone, compelled us to be agile and to find solutions.

Over the past two years in Riverside County, our leadership has prioritized the one county service integration approach, model a modernization for our area agency on aging. As a result, we now have a much deeper partner pool that includes human services, health departments, and first responders working together to find upstream solutions. Corridor AAA is sustaining the evolution, partnership and innovations heart fought from the pandemic. Although we have served approximately 100,000 individuals last year, this is merely scratching the surface.

For these reasons, we are incredibly grateful to Senator and the legislation for your focused attention on the aging population. We embrace the changes proposed in this Bill and would like to highlight that. Equally important are efforts to break funding sources among state programs so we can open doors, more doors for seniors who are homeless, medically fragile, or at an economic breaking point. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your I vote on this Bill.

Thank you so much. We will now move to witnesses in support. Any Members of the public coming to express their support, please approach the microphone with your name, affiliation and position only, please.

Kelly Brooks, on behalf of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors here in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. Tony Gonzalez, on behalf of the California chapter of the Home Care Association of America, in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Jason Gapart. On behalf of the Alzheimer's Association in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Yasmin Pellet, on behalf of justice and aging in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Debbie Meader, with the Commission on Aging and strong support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Madam Chair Members Monica Miller, on behalf of Alzheimer's La Alzheimer's Orange County, and Alzheimer's San Diego, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. I will hear two witnesses for a total of two minutes and ask you to please come forward to the table. You might want to stay just in case we have questions. Yes. Okay.

Clay Kemp, Executive Director of the Seniors Council, which is the AAA of Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties.

Thank you.

Will Tift, Assistant Director, Area 4 Agency on Aging, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties.

Excellent. Thank you. Okay. You can begin when you're ready. Two minutes, please.

We're impromptu speakers. We did not know we were going to represent the group. There's quite a few people here voicing their opposition as well. A couple things. I'm the Senior Director of AAAs in the state right now. I've been in this role for about 25 years, and one of the things that I'm most concerned about is that JPAs and nonprofits have been the innovators in aging since the onset of this, and there's flexibility that we have that county-based organizations don't have.

So we embrace looking at the map and looking at potential changes, but we're concerned that, if anything, the bill, despite its good intentions, is having the counter effect of really promoting innovation and letting that happen. So that's our biggest concern, and we think that is tied into the opportunity for the state to set statewide priorities in aging. That's totally backwards from innovation.

The way innovation happens and what happens now is local agencies have control of the dollars that come in, and we measure what the needs are in our community. Looking at the difference between a rural community and an urban community, the differences are vast, and it's really one of the beauties of the federal Older Americans Act. It's something USAging is championing in the reauthorization of the new Older Americans Act, and we want to make sure that's not lost in this proposal.

This proposal does take that away. Given I don't want to take up a whole lot of time, but there's two really important parts that I think are kind of overlooked besides that loss of local flexibility, and it's kind of casually measured in the bill that California Department of Aging will revise the interstate funding formula. That will not be an easy task. The whole formula came about when California Department of Aging was actually sued to create one.

And what happened after that was a series of lawsuits and legislation to kind of make it final. Those took ten years to resolve. It started in 1990. When I first became a director in 2000, it was still--the lawsuits and legal action was still raging on.

I'm going to ask you to wrap up, okay?

I will. So please don't burden the last six years of Master Plan for Aging with this. And then just my final comment: this is the Mello-Granlund Act, and Senator Henry Mello is a champion of aging, and this act was his pride and joy. A friend of mine who worked for him recently said they're glad Henry's gone, because if he saw this legislation, it would kill him.

Thank you. We'll move on to our second witness. Two minutes, please.

Our objection to this bill is really centered around the language that counties will have the ability to assume control of the existing Agency on Aging in their jurisdiction. This is prejudicial towards county governance. It assumes that any county is more capable of administering an Agency on Aging, regardless of their size, their experience, their resources. If county governance was the answer, then why don't we have, instead of two of our richest counties represented here in San Diego and Riverside, El Dorado County and Imperial?

If this is the view that this is what equity looks like, that Imperial sitting next to San Diego, that we're doing it right there, those are county-based Agencies on Aging, and they're struggling greatly. We operate historically at ten percent administration. Counties operate at 30 percent or higher administration. We can get something on our agenda in 30 days or less. Our colleagues from county-based AAAs: three months or longer. We're three times faster, we're three times cheaper. How does this bill benefit the public? It does not.

Thank you so much. I'm now going to invite members of the public in opposition wishing to be heard to come to the front microphone and share their name, affiliation, and position only. This is opposition.

Good afternoon. Meghan Rose with LeadingAge California. We do not have an official opposed position, but we do have serious concerns with the bill and its implications on service coordination in rural counties specifically. So we look forward to working with the author and the sponsors on some safeguards there. Thank you.

Thank you. Name, affiliation, and position only, please.

Yes. My name is Aneliza Del Pinal. I'm here representing Sourcewise, 501 nonprofit designated as an Area Agency in Santa Clara County. We oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Jamie Sharma, Executive Director of the Fresno-Madera Area Agency on Aging, and we oppose unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi. Kristin Millhoff, Director of Area 12 Agency on Aging that represents Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Mariposa, and Tuolumne Counties, and we oppose this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Sarah Martinez. I'm a regional service specialist with Agency on Aging Area 4, and we oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Joe Cobery, Director of Passages Planning and Service Area 3, representing Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Plumas, and Tehama Counties. We oppose this bill.

Thank you. Okay, we will now bring the discussion to the Members. Any Members wishing to ask questions or make any comments at this time? Senator Blakespear?

Yes. I would just like to ask the author to respond to some of the concerns.

Well, in the first--thank you, thank you, through the Chair--in the first place, what we're doing here is we're implementing federal action and a federal set of regulations. Remember, these programs really haven't been reviewed in what, 50 years in the way we've structured them?

With respect to counties assuming control, remember, the bill gives the counties the option to petition to have their request to assume Area Agency on Aging functions considered, and there's a full process built out in the bill and--or will be built out in regulations to ensure that there's full public participation and dialogue on that issue. My recollection from the original language of years ago is counties had an opportunity to opt in, but it was with respect to new programs, not with respect to existing programs.

So this extends the county opportunity to request through a petition the ability to opt in with an existing program. Now, I would say this, nothing in this bill forces or requires that there be any change in the way these area aging services are delivered, whether it's by nonprofits, joint powers, authorities, or whatever. What it does hopefully bring about is a review of the way we're delivering aging services because things may have changed, may have changed in particular, counties may have changed up and down the state.

And this will allow there to be a review of the way we've delivered services in the past, and for those who are making these decisions, the opportunity to decide whether we can better integrate those services with the other social services programs that we have in place in the state, as I indicated before--IHSS, adult protective services, behavioral health services--many of which are administered at the county level, some through contracts, some directly by the county.

And lastly, to respond to the innovation piece, the last thing any of us want to do is to stifle innovation, but I believe, and people have heard me say this before in other settings, you know, in the military, we said 'what gets measured gets done.'

I believe we need to develop a series of performance metrics with input from the public, full transparency, an opportunity for stakeholders to come in and express their views as we develop this set of performance metrics to measure what is being done at the local level and whether it measures up, so to speak, to the policies that we set at the state and federal level with respect to the way older adults are treated, handled, and serviced.

So just to put the pin on it, this in no way discourages or stifles innovation at the local level, because frankly, at the end of the day, if the existing structure, the Area Agencies on Aging--let's assume they're nonprofit--are delivering exactly what we need as a result of this review, that's exactly what should continue in the future. There's no predetermined result here. Thank you for the question.

Thank you, Senator Roth. Any other Members wishing to ask questions or comments? Thank you, Senator Wahab. All right. I do have a few questions for clarification, Senator Roth. I will also just acknowledge that the official opposition letter came in fairly late, and so I want to make sure that one: those of you who are here to share your concerns are heard. I also want to just acknowledge there's a process for us to evaluate these fairly and to be able to discuss them.

So I just want to thank you for being here today. We will talk about some of these, but our goal is to push forward policy that is not one-size-fits-all, but that works for all, and acknowledging that California is a very diverse state, I, for one, represent 13 rural counties, and unfortunately, this letter that we received kind of late in the game was my first awareness of opposition from rural communities on this bill.

So that tells me that we have a gap in communication, right? So I am looking at some of the issues that are brought up in this letter of opposition. I am confident that Senator Roth, the author, has addressed those and has been mindful of those. I will say this, that in looking at the letter of this policy, there is an option for the county to engage and to take control.

And that for me is local control, giving the counties that ability to choose to do so. And looking at their relationship with their community-based organizations and looking at their relationship with their constituents, their demographics, I think all of that for me is very important because I tend to not support one-size-fits-all policy. Being that many of the counties that I represent, the opposition is in the room today, I'm going to ponder on this one, but I will tell you that this is the first Committee that is hearing this.

If we are to pass it, it will go to another Committee, and I have full faith that the author would be willing to work with the opposition in ensuring that our rural communities are heard. So thank you. Senator Roth, would you like to close?

Well, I appreciate your time and patience here. Let me just say this: the bill and the law requires the CDA to consult with the Area Agencies on Aging and all stakeholders to determine what next steps are taken. So there is going to be absolute transparency, clear due process, and thoughtful consideration before anyone makes any decision in any way.

And I can just reiterate in particular, in the rural counties and the counties in the north and some in the central and perhaps now where I come from, counties may find themselves woefully unprepared to take on these tasks, but we still need to have the review process, so it very well may be that the Area Agencies on Aging that I'm sure are doing a spectacular job up and down the state continue to do that very spectacular job and with some performance metrics that are built in and maybe some integration improvement with the other services that the counties do provide.

So it is not my intent to undermine or do away with any nonprofit or any other Area Agency on Aging that is performing service in this state, but we do need to have a conversation. It needs to be done in the context of the federal law and regulation and this bill.

And we do need some performance metrics to measure whether what's being done measures up to what we expect as a state and what the federal government expects as a state as a result of money provided with respect to services to our older adults, often those who are most vulnerable, who need our help the most. So with that, again, thank you, Madam Chair, for your patience. Respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator Roth. The bill has been moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is to--it was aye, right? To move the bill, thank you. Thank you. All right, Assistant, please call the roll.

File Item Three: SB 1249: do pass to Governmental Organization Committee. [Roll Call].

Oh, that bill moves to call. I just want to thank everybody again. This bill will be heard again in Government Organization. I'm also a Member of that Committee, so I please--I encourage the opposition to continue to work with the author. Okay? Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members.

