Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

Senate Human Services Committee will come to order. Good afternoon. We're holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building. I ask all Members of the Committee to be present now in room 2200 so that we can establish our quorum and begin the hearing. I do want to address our guests today, and thank you for being here. This is an open and public meeting. We will ask you to ensure that we follow all rules in decorum while you're here.

If you have any questions about participation, please see one of our sergeants. We will have the ability for public comment, both in support and opposition of any of our bills. We limit it to your name, your organization, or who you represent, and whether you oppose or support. We do have witnesses that will be testifying that will be invited here to this front table. But please do not come through that metal gate. That metal gate is there for your protection and for ours, and is strictly regulated.

Thank you. All right, we do not have a quorum at this point, so we are going to move forward as a Subcommitee. Let's see here. Very good. All right, we are going to move forward a bit out of order. We're going to be hearing the first item, item number two, Senate Bill 1043 from Senator Grove. Senator Grove, are you ready?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Excellent. We will hear you when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, colleagues, and Madam Chair. Today I'm here to present SB 1043, the Accountability in Children's Treatment Bill, which would create more transparency surrounding the use of restraints and seclusion rooms in short term residential therapeutic programs, also known as STRTPS. Many of us have seen the recent media surrounding troubled teen facilities across this country. Widespread abuse of these programs have spurred an outpouring of attention and legislative reform.

Although California previously sent foster children from our state to these out of state programs, in recent years this Legislature has courageously acted, and the Governor has done some significant work, to decertify these facilities and ensure that California's children are returned home.

A report in 2020 by The Imprint and San Francisco Chronicle reported that California was sending foster youth offenders with severe mental and behavioral health conditions out of state to these for profit facilities. As many of these facilities, such as one that Paris Hilton was sent to at the age of 17, children were physically, mentally, and sexually abused by staff.

In response to the reports of abuse, Assembly Bill 808 by Assembly Member Stone, which was later introduced in a budget trailer bill of AB 153, banned the placement of children in these out of state residential facilities and ordered that all of these teens be returned to their home by 2023. Their home state, I should say. Additionally, Governor Newsom allocated $8 million to bring them home and provide proper placement.

Many of our foster youth who were returned to California were placed in these STRTPs, which are licensed by the State of California Department of Social Services. Although California has been proactive in addressing the troubled teen industry and ensuring health and safety for our foster youth, there is still work that needs to be done to provide additional transparency to the public and to ensure that our children are safe in these California facilities.

The increased use of STRTPs began in 2015 when Assembly Member Stone passed AB 403, which made the transition of these the use of these group homes for our children in foster care to be used for these short term residential treatment facilities. The goal was to increase the number of children placed within our foster families to reserve the STRTP placements as an option for those who needed a higher level of care.

This bill was a monumental step in the right direction and was the beginning of a much larger change for our foster care system. STRTPs serve children and young adults who need increased levels of care, and these treatment facilities have the ability to use restraints and seclusion rooms in the facility if they believe that this individual is a particular danger to themselves or others. STRTPs are required to report all restraint and seclusion use to the Department of Social Services.

The Department is then required to put this information online and make it available to the public. However, due to the budgetary constraints, this information has never been provided to the public or the Legislature. When researching this issue to champion children, we set aside one third of our legislation to be able to champion children and be a voice for the voiceless. We asked the Department to provide us with the information requesting the information of use on restraint and seclusion rooms.

We waited four months continuously asking, and we still have been unsuccessful in getting this information. Some of California's most vulnerable children are housed in STRTPs, including foster youth who have been previously sexually exploited. Knowing what these children have experienced, we must require the highest level of transparency and accountability in care for our vulnerable population. SB 1043 is a simple transparency measure which would require the DSS to create a dashboard by January 2026 that displays the data on use of restraints and seclusion rooms for STRTPs.

This data will include the number of incidents and the restraints and seclusions that were used, the duration of time, and if there were any injuries or deaths, along with any other, excuse me, necessary data. Currently, STRTPs are required to provide and debrief patients at the time the restraints or seclusions are used. SB 1483 will require DSS to include an additional dashboard with written description of those debriefs, excluding any identifying information of those involved.