Thank you. I see Senator Durazo. Oh, I see Senator Gonzalez. Hello, Senator Gonzalez. We will move forward now with item number one, Senate Bill 1016, Senator Gonzalez. please begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I am here to present SB 1016, which will help uncover trends and disparities that are often hidden in aggregated health data, data for Latinos and indigenous Mesoamericans Latinos make up 40% of the good state of California's population.

However, within the Latino community, there are several ethnic groups that have diverse health outcomes. These distinctions hide in the monolithic term of Latino, which leads to less detailed and nuanced health information. SB 1016 will address these shortcomings by requiring the Department of Public Health and the Department of Social Services to collect and release disaggregated data for specified Latino subgroups, including Mexican, Salvadoran, Guatemalan, each major mesoamerican indigenous nation, and others similar to what we've done to the API community testifying in support of this measure.

Today I have Mar Velez with the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California and Antonia with comunidades Indigenous Enliderrasco Clo. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 1016.

Thank you so much. We'll now move to our lead witnesses and support. We will hear from each of you for two minutes each, and please state your name, and when you're ready, please go.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the Committee. My name is Mar Velez, Director of policy with the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. The US Census Bureau recently reported that over one in four Americans are likely to be Latino by 2060. With our growing population, it is critical that California, the state with the largest Latino population at 40%, understand the diversity and specific health needs of our community.

This is why LCHC is a proud cosponsor of SB 1016, authored by Senator Lena Gonzalez, which will collect and disaggregate anonymous demographic and language data for Latinx subgroups and indigenous mesoamerican nations in California. The goal of SB 1016 is to uncover and reduce underlying health disparities, both clinical and those related to social determinants health, such as housing for Latino and indigenous nations in California. Research shows that more specific, high quality demographic data is beneficial to address and effectively meet the health needs of diverse populations.

Latinos are more likely to have multiple underlying chronic conditions like asthma and diabetes. More specific data could allow public health departments and health systems to provide culturally competent and responsive care and information to address these disparities. California must also start collecting specific data for indigenous Mesoamerican nations in California who do not identify as Latino and who speak more than 560 languages.

During the pandemic Indigenous Mesoamericans were also disproportionately impacted, as many are essential workers, such as farmworkers, but face language barriers to access timely and reliable health information on COVID and on life saving vaccines. SB 1016 will collect data on Mesomerican indigenous languages, which will assist in increasing equitable access and utilization of healthcare programs and social services like CalFresh. SB 1016 highlights and brings awareness to our unique and diverse differences and ensures health equity for indigenous and Latinas across California.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote for SB 1016, and my colleague Antonia will provide her testimony in Spanish and I can interpret.

Thank you for being here. [Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

So good afternoon, members of the Committee. My name is Antonia Velazquez, Maya Kʼicheʼ , interpreter of the Kʼicheʼ language from Comunidades Indigenas en Liderazgo, also known as CIELO based in Los Angeles. That advocates for linguistic rights for indigenous migrants in California and throughout the United States. Cielo is a proud co sponsor of SB 1016, authored by Senator Lena Gonzalez. Having specific high quality demographic data is vital to meeting the health needs of indigenous populations in California who contribute to our state's economy.

I have interpreted situations where mothers are afraid to apply for Calfresh because they believe they may be a public charge and that their children will pay the consequences later because they do not obtain the correct information in their native languages. We have the right to request information and an interpreter in our language. They are human rights. We also saw the consequences of not having information in our languages during COVID-19 the COVID-19 pandemic.

In response, CIELO began collecting data which confirmed 17 indigenous languages spoken and living in Los Angeles County. This information allowed us to deliver the best service to indigenous communities. Lastly, you cannot assume that everyone who comes from south of the border speaks Spanish or that everyone is Latino because it erases indigenous communities. We do not exist if we do not exist in numbers, we do not exist at all. I respectfully ask for your aye vote for SB 1016.

Thank you so much. We'll now hear from Members of the public wishing to express their support for this Bill. Please come to the microphone. State your name, affiliation, and position only, please.

Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western center on Law and Poverty and strong support at this Bill. Thank you.

Jhonny Pineda, on behalf of the Latino Coalition for Healthy California and more than 40 nonprofit organizations in support of SB 1016. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Jared call with Nourish California in strong support.

Thank you.

Susanna Kniffin with Children Now in support. Thank you.

Jennifer Snyder with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the California life sciences, in support.

Thank you.

Christopher Sanchez with the Mesaverde group on behalf of the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations.

Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move forward to lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have any opposition? All right, seeing none, any members of the public wishing to express their opposition to this Bill? Okay, seeing none, I'll move the conversation back up to the members.

Yasmin Peled, on behalf of justice and aging, in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Senator Wahab then Senator Menjivar.

Thank you. First, I want to thank the Senator for bringing this up. I also want to thank the witnesses for stating the reasons why. The commentary about if you don't exist in numbers, you don't exist at all is very true. As I often say, I'm a minority amongst minorities, falling in the Asian category, but largely African Americans are not included in anything.

In fact, our numbers get diluted because many of our community members either mark White, not of caucasian descent, other Asian, and so much more so I understand that this is very much needed, especially when we're talking about communities that need services and are often overlooked because the larger, broader community is potentially doing well.

So, for example, I often speak about it in the sense of, you know, if we talk the broader Asian community, we all come to this country and potentially have different outcomes and circumstances that we live in.

Some of us may have, you know, family members that have come to this country or live in this country without being literate, without, you know, speaking English, without any formal education, without a number of other things, while other members of the broader community could potentially come here on a work visa, be fully supported by financially, have a job set up, have, you know, different types of visas set up and so forth.

So I think it's incredibly important that when we're talking about the most vulnerable communities, to get deeper and deeper into the communities, so I fully appreciate this Bill, I fully appreciate the work that you've done to kind of highlight this need, and I'll move the Bill when appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Menjivar.

I think Senator Hobbs going to move all the bills.

I think so, too.

She's going to beat us.

Isn't she a guest on our.

She is a guest.

Okay. Special guest today. Senator, thank you so much for bringing this Bill forward. In fact, just a couple days ago, our, well, you have Long beach public health, but LA County Public Health came out with their new survey. Right. And it gave three different demographics, Black, Asian, and Latinx.

And to the Senator's point, they said that the Asian Americans as a whole have better health outcomes, but because they're not breaking it down by each subcategory, and under Latinx, they just group all Latinx as a whole. And, you know, you and I both know there's a little country in Central America that is often forgotten. Right. El Salvador. And it's very important that we include all demographics. So thank you so much for bringing this Bill forward. Thank you.

As you know, I have deep affection for Salvadorians, so.

Yes

Thank you. Senator, would you like to close?

I just want to thank our special guest and our good Senator from Los Angeles for their comments. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Senate Bill 1016 has been moved by Senator Wahab. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Menjivar aye. Wahab. Wahab aye.

4-0. That bill moves to call. Thank you so much. Thanks for being here. We'll move forward to item number two, Senate Bill 1107. Senator Durazo, when you are ready. See you at the podium. You're welcome. Do you have any members witnesses here today? If you do, they can come and go ahead and sit down here, and that'll get us going.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members, I first want to thank the chair and your committee staff for working with our staff on this legislation. And I commit to taking the proposed amendments outlined in the analysis that will narrow the definition of government related mail. SB 1107 will provide an option for unhoused Californians to receive and pick up their government related mail at a county Department of Social Services office.

Currently, government agencies rely on the United States Postal Service to deliver important mail to Californians without a reliable mailing address through general delivery. This free service provides access to mail delivered to a local post office designated as a general delivery, and that could vary from county to county. For example, San Francisco has one general delivery post office. As an alternative, Californians without a permanent address have also relied on receiving their mail at county social services offices.

In some limited counties, San Bernardino, Sacramento, and Los Angeles, you could see from various sizes Californians to receive public benefits receive notices and access of services through the mail, including the electronic benefit transfer cards, recertification of public benefits, and notices of housing programs, amongst others. Notices for these documents often require people to respond in a timely manner. If not, their benefits or services could be interrupted or cut off.

Unfortunately, these services are often unreliable without set rules and standards, and they have contributed to unhoused people having no access or very long delays to receiving their services, not something that we can afford. The impacts of not having a reliable mailing address are detrimental to Californians who are in need and access to critical social safety net programs. Without set standards that expand access to receiving mail, this shortcoming can potentially impact an estimated thousands of unhoused Californians who would lose benefits or have access disrupted.

This bill provides assurance for unhoused Californians to receive their government related mail by requiring that counties develop programs to ensure such residents have a designated place to receive and pick up correspondence. This will provide unhoused Californians with an option to reliable and consistent access to critical safety net services, programs and other important government related mail.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm committed to narrowing the definition of what is acceptable government related mail and will continue to work to address the concerns regarding the capacity of county staff to implement this with limited resources. With me to testify today is Christopher Sanchez, one of our sponsors, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, to provide testimony and answers.

Thank you so much, Senator. When you're ready, please state your name, affiliation, and two minutes for your testimony today.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Verde group representing the co sponsors, the Western Center on Poverty and the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations. First want to thank the committee staff for working with the author and us as sponsors once again this year to ensure that we're able to to get this legislation right.

As you may be aware, the post office is not the same as it was in the past for multiple reasons, but certain services that have helped those without a mailing address, such as on house Californians, are not being provided, are not prioritized at the post office, such as what the Senator has spoken about which has ultimately been the one way folks have connected to our state social safety net programs. Unfortunately, under several administrations, the post office is closing our cutting hours, making this reality more inaccessible.

Last year, the Western Center on Law and Poverty published a report on this topic that showed not having a mailing address further disenfranchises those who are trying to access public benefits. The report found that not having a centralized mailing address created a lot of problems, especially those who are attempting to comply with requests that are sent through the mail from social service programs that they're enrolled in or by the county, or in some cases even the court system.

When people have successfully enrolled into these programs, it's important that we actually make sure they're actually connected to these programs, that they're actually able to get their driver's license or their EBT card. Thank you, Madam Chair. And it's for these reasons we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you so much. And we will now move it. To members of the public wishing to express support for this bill, please come forward to the microphone. State your name, affiliation and position only, please.

Good afternoon again. Jared Call with Nourish California, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we'll now give time to the opposition to come forward. Any witnesses in opposition welcome. You'll have two minutes for your testimony. If you can just state your name and affiliation before you start.

Thank you very much. Eileen Cubanski with the County Welfare Directors Association here in opposition to this bill. Regretfully, providing mail services for unhoused individuals is going to present significant and costly operational challenges. And it's not just staffing, although that is absolutely a significant concern. We have other capacity constraints, including physical capacity, security, privacy.

Managing the mail, it's no small undertaking and would require significant amount of additional funding for the additional space for the mail collection, the sorting, the mailboxes themselves, the adequate security, particularly for our larger urban counties. The proposed program also increases liability for claims of lost, misplaced or delayed mail. This would result in additional costs to counties. Some counties human services agencies do offer limited mail services, but they're for clients of programs that we already operate for those programs. And so this bill greatly expands that mandate.

And given the fiscal challenges that we're experiencing at all levels of government, county human services agencies simply do not have the financial, staffing or structural capacity at this time to implement this bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now open it up to members of the public wishing to express their opposition. Name, affiliation and position.

Cathy Brooks, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California and the urban counties of California also in opposition. Thank you.

All right, we'll now bring the conversation back to our members, questions. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. So I have historically worked with the unhoused population significantly, and I also understand that a lot of the unhoused individuals also work with nonprofits, that sometimes, you know, they use their address and so forth. Also, I just want to make it very clear to the larger public that the counties are responsible for the social services of that particular county, whether that's housing, whether that's food banks, whether that's, you know, a lot of different things. And each county is very different.

And I'm under the impression, obviously, Senator Durazzo clearly stated that she is narrowing scope as much as possible to make this a viable option. I think it's incredibly important to support efforts like this. And the reason I'm going to give an example in our county, which is not necessarily a rural county, when we had COVID testing and COVID information and so forth, a lot of it was done online.

And communities of color, immigrant communities, disenfranchised communities and so forth could not even necessarily apply to get a COVID shot because they did not have access to internet or so forth and much more. I think that there are ways to make things accessible to the larger public, and that's something that we can talk about in regards to process, for example, our local libraries, our local cities, partnerships that the county already has with a lot of these agencies and locations that are spread throughout the county, right.

In rural areas as well as more metro suburban areas. So I really do appreciate this effort and trying to prioritize, you know, unhoused people deserve the dignity that all of us have and some of us take for granted. So I'll respectfully move the bill when appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other questions or comments? Thanks, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Kind of curious, Senator, because I believe I supported the similar bill or this bill last year prior to having opposition from the counties. But how have you envisioned how you're going to be able to facilitate the cost of implementing this bill, how it would be facilitated? Has there been a financial ask, a budget ask on this end to help facilitate the implementation of it?

Yeah, that's not, I haven't taken that up because this is the Policy Committee, so it's not been something I've asked for, and I don't know that anything has been promoted here. I do want to remind us that when there is such instability amongst the unhoused, that they could lose their benefits, have lost their benefits. How do they get back into the system is one of the big challenges for us resolving the unhoused.

The issue of unhoused, they cannot have instability when it comes to getting the services that they need. And so, you know, if they lose it then it's an even greater burden, I think on the administration of their benefits if they fall in or they fall out. So I think it's really important to also include that stability also means that there's less of a burden on the public services agencies.

So I just want to add that, that it's not just a flat out, it's going to cost us more. But think about how much is saved by having stability amongst the unhoused, being able to get the services that they need. There's housing, there's food, there's a lot of services that they need. And so I think that also needs to be taken into account. But this is not the Budget Committee and I want to address the policy ramifications.

No, and I completely respect that.

I was just going to curious as we look into our bills and we look into how do we facilitate it, how do they come into partition. It's one of the aspects that I think about is like, okay, how would we be able to finance the financial aim? Especially when I think about education. I'm huge on education and I think, okay, I would love for them to do this but how will they be able to implement it if we're not allocating additional funding?

So I'm just worried about an unfunded mandate is my concern.

I would just say also that counties like San Bernardino which is geographically big, Sacramento which is more medium sized than Los Angeles which is urban and massive, they have figured this out. They have all their forms, they provide that kind of stability when it comes to the males. I would search more with how they're doing it and they are providing it. I don't know if Mr Sanchez has anything else to add.

Yes, briefly Mr Sanchez, if you want to address the question.

Yes, just briefly. A lot of counties have something similar setup and I think San Bernardino happens to be a really great example, especially how large it is. So I think from our perspective the cost wouldn't be as, as significant as it might be good sounding because there is some type of system in place at most counties.

Human services agencies do have options, and many do provide physical mailboxes for clients of the programs that we operate. But this bill is beyond those programs. We have different ways of ensuring that the participants in the programs that we run have access to the documents and other important information that they need related to those specific programs. Those are clients of our programs. Those are known to us. This bill is much broader than that, and that's where our operational concerns are based.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh, any other questions from you?

No, I'm good. Thank you.

Thank you. So I do want to just acknowledge that the author has been working on this bill for quite some time, and thank you so much for being amenable to working with our consultants and with my office as well. I think you've gotten to a really great place. I also thank you for narrowing the scope. What I am seeing here is that this is government related mail that has to do with food and housing, legal documents, and state and federal benefits.

And I do understand that there are some federal benefits that are not administered at the county level. However, these are veterans benefits. These are benefits that are for basic housing and living expenses. And so I would just implore our counties to look at it from a wider lens. And although we are a state and we have our state benefits that we lead in how we treat our neighbors, how we treat our community, and how we treat our unhoused population, which has been increasing year after year.

So at some point, we have to put in some safety nets to ensure that access to food, housing, healthcare, legal documents is put in place. So I guess my question is, and this is a broad question, but perhaps you can help steer us. What will it take to give counties the confidence that they can implement this?

We are currently in the process of looking at what resources we would need to make something like this feasible for us. We have not completed that analysis yet, but can certainly get back to you. It's a new charge for county human services agencies. We've not done anything like this on a broad scale before and would need to take all of that into consideration, not just around the staffing, but obviously around the physical space needed, as well as other security and training concerns and so forth. So we are in the process of looking into all of that.

Making that assessment. Okay. Thank you so much. So our charge in this group, in this committee is to assess policy and help to steer that policy. From here, it does go to a Budget Committee that will be looking at this. So I encourage you to take some of the analysis to our Budget Committee and through the appropriations. So thank you so much. Would you like to close, Senator Durazo?

Just thank you all very much. We would like to continue our communication, our contact with the counties. We're not looking to make this so overburdensome that we can't do what's needed for the unhoused. We appreciate all the work that the counties do for our unhoused Californians. So I make that commitment to keep that conversation going, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Assistant, will you. Moved by Senator Wahab, if I'm not incorrect? Yes. All right. Assistant, will you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That's five-oh, and that's do pass is amended to Government Organization Committee. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Members. Thank you, Madam Chair.

We'll move on to file number four, Senate Bill 1254. Senator Becker, are you ready? Thank you. If you have any witnesses here in support, please invite them up to the microphones.

Good afternoon, Chairman Alvarado-Gil and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1254, a bill that allows and assists incarcerated people in applying for CalFresh benefits up to 90 days before their release to better prepare them for reentry. To be clear, again, this bill provides individuals with calfresh upon their exit from a facility. The Supplemental Nutrition Access Assistance program SNAP, called CalFresh in California, sometimes known as food stamps, is the largest federal food assistance program in the nation.

Again, just to be very clear, these are federal dollars we're drawing down. Under federal law, incarcerated individuals become ineligible to receive CalFresh benefits after 90 days of confinement. However, United States Department of Agriculture allows for waivers to deviate from that current provision, and in fact, 12 states already do so. So they've gotten the waiver that we're looking for as part of this bill. Also, Orange County has a pilot program because counties can also apply for the waiver.

Orange County has a pilot program of CalFresh pre-enrollment for incarcerated individuals applying for the waiver in 2021. They do it for everyone leaving, and they start the process 30 days before someone exits. And, in fact, we've talked to the sheriffs there about that program. Food insecurity is one of the most challenging hurdles that previously incarcerated individuals face upon reentry. In 2019, roughly one in five formerly incarcerated people suffered from food insecurity. While California has taken steps to create a re-entry process for medical benefits, as you know, there's a gap in current law to create an equipment enrollment process for CalFresh and a statewide reentry process.

SB 1254 builds upon existing work in connecting individuals with state services in an effective manner, decreasing barriers to re entry and helping address issues of food insecurity in California. Specifically what the bill does. It requires CDSS to submit the applicable waivers to the Federal Government to allow pre-enrollment, as 12 other states do, as I mentioned.

It also creates, secondly, a workforce within CDSS to develop and share recommendations for a statewide reentry process, incorporating all the potential necessary resources for individuals reentry into the community. Finally, the bill requires CDSS and the Department of Healthcare Services to create and test a Medi-Cal and CalFresh combined application for incarcerated individuals, soon leaving incarceration by or on January 1, 2026.

Removing these barriers will again increase the likelihood of successful reentry as we will hear about and also maximize the utilization of this federally funded program, which, as we all know, is underutilized already here in California. We do have one proposed clerical amendment to further clarify that the workgroup will submit the report in August of 2026. We've consistently engaged the opposition and look forward to continuing to work with the California Welfare Directors Association to hopefully help us watch their opposition. With me, Kameron Mims-Jones from Nourish California and Alissa Moore from Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.

Thank you so much. We'll hear from our two witnesses for two minutes each. Please state your name and affiliation whenever you're ready to begin. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and members of the committee, I'm Kameron Mims-Jones. I'm a senior advocate with Nourish California. For over 30 years, our mission has been to ensure equitable access to food, health and well being for all Californians, which is why I'm here today to speak in support of 1254, the Food for Reentry and Ensuring Stable Homes Act.

SB 1254 stems from a restorative framework and upstream policy to diminish the enduring impacts of incarceration, enabling individuals to apply for CalFresh benefits up to 90 days before release and establishing a work group to optimize resources to address not only addresses immediate needs and fosters long-term wellbeing. CalFresh, our state's branded name for SNAP, has been a lifeline helping millions to put food on the table.

It's our nation's most effective anti-poverty initiative, and we know that communities thrive when access to nutritious and culturally relevant food is prioritized and insured. Successful reentry hinges on timely access to basics like food, transportation, healthcare, and housing. While community partners stand ready to continue to do the work, early access to CalFresh is pivotal for individuals successful transition from incarceration to community. SB 1254 isn't just about identifying problems, but crafting collaborative solutions by establishing a work group to bolster a statewide reentry process.

This bill ensures that more Californians receive the support needed to thrive while maximizing current efforts to integrate the state's human services infrastructure. I also want to be very clear. This legislation is not about foisting obligations, it's about granting access to opportunities for vital resources.

SB 1254 asks for a waiver to empower our counties to do the need to meet the needs of our citizens, and we welcome collaboration with all interested parties to rebuild stronger communities alongside one another. I respectfully ask for your support of 1254. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Alissa Moore with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Hi everyone. In recognition of Cesar Chavez and his legacy of organizing community amongst marginalized populations, I'd like to take this time to acknowledge the connection between his work and the legislation under your consideration today. While this bill is on the face is social services and today before human resources, for me, it's a common sense public safety measure.

It helps eliminate food insecurity for incarcerated people preparing for release that will ultimately make California a safer place for all. This bill will allow people like myself coming home from incarceration, increase access to CalFresh and medical immediately upon release. The preexisting waiver currently in place is not working as it should and I believe this process will streamline that.

Please indulge me if the committee is unaware, but upon our release from prison or jail, it's routine to go without stable access to food or medical care for up to seven to 21 days as we navigate our homecoming, and often much longer. This is the current state and true picture of access to emergency CalFresh and medical benefits and various other support services.

For me, seven to 21 days without access to food and medical care is shameful reality that causes many people to turn in desperation to old behaviors as a means of survival. To connect this to our population directly and specifically, I'd like to share a story of a friend of mine who, while incarcerated, struggled fiercely with an opioid addiction. Subsequently, she was placed on MAT therapy. While she did get off the opioids, she was now chemically dependent on the MAT treatment.

She went out to court for a review of her case and was released from the county jail essentially as a free person. Her joy was short lived. She would spend what was to be a horrific 72 hours struggling to get vital medication she needed desperately and maintain her sobriety at the same time. How inhumane is that, you may ask? If you have never seen someone suffer through withdrawal, you would not know how terrifying it is to experience her watch with no way to help.

My friend was shaking and sweating and weak, and her breathing at times was very labored. She was in hell. This bill would require state, local, and federal entities to collaborate to make this legislation a reality for California, bringing all those aforementioned entities up to date with today's rehabilitation standard in public recognition that a safe reentry is a huge part of true rehabilitation. Without this much-needed legislation, California's efforts of rehabilitation fall short of the mark.

I ask you, does it make sense to invest what is assumed to be thousands annually in rehabilitative efforts into one individual and then upon parole, give them no true opportunity not to reoffend for a basic need of food or vital medical care? I ask you, what one among us could go seven to 21 days without vital medical care, medication, or food?

Thank you. Thank you so much. Any members of the public wishing to express their support for this bill, please come to the microphone. Thank you. Please state your name, affiliation and your position only, please.

Trinh Phan with Justice in Aging, in strong support.

Thank you.

Christopher Sanchez, representing the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Henry Ortiz with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and All of Us or None Sacramento, in strong support.

Thank you.

Christina Robinson with Community Healer, strong support. Thank you.

All right, we'll now move forward to witnesses in opposition. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Thank you. Be hearing from both of you. I did go over a little bit with two minutes, so I'll allow you that same little cushion of time. Please state your name and affiliation and start when you're ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair and members, Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, here in opposition, SB 1254. We certainly understand and appreciate the goal of easing reentry of formerly incarcerated persons into society, but this bill creates expensive challenges without funding or the guarantee that the program will even be permitted. In order for this unfunded mandate to be implemented, state officials would have to seek and obtain a federal waiver, and there is no assurance that such would occur.

Further, California State and local correctional facilities, as you know, are in the middle of a years long process to implement the second part of the CalAIM justice involved initiative, which requires the provision of in-reach services to county jail inmates within 90 days of release. This complex and novel program will not be rolled out in counties prior to October 1, 2024 at the earliest, and not all counties will be ready or willing to proceed at that time.

We're concerned that layering on another program that will require resources that are currently unaccounted for, both in funding and staff capacity, will hamstring local correctional efforts. We also have significant concern with the workgroup created by the bill. It's meant to make recommendations on a program that is, as I stated in the letter foisted upon county jails, this workgroup, if we're so concerned about county input and county thoughts on this process. The proponents failed to put even a single county representative on this workgroup.

So adding a county representative doesn't ameliorate our concerns with the bill. But it just, I think it tells an interesting story about the bill and about the concerns that we have. So we certainly object to the lack of a jail official being included or fail to be included, especially while the bill requires representatives from community based organizations and others who do not represent counties. So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Eileen Cubanski with the County Welfare Directors Association. I would say this is one where on the policy, we're absolutely in support to Mister Salzillo's point, though, we are implementing the second part of the justice involved initiative of CalAIM. We're rolling that out. That's actually been quite an extensive, very involved process, one that will not be completed until later this year at the earliest.

I think we can learn a lot of lessons how that goes and build upon the structures and contexts that we're making under that initiative, but we haven't got those yet. And so if nothing else, we are knee deep in that implementation, would want to get through that. Also to the point that we do need a federal waiver to do this. So the timeline by which this would be required to be implemented in the bill could potentially be before we would have such a waiver.

So we would want to ensure that we do get the waiver and kind of proceed from there. And I think there are, there are different ways to structure that waiver, and we would want to be involved in thinking through how we might do that in a way that might make it most effective to implement. And again, building upon the work that we're doing right now with the Medi-Cal program and CalAIM. The other pieces on the workgroup.

And I do also, I will say we don't object to actually being involved in another workgroup. We do think actually, if we're going to talk about how we broaden CalFresh access to incarcerated individuals or all individuals in California, the county Human Services Agency should have a place at that table. And so we would ask to be involved in those discussions. But at this point, the timing of the bills requirements and the waiver and the work that we're doing on CalAIM, it's all happening at once according to the timelines of this bill. And for those reasons, we have concerns about it.

Thank you both for sharing your concerns. Any members of the public wishing to address the committee with their opposition? Right. Seeing none, we'll bring the conversation back to committee. Senator Menjivar then Senator Wahab.

I was hoping as a co-author, I would be able to move this bill. No. Thank you so much, Senator. I'm a co-author of this bill because I know the need to ensure that especially a lot of our youth, we're talking about juvenile coming out of the juvenile halls to get connected to CalFresh, even with college students. It's been a thing that we need to close a gap on all the people who are eligible for CalFresh.

I know you and I have talked about the CalAIM initiative, justice initiative, and we know that this waiver was approved last year and we're still in the process. It takes a little while. And I know you're committed to ensuring we come up to a date that is going to be feasible. And, and also it's going to work. Right? We want to make sure that we both have the Medi-Cal waiver and the CalFresh waiver more than happy to move this bill. And I know you're committed to continuing talking to the counties and finding that sweet spot of a date.

Thank you. I am indeed.

Senator Wahab.

Thank you. Specifically, I wear multiple hats. Obviously, I'm chair of public safety as well. And since we're focused on the human services piece, I do just want to highlight the fact that oftentimes when we are talking about rehabilitation and providing services and things like that, I don't feel that we do enough for reentry across the board. That's my personal feelings about it. Right? I think that when we're talking about some of the concerns that I heard, which I completely understand, implementation is sometimes difficult.

Working group takes time, a lot of people at the table. I do agree that somebody from like local counties. And I believe if I'm reading this correctly, you have even-numbered of individuals on this working group. I would love to see, you know, potentially, you know, one additional person just representing counties, specifically those that, you know, provide the social services. Right?

I also want to say that, you know, oftentimes in California, we hear a lot of elected speak about we're the fourth largest economy in the world. We are the main food producers of the world. We are x, y, and z of the world. And yet, you know, this is basic dignity of healthy foods for individuals at their, you know, most vulnerable time. Reentry is very traumatizing for a lot of individuals.

We hear this from even our unhoused population that oftentimes if you do provide housing or some type of additional service that they have historically, historically not had, they have a lot of trauma getting used to that. And in order to be able to take on the issues of finding employment, finding housing, reconnecting with family members, righting a lot of wrongs that some individuals have a purpose of doing once they are released, healthy food should not be top of that list.

This is basic dignity that we need to provide for all people, regardless of status, regardless of socioeconomic background, regardless of a lot of other things. So I fully support this bill. I support the effort. I know that there's a lot of conversation still to be had. I know that I'm going to be viewing it from a different lens when it comes to my committee. But from a human services perspective, I really do appreciate the work. I hope that you can work with some of the opposition concerns as this moves along and we'll see it, obviously, again. But I do appreciate, I appreciate you guys mentioning some of your concerns as well. So thank you.

All right. Any other questions? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Yes. So thank you for bringing it, your story is very compelling. I actually sat in public safety for quite a while and learned of the many challenges that we have with our formerly incarcerated working towards reentering their communities and the challenges that they face on that end. So I'm very compelled by the need and the merit of what you're trying to propose. But a couple of things. Do we know what would happen if the waiver does not go through? What happens with the intent of this bill?

Our anticipation is that the waiver will go through since 12 other states have gotten it and Orange County has. If we don't get the waiver for whatever reason, then we don't have the waiver, then we can't go forward at that point. So it does require us to get the waiver.

Okay. And then is there a reason why the representatives from the county and from the sheriffs or from law enforcement were not included in the panel?

I think were just trying to get a good group of folks were certainly open to further conversations, certainly with the county. I think the sheriffs weren't able to have a meeting. So I dont think we quite discussed that, but open to discussing that as well. But I think I hear the feedback from the committee about having someone from the counties.

And I would add the sheriffs, too, just because they're the ones that are going to be impacted by the work that's going to be required. The other thing. So how would you respond to the fact that right now, and this is where.

Excuse me, hold on. All communications through the chair, please. Yes, I want to make sure that, Senator Ochoa Bogh, you have a chance to finish your question and we'll get your answer.

So on the concerns that were raised with the California State correctional facilities, being in the middle of the year-long process to implement the second part of the CalAIM justice involved initiative, it says here it would require in-reach services to county jail inmates within 90 days of release. So this program, if I understand correctly, is intended to connect inmates with services prior to being released.

So I would have assumed that we would have implemented and gotten this program through and then added the services such as CalFresh into it. I don't know. I don't remember originally why that wasn't included as one of the services that were part of the CalAIM process. What would you say about waiting to have this implemented? And I know from the urgency part of it, you say let's not wait because food should not be wait.

But I don't know why food was not included in this particular initiative. But allowing the correctional facilities to implement this program first to see what's working and not working, how would you feel about that except for the urgency part of the food part of the food part?

Yeah. If I could answer them, maybe have our witnesses. Chair, would that be okay? Just a quick reaction. I don't know the exact answer to the question. I think the CalAIM and Medi-Cal are state and we're applying for the federal waiver. So maybe that's why it was regarded separately. You know, the main point is we want to get this as soon as possible for people when they leave. But in terms of the 2026 deadline is really about that kind of integrated process.

And, you know, if people feel that is not enough time, I think we'd be open to possibly extending that maybe some period of time after the waiver is granted or something for that. But that was really for the integrated process. And I think we'd be open to extending that if there's a belief that that timeline is too difficult. But let me turn over to my witnesses on both questions, if you could.

Yes. So to speak to both things that you addressed, the workgroup as building the workgroup, frankly, as advocates, we are not aware of sort of who we have to. Who would we ask? So by asking CDCR, we actually thought we were inviting the sheriff.

So that's, so once again, always open to all of the people who are part of the transition for individuals would love for them to have been at the table, so happy to have them be a part of this workgroup, but also to speak to what your other question is. The waiver is required in order to maximize CalFresh while people are currently incarcerated. That's literally all it does.

We have to ask the Federal Government in order to ease their restriction that requires them to be an individual, to be ineligible after incarceration. And if we don't have a waiver, we can't test anything. And so that's the waiver. There was a waiver that was sought in Orange County, and ostensibly we're asking to modify that waiver.

And so we don't have any indication that the Federal Government, those who are in part, part of processing that or not anything but excited, exhilarated with the idea that California is finally going to fully utilize its benefit, the federal benefit, and it would have to do that by seeking the federal waiver. And so that is the reason why I was not a part of the CalAIM process.

And I assume there's a lot of different reasons why they didn't ask to put CalFresh as a part of that process. If we had been at the table, we would have told them they should have to put CalFresh part of the process, especially when we're assessing for a Medi-Cal benefit. There's only two additional questions. So we would love for. I would have loved that. But right now we have to get the waiver in order to maximize CalFresh as an option for folks returning back to community. I hope that answers the question.

You want to give a chance for opposition to address it?

Or I was just going to say with respect to CalAIM, those required a couple of waivers from the Federal Government on the Medicaid side. So a totally different governmental agency, a totally different waiver, totally different rules. I mean, all in support of pushing the feds as much as we can to simplify and align some of these requirements around eligibility and timing for benefits where the feds for federal benefits.

So that's partly why we'd like to also be involved in some of the waiver conversations to make sure we're kind of maximizing the flexibilities that we're going to seek, or at least try to anyway. But that's why different federal agencies, different federal waivers required. And CalAIM just dealt with the Centers for Medicaid Services on the Medicaid side.

So, Madam Chair, just final thoughts, and I understand why that was the case. I'm just curious as to why when they were looking into implementing this program or they were looking at healthcare and what's the other one? There's another one, right? Oh, when they were looking at that, then look to see which other area's components would be appropriate to get waivers and implement as people are leaving the prison system. I'm going to, I appreciate the effort, and I think it's very well intended.

I'm going to wait to see what the final language is going to look like as far as accommodating the additional people at the table to have the conversations on that as well as there was the other one, the representatives, and the waiver part of it. I'm going to see what that looks like at the end before I support the bill.

So I'm not going to vote no on it today, but I will stay off of it to see how you are able to accommodate the concerns of the counties and the Sheriff's Association. But I think it's very well intended. I think it's needed, and we do. I think it, you know, whatever we can do to avoid people going back to the old habits into, not habits, I wouldn't say habits, but the old ways of what got them incarcerated.

I think it's important, and this is coming from someone who, I'm not very happy right now with the amount of crime that's happening in our state, you know, so I'm going to lay off at this time, but thank you.

Any other questions or comments, committee? Senator Becker, so you and I kind of been working together to polish up this bill, and I appreciate your intent on this bill, and I think you're headed in the right direction. I do want to acknowledge the points made by our opposition. Certainly, county corrections does not operate in the same way that states do or state correction does. So I do want to acknowledge the sheriff's position, especially in rural counties.

I mean, what the sheriff says is the sheriff goes in our rural communities. So I want to make sure that we have that voice at the table, particularly since we're implementing this program statewide. I think it helps to alleviate just some of the concerns from our California Welfare Association as well, just to make sure that we are looking at this as how the implementation is going to impact current implementation of CalAIM.

And I've heard you say that you would take that into consideration and make sure that the timelines are close but not overlapping to a point that overburdens the system. So we've also talked about that. So I will be supporting the bill today and hold the ability to change my vote if we don't get to a good place by the time it hits the floor. So thank you so much. All right. Do we have a motion? Oh, thank you. Moved by Menjivar. Assistant, please call the roll. Okay. Sorry. My apologies. Senator Becker. Please, please close.

No problem. It was a long discussion, but a robust discussion. I appreciate all the comments from my colleagues and from the support and the opposition. You know, I do think this is a common-sense measure. I think when. I think it's a moral measure, but also a common-sense measure. We know that CalFresh is underutilized in California and just starting that work earlier so that we can get people CalFresh right when they exit.

And given that additional leg up to get back on their feet, we've seen other states have done it. We've seen Orange County can do it. I believe we can do it. But I do want it to be implementable. I don't want to set up unreasonable timelines, for sure. So I'm happy to keep working on the timelines and happy to keep working on the makeup of the workgroup as well. And with that, I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Becker. And as you and I discussed, Orange County is not representative rural California. And that's why looking at some of these other areas and taking into consideration our opposition's points is imperative. Okay, so moved by Senator Menjivar. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Four and oh, and that bill is out. Thank you so much for being here. Senator Niello, with all due respect, I know you've been waiting. I do have a witness that needs to be out of here in about 10, 15 minutes. So we're going to go out of turn just briefly if that is okay. Hopefully, this will be a short and brief bill.

Welcome, Senator Alvarado-Gil. We're now going to hear Senate Bill. Oops, SB 1197.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Madam Vice Chair and our fellow Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity today to present Senate Bill 1197. This is a bill that will clarify that in home respite services provided by our regional centers are available to relative and non relative caregivers of children receiving AFDCFC, that is, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Foster Care benefits. This includes extended family members, resource families, tribally approved homes, and caregivers of non minor dependents.

Ensuring access to in home respite services for relative and non relative caregivers receiving AFDCFC benefits is essential to fulfilling this duty and providing a safety net for those who dedicate themselves to caring for our foster children. A review of currently posted service policies from all regional centers found that at least 10 of the 21 regional centers have issues with either their purchase of services, policies on respite services, with their respite needs assessment tools, or with both.

Additionally, some regional centers treat this benefit strictly as a generic resource and preclude anyone who receives the AFDCFC benefits from being eligible to receive respite. As legislators, we have a fundamental duty to protect and support vulnerable populations within their jurisdictions. This includes children in foster care and those caregivers. Access to in home respite services should not be contingent on the relationship between the caregiver and the foster child.

State legislators have the responsibility to promote equity and fairness in access to social services, regardless of whether the caregiver is a relative or a non relative. With me here today, I have to testify Rose Frihart from Children's Law Center and Eric Harris from Disability Rights California, thank you both for being here.

Yes, welcome. Please proceed when you're ready.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair and fellow Committee Members. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today. My name is Eric Harris and I am speaking on behalf of Disability Rights California. As an organization that protects and advances the rights of disabled Californians, we are excited to sponsor and support SB 1197. SB 1197, a simple yet impactful bill, makes it easier for some of California's most marginalized youth to live in homes of their own, not costly facilities, not congregate or incarceral settings. Homes.

It does so by clarifying that children and non minor dependents in foster care cannot be excluded from receiving in home respite services funded by regional centers. This is an essential support that gives caretakers a break and an opportunity to take care of themselves, which in turn results in increased placement, stability, and better outcomes for our kids.

As the Senator said, some regional centers deny access to in home respite services based on the relationship between the caregiver and the foster child, believing, for example, that children who live with non relative resource families aren't eligible for this benefit. Other regional centers treat AFDCFC benefits, which is a form of financial assistance for children who have been placed in foster care as a generic resource, and preclude anyone who receives these benefits from being eligible to receive respite.

To be fair, we are also aware of regional centers that don't place any of these restrictions on in home respite at all. They understand the state's intent to ensure that disabled children have the support they need to remain in their homes, which is a priority in both the Child Welfare and Developmental Service program.

The point is that access to in home respite services should not be dependent on whether a child happens to be served in Redwood Coast Regional Center, down in San Diego, or down in San Diego Regional Center, or anywhere in between. By creating more consistency across regional centers in a way that expands access to home based supports, SB 1197 will build a more equitable system and reduce the risk that dual agency children end up in more costly based care. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1197.

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Good afternoon. My name is Rosie Frihart and I'm an attorney at Children's Law Center of California. We represent the child welfare involved youth of Los Angeles, Sacramento and Placer counties and are proud co-sponsors of SB 1197. My job at Children's Law Center is to focus on helping our clients who have developmental disabilities access services through the regional center system. Services like respite. I'm going to tell you today about two of my clients who I'm going to call Kevin and Maurice.

Those are fake names, but they are very real children whose experience, I think, illustrates not only the importance of respite, but the importance of SB 1197. Kevin and Maurice have many things in common. They are both African American young men who are duly served by the Child Welfare and Regional Center systems. They both have intellectual disabilities and require supervision beyond what is typical for their age.

They both have relatives who love them deeply but are unable to provide them care at this point point in their lives. There is one important difference between them, though. While they both live in Los Angeles, they are served by two different regional centers, and these two regional centers interpret the regulations in law regarding respite differently. Kevin's regional center takes the position that respite can only be provided to a family member and excludes non relative resource parents from that category.

This presented a problem when we were preparing for Kevin's release from juvenile hall. He needed a resource home, and pointing out that respite would be available to a potential home would have made it easier to find him one. When respite was requested from his regional center, the regional center denied the service because his potential caregiver, whoever they may be, would not be a family member. Without that support, the county found no one.

When he left Juvenile Hall, Kevin was placed in congregate care, where he struggled and eventually ran away. I am sorry to share that he is now back in Juvenile Hall on new charges. Now Maurice. Maurice requires constant supervision beyond nearly any client I have ever worked with. Resource home after resource home took him in, but found themselves exhausted by the level of care required. In fact, in about a five year period, Maurice lived in 19 different homes.

His 20th home was with a non relative caregiver, and she was struggling too. This caregiver tried her best to support him, but was ready to ask that he be removed from her care when finally he was found eligible for regional center services and respite started even though she was not a family member. Getting an occasional break improved her patience with his behaviors. He has now been in this home for over three years, by far the longest time he has ever been in one home.

Respite not only gave this caregiver a much needed and much deserved break, it gave this vulnerable child stability and a sense of family. SB 1197 will make it clear that child welfare involved youth are not excluded from receiving respite, even when they don't live with a family member or are a non minor dependent. This will help children like Kevin find a home like Maurice did. Thank you to Senator Alvarado-Gil for authoring this bill, and thank you to the Committee for your time. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Ms. Frihart. Yes, is that with a T or with a D?

With a T.

With a T. Now we'll move on to any witnesses in support of SB 1197 here in room 2200. And at this time, just your name and your organization and your support.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Susanna Niffin with Children Now in support.

Amanda Kirchner with CWDA in support.

Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California in support.

Kelly Brooks with the California Community Living Network in support.

Judy Mark from Disability Voices United in strong support.

Amy Westling from the Association of Regional Center Agencies in support.

Christopher Sanchez, representing the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support.

Hi. My name is Alaida Ola. I support.

Dora Conturrez, Valley Mountain Regional Center catchment area and wholeheartedly support.

Elizabeth Gomez, Integrated Community Collaborative and parent in strong support.

I'm Drayna Rangel, and I support 1197.

Mariela Ramos, and I am in strong support. Thank you.

Mariela Falcon in support. Thank you.

My name is Sana Valdez, and I'm support.

[Testimony in Spanish]

Hi. My name is Fujo Flores. I support.

Ruby Saldana, ICC Integradora, DVU ambassador, in support.

Griselda Estrada, mom for Juan Perez and ICC Integradora, in strong support. Thank you.

Omar Granados from the Newman community, and I strongly support.

Maria Granados. I live in Newman. I support.

Maria Elenadias. I'm in support.

Ricardo Araguin. I'm in strong support.

My name is Areli Solano, and I strongly support 1197.

Do you have any other witnesses in support of 1197 here in room 2200? Seeing none. We'll now move on to our witnesses in opposition. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll move to any witnesses in opposition here in room 2200. Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Senator Wahab.

I'll move the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Nope. All right, in that case, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Just need to close.

Sorry, ma'am.

Thank you so much. Thank you to all of you who showed up today to show your support. This bill, at this point, has no opposition. The amendments did add tribally approved homes. We wanted to recognize our tribal families as well, in addition to resource families in our current text. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Senator Alvarado-Gil. Madam Secretary, would you like to call the roll?

File item 11, SB 1197. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] That is out, five to zero.

Thank you so much. Okay, Senator Niello, thank you so much for your patience. We will now move forward with item number seven, Senate Bill 1463. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Excuse me, Madam Chair and Members. I appreciate your consideration of SB 1463, which seeks to ensure the success of the Self-Determination Program, or SDP, by creating a dedicated senior position at the Department of Developmental Services focused solely on this program's success. Having this position will provide for improved accountability over the success of SDP and reaffirm our state's commitment to self-determination.

Self-determination recognizes that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities have the same right to and responsibilities that accompany self-determination as everybody else. People with developmental disabilities are entitled to opportunities, respectful support, and the authority to exert control over their lives. Currently, DDS is three years from its 2021 transition to the SDP Pilot Program into a statewide promise for those that seek the benefits of this voluntary program, yet the delivery of those promises have really yet to be realized.

Less than one percent of eligible individuals are in the program, and the current deputy director that oversees the manager of SDP is being borrowed for other priorities on a supposed temporary basis. Those few that have participated in the program were generally pleased with their experience, and over three quarters of them would recommend SDP to others. This satisfaction notwithstanding, participants identified significant barriers and challenges, and the program could be improved by reducing complexity and the administrative burden on the participant.

Those are all things that this dedicated position can address. SB 1463 will provide for improved accountability over the success of SDP and reaffirm--again--reaffirm the state's commitment to self-determination. With me here today is Judy Mark on behalf of Disability Voices United and Rubi Saldana, a parent of three SDP participants.

Thank you both for being here. Please just restate your name and begin when you're ready.

Thank you so much, Senator. My name is Judy Mark, and I am the President of Disability Voices United. We're an organization led by people with disabilities and their family members who wrote and advocated for the original self-determination law that was passed in 2013. I'm also the parent of a Self-Determination Program participant who is moving into his own place in the next few weeks thanks to the flexibility provided through the Self-Determination Program, and we are proud to sponsor SB 1463.

We want to thank Senator Niello for his longstanding support for the disability community and for authoring this legislation that could have a profound effect on improving the Self-Determination Program for thousands of Californians with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In 2013, I remember testifying at this exact Committee to support SB 468, the self-determination law.

Our author, Senator Emmerson, championed this program because it provided people with developmental disabilities the freedom and authority to have control over their lives, to have control over who serves them and who supports them every day. The program has such great potential. Tens of thousands of people after that time signed up to enroll for this program, but ten years later, only one percent of the people who are eligible to be part of the program are actually in it.

It is clear that there are thousands of people waiting to enroll. The program has become overly bureaucratic and inconsistently implemented across the 21 regional centers. People desperately want to be part of it, but it just seems overwhelming. And while the Department of Developmental Services has the statutory requirement to ensure the program's success, thus far this has not happened. SB 1463 recognizes the need for a dedicated senior position at the Department of Developmental Services focused solely on the program's success.

It will be appointed by the Governor, which will bring much-needed attention at the highest levels. The position will be confirmed by you, by the Senate, which ensures a confirmation process that provides a forum for people who are served by the system and their families to provide input. We believe that SB 1463 is necessary to ensure that the Self-Determination Program can continue to change lives like my son's. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Rubi Saldana, and I am an ambassador for Disability Voice United, the sponsor of SB 1463. My English is not very well, but I'm going to try my best. I am the parent of three children who are participants in Self-Determination Program. This program has changed all their lives, but sometimes it is very hard to make it work. I help others speak Spanish, parents who want their children to go into Self-Determination Program.

This is primary. Everyone experiences worries in SDP, but it is especially hard for our community. We become very discouraged by the process and the systems. There are many times when I have tried to get help from DDS for my own children's or for other families on SDP. There is a position of the SDP ombudsman person and when we reach out to them, we are not getting the results we need. This is because they don't have any power.

The only thing that the ombudsman can do is make recommendations to improve the program. They actually cannot make those improvements happen. SB 1463 gives my community a chance to participate in a program that can save lives and families because there will be a senior level staff at DDS who does have the power. It will make sure that there is someone at DDS who completely accountable for the success of SDP.

When the Senate confirms this person, Latino families will have the opportunity to talk to you about whatever disparities are being improved or things are not getting better. This bill will hopefully make the Self-Determination Program work much better so that we can focus on improving our children's lives rather than improving our programs that should be easy to use. In addition, I have already experienced retaliation and a lot of intimidation personally, not from a Regional Center, but others.

And I'm not afraid to say that whoever organization or institution who oppose the co-sponsored bills from DVU and ICC works against the community that they supposed to serve because we are the real community, united and integrated. Thank you.

Thank you so much, and we will now proceed. To any members of the public wishing to express their support, please come to the microphone. Thank you all for being here. Your name and affiliation, and then share your position, please.

Maria Falcon, in support.

Thank you.

Anabelle Liz, in support.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Gomez, Integrated Community Collaborative, independent facilitator, in support.

Thank you.

[Testimony in Spanish] Integradora, and strongly support.

Thank you.

Breina Rancel. I support.

Thank you.

Dora Contreras, and I wholeheartedly support.

Thank you.

Mariela Ramos, in strong support.

Thank you.

Jose Flores, are in support.

Thank you.

Ale Delaguez. I support.

Thank you.

Omar Granados, and I strongly support.

Thank you.

María Granados, in strong support.

Thank you.

Jonathan Granados. I strongly support.

Thank you.

Ricardo Arredia, and strongly support.

Thank you.

Arel Isolano, member from ICC. Strong support.

Thank you.

From 1467. 1463, I'm sorry. 63?

Yes. Thank you.

Griselda Estrada [testimony in Spanish] in strong support.

Gracias.

Maria Elena Diaz, and I'm support.

Thank you so much. All right. We will now be able to hear from lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have any opposition? Okay. Seeing none, any members of the public wishing to share opposition to this bill? Seeing none, bring the conversation back to the Members. Questions or comments? Okay. Moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Would you like to close, Senator Niello?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ever since the Lanterman Act of roughly 50 years ago, the policy of this state has been to provide those with developmental disabilities with the opportunity to lead successful and productive lives, and the Regional Centers were established to assist that in our various regional areas.

The Self-Determination Program--the state has also made a commitment to the Self-Determination Program which furthers that very opportunity, and we must support it on behalf of these particularly needing members of our state, citizens of our state. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. The bill has been moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Assistant, please call the roll.

File Item Seven: SB 1463: motion is 'do pass to Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call].

Okay. The vote is five to zero, and that bill is out. Thank you so much.

Thank you for the motion. Thank you for all of the support.

Right. Thank you. So we have three more bills on today's agenda. We will move forward with Senator Menjivar, then Senator Blakespear, and Senator Ochoa Bogh. Thank you so much for being here today. Senator Manjivar, do you have witnesses here in support? Okay. We'll ask them to come forward and get settled. And whenever you're ready, we'll hear file number eight, Senate Bill 1281.

Thank you, Madam Chair, fellow committee members, let's continue the conversation on self determination program. But before we get into it, I want to note that I will be amending the bill to correct a drafting error stated in Committee analysis, page 12. As well as accepting the chair's amendment. California has been a trailblazer in recognizing the importance of services for individuals with developmental disabilities. You heard in the previous. We all heard in the previous bill conversation that one of those amazing programs is the self determination program.

You heard from the previous witnesses. Similar stories that you're going to hear here as well. Self determination program helps individuals with developmental disabilities by forming a self customized plan with services and support. We should not be copying and paste these services for every individual. Every individual needs. Services need to be tailored, and their wants need to be also taken into consideration. In fact, Madam Chair, the SDP pilot program was created with a primary goal to work in rural areas.

Having the SDP meant that the rural families could recruit members of their communities to provide these services and not have to rely on Regional Center vendors who didn't want to work in areas where there were few potential clients. SDP participants have reported positive growth in areas such as self awareness, responsibility, mental health, community integration, employment, and quality of life.

Because when it goes, when we see this, we see individuals go through this program, it works, and we have positive results at the end, we just need to make sure that everyone has access to this program. So to that. The State Council of Developmental Disabilities recently found that despite participants favoring SDP, there are many administrative burdens and hurdles that came along with the program.

Additionally, there were reported concerns about inequities in the program, such as racial disparities, and how SDP was being implemented across Regional Centers in California because they were not all treated equal. SB 1281 seeks to eliminate the concerns and barriers by requiring that DDS establish statewide, standardized and streamlined procedures for enrollment, individualized budgets, financial management services, access to self directed transition services, and a client spending plan. We want to also make sure that we're respecting a participant's provider choice.

We want to ensure that individuals entering SDP have access transition support from trusted partners, and we want to clarify employer burden and what cost FM's can and cannot pass on to participants, requiring that FM's provide timely payments to providers. Because what we're seeing is oftentimes the burden is placed on the participants participant versus the actual Regional Centers. Who's providing that actual payment? Participants have no say in payments going out.

Lastly, we want to require dds to include the assessment and adequacy of FM's providers at each Regional Center in their annual report to the Legislature. Currently, Latinos comprise 40% of people served by Regional Centers, but only 24% of those participating in SDP, compared to white participants, who only make up 20% of those served by Regional Centers but 36% of those through SDP. These reforms were helping sure that BIPOC community received the services in an equitable manner.

So to that, Madam Chair, I'd like to turn to my two witnesses here to testify on the need of SB 12811 that we've just heard. Judy Mark, and then Elizabeth Gomez.

Thank you so much. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Judy Mark again from Disability Voices United. DVU is a co sponsor of SB 1281, and we want to deeply thank Senator Menjivar for your extraordinary leadership authoring this Bill and everything that you have done for our community. We feel it. We feel it from you. And we just wanted you to know that.

We, as I stated before, we're founded by the folks who got the bill passed originally in 2013. And we knew that self determination program had great promise. But we have delved deep into what the problems are. Where are the barriers that people are facing? And this bill addresses the biggest ones. It doesn't address every barrier, but it addresses the biggest one, biggest ones. So we believe that it will be able to bring about equity within the program.

SB 1281 requires CDS to establish streamlined and simplified procedures so that people can more easily enroll and stay in the program. Right now, each of the 21 Regional Centers have their own way of running the SDP, and it can't. People move from regional to center to Regional Center, and it's really quite a problem. It prevents many people, particularly adults with disabilities who do not have family support and people of color, from participating in a program that can change their life.

It not only can change their lives, but it can change the systems that are supposed to be out there supporting them. SB 1281 also clarifies the rules for financial management services, or FMSS, which has reduced the amount of funding that participants the current rules leave it up to the FM's so that they are taking a lot of the money that people are supposed to be using for the services and supports.

The bill states exactly what costs the FM's can charge the participant and what they can't charge the participant. Finally, we believe that SB 1281 will significantly reduce the major barriers in the self determination program so that everyone, regardless of their race, ethnicity, language, or where they live, can have the freedom and authority that people without disabilities experience every day. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members, Senator Menjivar and grande appreciacion. My name is Elizabeth Gomez, and I am the proud mother of Oscar Antonio, a young adult with down syndrome in his third year in self determination. I am also the director of the Integrated Community Collaborative, a Latino, mostly Spanish speaking community that we help and we collaborate to support to navigate the complex system that serve our children with developmental disabilities. The traditional system of the Regional Center isn't working for many of the Latino community.

We face overwhelming disparities that don't seem to be improving. The self determination program has been life changing for many Latino families. We're able to hire staff that we trust and understand our culture. We're able to get the help to start micro enterprises run by our adult children. We're able to access inclusive programs in our communities. We're able to help with services that our loved ones need who remain in the family home for the first time.

But unfortunately, I'm here to say that the Latino community significantly is underrepresented in the program. There are many reasons for this, including that many Latino families have never even heard about the self determination program. And even if they have, they often get discouraged from participating by the Regional Centers, saying that it is too hard. Latinos also start out with disparities by getting 50% of the services that whites receive.

With such low or even no budgets, we have to make claims of unmet needs in the traditional system, which delays and prevents our participation. ICC is a co sponsor of SB 1281 because we want to break down the barriers so that our community can benefit from this program. The bill requires equitable enrollment by race ethnicity, which is critical for our community. SB 1281 allows participants to be able to choose who they want to help them transition into the SDP.

While ICC helps many families transition into the SDP program. Recent DDS changes require us to be Regional Center vendors, which we believe is a conflict of interest and compromise our neutral position that helps and provide help in the community. SB 1281 also affirms the rights of people with disabilities to choose their services and providers with clear guidelines and no second guess by the Regional Centers and fms. All of the assessments and complications by the Regional Centers will be removed.

We want to thank Senator Menjivar for her incredible support and for authoring SB 1281. The self determination program is certain to make our lives better if we can just give it a chance.

Thank you so much. We will now open it up to members of the public wishing to show their support. Please come to the microphone. Your name, affiliation and your position, please.

Eric Harris with Disability Rights California, in support.

Thank you.

Aaron Carruthers with the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, authors of the evaluation cited by the author in the committee analysis, in support.

Thank you.

Amy Westling, Association of Regional Center Agencies support if amended, and really appreciate the ongoing conversations with the sponsors, the committee staff, and the author staff.

Jose Flores from ICC. I support the bill 1281.

Omar Granados and I strongly support the bill.

Maria Granados, I support. Yeah.

Jonathan Granados, I strongly support.

Reina Rangel, I support.

Dora Contreras, the Integrated Community Collaborative and I wholeheartedly support SB 1281.

Mariela Ramos. I'm a mother of a child with IDD and I am very, very strong support of 11 of SB 1281, thank you.

My name is Areli Solano and I'm part of ICC. I have my son Ricardo, he is part of this program, SDP and I strong support. of 1281. Thank you so much everyone. DVU, ICC Senator Menjivar, thank you so much.

Ricardo Arguin in strong support.

Maria Elena Diaz, y mucho soporte a este bill, y mi hija es parte de autodeterminacion.

Senditopete, ICC integradora. My two kids, four years already on, so determination and it's a life changing for them and we would like everyone to be on it. Thank you. Thank you. We love you, Senator.

Ruby Saldana, ICC, Integradora, TVU ambassador, and I'm also a parent of three kids and self determination, in support.

In support.

Anna Valdez, I'm in strong support.

Mariel Falcon, mija esta en autodeterminacion, y esto en soporto de este bill.

My name is Juan Perez, I support SB 1281.

Thank you I support too.

[Spanish]

Hi, my name is Evelyn Solario, and I support.

Thank you so much. All right, we'll now move forward to witnesses in opposition. Okay. Seeing none, any Members of the public wishing to express their opposition. All right, thank you. We'll move it back to the members. Questions or comments?

Okay. Motion by Senator Wahab. Would you like to close, Senator Menjivar?

Move the Bill.

No, I just want to thank the people that have come out for the three bills who I think they got their money's worth for coming up and give the public comment, muchas gracias por venir, es tan importante a nostros escuchar su voz. It's so important for us to hear the voices of how these things are going to impact, you know, I want to share a really disturbing story that we heard in sub three.

Our mom that was asking for services, a Latina mom, and was told that she is a bad mom because she came and asked for assistance and help. This is what we're hearing across Regional Centers where different people, depending on their backgrounds, are being treated different. We are a State of entitlement for individuals with developmental disabilities, and we need to make sure every project or program we bring forward in California has the intent that we put in it, and it reaches every single person.

So with that, I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you so much. And I, too, am a member of the Senator Manjivar Fan Club, so gracias a todos por estar aqui. Thank you so much. Bill moved by Senator Wahab. Please call the roll.

file Item eight, SB 1281. The motion is do pass as amended, to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Vote is 5-0 and that bill is out. Congratulations, Senator. Okay, Senator Blakespear. We'll be hearing item number nine, Senate Bill 1401.

Do you have any witnesses here with you today?

I do.

We'll ask them to come forward, please. They'll be ready to proceed when you are ready.

Thank you, chair and colleagues, I appreciate you staying after five. And to everybody who's still here as well, I'm pleased to author and present to you today SB 1401, which is sponsored by the US Department of Defense. We have a critical shortage of child care options in California and in the United States.

The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 100,000 people each month miss work because of child care problems the struggle to find child care is even greater for military families, and moving every few years means starting the search all over again. Recognizing that affordable, quality childcare is essential for morale, mission readiness, and retention, the US military offers several options, including family child care, which is certified in home childcare. 87% of family childcare or FCC providers certified by the US Department of Defense are military spouses.

The DOD estimates nearly a 50% shortage of FCC providers necessary to meet demand and has identified that one way to help address this problem is to waive state licensure requirements for FCC providers who are already certified by the Department of Defense. The DOD considers this a state policy priority, and several states have already approved this waiver. FCC providers are limited to no more than six children under eight years old, or no more than eight children where all are school aged.

DOD certified FCC providers undergo stringent background checks and safety inspections, and they must complete 40 hours of training before they can begin and at least 24 hours ongoing training per year. These requirements are similar to or greater than those required for state licensure. For example, California family child care providers only undergo 16 hours of training. This Bill helps address the current shortage of childcare by eliminating an unnecessary regulatory hurdle in California for family childcare providers serving military personnel that take time and money.

Further, a state licensure waiver means these military spouses can start earning income much faster without needing to complete redundant licensure requirements in California, by creating new military childcare spots, SB 1401 will also help alleviate wait lists for all Californians as fewer military families will need to use civilian options. With me today, I have Veronica Badillo on behalf of the Department of the Navy. Thank you for coming.

Thank you. Please proceed when you're ready. You have approximately two minutes.

Hi, good afternoon, chair Members. My name is Veronica Badillo and I'm here on behalf of the active military services in California as well as the Department of Defense, who unfortunately couldn't be here today.

As the Senator mentioned, SB 1401 would exempt DoD certified providers living off a military installation from state state licensing requirements, making it easier for providers by reducing the burden of obtaining state specific licensures when they are already certified by DOD. Taking care of service Members and their families remains a top priority of DOD and is at the center of the National Defense Strategy.

The Department established a family child care, or FCC, program to expand child care availability and to assist in meeting the diverse needs of military families. The FCC program is designed to ensure the highest standards of quality and safety are met in family childcare homes. The certification process is widely recognized as one of the most stringent in the country. Standards set by the DOD and the military services ensure strict oversight of service providers to include background checks, monthly inspections, and unannounced visits.

According to our DOD state liaison for DOD certified providers serving only DOD eligible families off base, DOD maintains full oversight and disciplinary responsibilities. Military families nationwide face shortages of child care providers. In the San Diego metro area alone, there are approximately 2600 children currently on the waitlist for on base child development centers. One way to address a shortage is by certifying more FCC providers.

SB 1401 would allow FCC providers to work immediately after being certified, inspected and approved by a new installation commander to provide care to the children of military families. We are grateful for the significant efforts California has made to support our service Members and their families. We appreciate the opportunity to support the policy reflected in SB 1401 and would especially like to thank Senator Blakespear for leading this effort. Thank you for your time.

Great. Thank you so much. Any Members of the public wishing to express their support for this Bill, please come forward. Name, affiliation and your position.

Amanda Kircho and CWJ in support.

Thank you, Amanda. Okay. Okay. We will then move to witnesses in opposition. Anyone wishing to address this Committee in opposition of the Bill? Seeing none. Any Members of the public wishing to share their opposition of the Bill? Okay. All right. We'll bring the conversation back to the Members. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Love this Bill. Beat me to it. But I would be happy to move this Bill when it's appropriate and would love to ask to be a co author when and if possible as the Bill continues.

We would be very grateful for that. We'll make a note.

Any other questions or comments? Okay, Senator Blakespear, you have got a lot of fans on this Bill, so I just wanted to make sure that you address the comments in the analysis in terms of the clarity of jurisdiction and responsibility to investigate should a federally certified provider operate off military base, because the current law says that the state may require additional licensing. So with your Bill, that would eliminate that may. So could you speak a little bit to the reference to federal certification standards and how that would be addressed?

I need to check with my staffer on this before I answer this question. Of course.

I'm going to ask Veronica to address that question while we get additional information.

Yeah, I think that's good. So we just want clarity in terms of a DOJ certified provider that is serving off base, which would be in California's jurisdiction. So with this bill, that would then create that ambiguity. So if you can just speak to that.

Right. So DOJ would maintain jurisdiction as far as responsibility. Now, if there's any issues with the provider, the DOD would report to child care services and then law enforcement if needed. But the responsibility, and I believe the analysis does say to make it clear, it references a specific federal regulation, and so I think you should be okay.

Yes. Yes. That's great. So in an event that there is a deficiency identified by the DOD, they would then report to local police and then to the state of California?

Correct.

Okay. And then would the State of California still have the ability to inspect and intervene in that situation?

I believe so. I can find out for you and let the Committee staff know.

Okay. Yes. Just for clarity, like I said, I think this is a great bill. We just want to make sure there's clarity so that the state understands their jurisdiction, too.

Yes, that makes sense. Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

Yes. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you. Moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item nine, SB 1401. Motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Just quick question. We're also adding just a clarification that you just mentioned that that's gonna be worked on, right? So that's agreed upon?

Yes. We're not adding any amendments. Simply expressing to the author for clarification? Correct.

For clarification, yes. Okay.

Thank you. That's 5-0, and that bill is out. Thank you so much. Okay, we are nearing our finale here with Senator Ochoa Bogh. Item number 10, Senate Bill 1245. When you are ready, Senator.

Move the bill.

Senator Ochoa Bogh, when you are ready to proceed, we are here to listen.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Members. According to the Legislative Analyst Office, the expansion of full scope Medi-Cal, including in home support services eligibility, will add 34,000 IHSS cases. With this increase, and to reduce preexisting barriers to services, it is necessary to streamline the IHSS process to ensure more of our constituents can receive care in their homes. To obtain IHSS, a client must fill out and have a licensed healthcare professional signed form SOC 873.

While CDSS allows essentially any licensed healthcare professional to sign off on the initial form to obtain IHSS, CDSS only allows a limited number of healthcare professionals to sign the additional form to authorize paramedical services. Paramedical services are non medical services an individual could perform themselves if not for their functional limitations.

The disparity in who can sign these forms has led to significant delays in obtaining necessary services as a client's primary health care provider may be someone other than a physician, such as a public health care nurse. SB 1245 will streamline the process for obtaining paramedical services by aligning which licensed healthcare professionals may sign the form to obtain paramedic services with those who can already authorize services through IHSS to begin with.

I commit to tailoring the list of individuals who can sign the form as the Committee recommends. I also commit to addressing the concerns of those who wish to see eligible nurse practitioners sign the form without the direction of a physician. With me to testify in support is Melissa Jacobs, the Deputy Director for Senior and Adult Services for Sacramento County.

Thank you so much and thank you for being here with us today. You have about two minutes to present: name and affiliation in your opening, please.

Thank you very much and good afternoon. My name is Melissa Jacobs and I am the Deputy Director for Senior and Adult Services here in Sacramento County. In home supportive services, IHSS provides assistance for activities of daily living to meet basic needs for individuals who are aged, blind, and disabled so that they can stay in their own home for as long as they possibly can can and as an alternative to more costly out of home care.

In Sacramento County, we serve over 37,000 IHSS recipients, and of those, and we continue to receive 1,000 applications for IHSS every month, and of those, more than 4,800 are also receiving paramedical services. Paramedical services, as you heard, do require skills to provide tasks that somebody could normally do for themselves but for their disability or impairment, and they help maintain their health and well being on their own.

Some examples of paramedical services include administration of medications such as an insulin injection or glucose monitoring, or help with feeding via a G tube, or support with toileting via colostomy or catheter use. Paramedical services encompass about 40 hours on average of service tasks for an individual per month, and in Sacramento it can take up to 45 days for us to receive the paramedical form. That's complete and signed. And so that means an individual foregoes those much needed services or a care provider is having to provide those tasks and not being paid.

And although we can retroactively pay for those services, it does create a burden and redundancy for the social worker and staff who are having to go back into a case file and authorize services, authorize additional services, and document that need. Having the same licensed healthcare professional within their scope of practice be able to sign both the health certification form and the paramedical form at the same time, provide some efficiencies for staff and social workers to be able to approve and authorize all of those in home supportive service tasks and hours at the same time, which then obviously provides more seamless support to our recipients. And so with that, I urge you to support SB 1245. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Hi, good afternoon. Amanda Kirchen with CWDA. Happy to answer any questions in the interest of time. I will keep my comments at that.

All right, thank you. Thank you so much. We will open it up to members of the public wishing to express their support. Name, affiliation and position.

Madam Chair and Members, Monica Miller, on behalf of the California Naturopathic Doctors Association. And we're in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members Dylan Elliot with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange, on behalf of the counties of Fresno, Kern, Tulare and Humboldt, all in support.

Thank you.

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Boards of Supervisors of Riverside and Ventura Counties, and on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, in support.

Thank you.

Amy Westling. Association of Regional Center Agencies, in support.

Thank you.

Good evening. Danielle Bradley on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.

Thank you.

Jeff Neal on behalf of the Board of Supervisors in Contra Costa County and Yolo County, in support.

Thank you so much. Right. Any witnesses in opposition wanting to address the Committee? Seeing none. Any members of the public that would like to express their opposition? All right, bringing it back to the Members of the Committee. Hold on. Oh, look at that. Question, Senator Medjovar, please. And then we'll go to Senator Wahab.

Senator, thank you so much. I'm always a big fan when we remove barriers. Right. Expand the pool here. But I just, and I apologize. I might have missed this in the beginning. Did you commit to clarifying and narrating? I know the analysis said that even, like manicures or something like that would be eligible as the language is written.

We are, yes, we are limiting the question, the language, to the services being provided. And I'm trying to see if I have that for you. Actually, we've only for the services who can. I mean, it's only for the people who can sign the form. But do we, do we know have. We didn't.

But you, but you are, you did.

We are working on it.

I just want to make sure if I heard that.

We're working on that. Sorry, I had to read my notes here.

Thanks, Senator.

Senator Wahab.

Thank you. So I know, Senator, I just wanted to clarify with you as well, and I know I've talked to you, so I just want to, like, rephrase this publicly. I truly, truly support IHSS workers. I think that they are incredibly vital to a lot of disenfranchised and vulnerable communities. More specifically, I always try to ensure that when we are talking about IHSS workers to become an IHSS individual, that the barrier is incredibly low. Right.

And the reason for that being that largely immigrant communities, people that don't speak English and much more often rely on a family member or a loved one to provide that care. That care ranges from a couple hours a week to literally all day most days. Right. In the week. And I want to clarify that, one, this has nothing to do with that.

And then, number two, that this is specifically allowing for more individuals to be able to just sign on and say what they need to do. So if you would like to explain a little bit exactly what this bill is in that sense.

Exactly what you just mentioned, this has nothing to do with the providers at all. This just has to do with the ability for a more expanded level of people who can actually sign those forms to get the services that the individuals need, nothing to do with the providers whatsoever. So, yes, you are correct.

Perfect. I fully support this bill. I'm happy to move this bill and thank you for your, you know, attention on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogue, you did make mention to the letter of opposition that was submitted by the California Association of Nurse Practitioners. They had some language in there, and it sounded from your presentation that you were willing to consider that, and you've been working with them. So thank you very much. And thank you also for your witnesses that are being here today. Bill has been moved by Senator Wahab. Assistant, please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. Please close.

I just respectfully asked for an aye vote.

All right. All right. Thank you.

Let's go home.

All right.

File item 10, SB 1245 motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, the vote is five to zero, and that bill is out. So before you leave for dinner, we are going to lift the call. All right, Assistant, if you can call consent calendar please.

File item five. File item six on the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Okay, that's 5-0. That vote is out. Senate Bill 1016.

Consent is adopted.

Oh, I'm sorry. The consent is adopted, and that vote is also out. Thank you.

Okay, then we have two more on call.

File number one, Senate Bill 1016.

[Roll Call]

Item number one, Senate Bill 1016 lifting the call. Oh, that's right. Okay, so that is four Aye's and 1 abstains. So that vote is out. Item number three. Senate Bill 1249.

[Roll Call]

It's 5-0. That Bill is out. I just want to make sure. Senate Bill 1254. Becker, did I call that vote out?

File item. I'm sorry.

File item four. Senate Bill 1254. Just want to make sure I called it out. Yes. All right.

Yes that one's out. 4-0.

Thank you. Sure. Senate Bill 1107. Item number two. Just want to make sure. I called that vote out.

Yes, that one's out.

Okay, wonderful. Okay.

Did we cover everything? All right, so thank you so much, everyone. Thank you to Members of the Committee for staying. Thank you for our consultants and all the work that our staff does in our office. To get us to this great place. And to our wonderful sergeants. The Committee on Senate Human Services is now adjourned.