It's a small but critical step to ensure that the increased transparency and accountability for California's children. With me today is the sponsor of SB 1043, CEO of 11:11 Media impact, and a survivor of the troubled teen industry, Ms. Paris Hilton. I can tell you that she's here today to speak about her own experiences with restraints and seclusion rooms in these out of state facilities, which we no longer keep children in.

But we need to make sure and ensure transparency is available to us so that we can look at policy moving forward if necessary. Also with us is Rebecca Grone. She is the Director of Impact of 11:11 Media that continuously works with Ms. Hilton to be able to be the voice and shine a light on this industry and the trouble teen industry that the United States and the world is subjected to. So I'll turn it over to Miss Rebecca Grone first.

Thank you so much, Senator Grove. Hi, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, I defer my time to Paris Hilton. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members of the Senate Human Services Committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak and share my story with you. Today I stand before you not just as Paris Hilton, but as a survivor and an advocate for the silent voices waiting to be heard. I know firsthand the horrors that happened behind the closed doors of youth residential treatment facilities.

As a teenager, I was placed in programs in California and other states where the very people entrusted with my care, my growth, and my healing, betrayed that trust in the most devastating ways. I was not allowed to speak freely, to move freely, or even look out a window without permission. I was subjected to cruel and degrading treatment all in the name of therapy. I lived in constant fear, not knowing what would happen to me next.

If I tried to tell my parents about the abuse, the staff would immediately rip the phone from my hand, disconnect the call, and subject me to violent physical restraints and throw me into solitary confinement. And when I close my eyes at night, I still have nightmares about solitary confinement 20 years later, where I'm being dragged down a hallway and shoved into a four by four cement cell. One day in seclusion felt like a week.

That small room, covered in scratch marks and smeared blood with no bathroom is one of the most vivid and traumatizing memories that will haunt me for the rest of my life. The sounds of my peers screaming as they were physically restrained by numerous staff members and injected with sedatives will also never leave me. I'm not sharing this story with you today to seek sympathy but to illuminate the grim realities that seclusion and deadly physical restraints are still happening in facilities.

Does this sound like a form of therapy to you? Hundreds of thousands of youth from the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, as well as youth with disabilities, experience this treatment every year. California has made so much progress on this issue, and I'm so proud to be a resident of the state.

Given that the state ended the process of sending youth to out of state programs due to abuse and deaths occurring, it only makes sense to ensure that facilities in-state are operating with the highest level of transparency and oversight. We must keep California's most vulnerable youth safe, and we must hold these facilities accountable to providing outstanding care. Right now, reports of restraint and seclusion are recorded, but the data is not publicly available.

If Senator Grove's office and my nonprofit, 11:11 Media Impact, couldn't get access to vital data about these facilities, can you only imagine how difficult it is for state agencies placing youth in facilities or parents that have had to make the difficult decision to do so? We shouldn't be placing youth in facilities without knowing what these children will be subjected to. The Accountability in Children's Treatment Act is a simple transparency measure that would make a lasting impact and show the world what truly happens behind closed doors.

And if the facilities are worried about transparency, then I think that we should ask them what they have to hide. Our current system, designed to reform, in some horrific instances, does the exact opposite. It breaks spirits, it instills fear, and it perpetuates a cycle of abuse. But today, we have the power to change that. Today, we can decide to stand up for those who don't have a voice. We must be their advocates, their protectors, and their voices in the halls of power where decisions are made.

Please vote yes to SB 1043. Thank you for your attention, your compassion, and your action. Together, we can make sure the horrors of yesterday do not become the realities of tomorrow. Together, we can give these children what they truly deserve, safety, care, and a bright future. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Hilton, for sharing your story. We are now going to be turning it over to the public for their comments. Any members of the public wishing to address the Committee today for support? Your name, organization, and your position only, please. Come up to the microphone.

John Drebinger with the Steinberg Institute in support. Thank you.

Zoe Schreiber, a troubled teen survivor and advocate, in strong support.

Avital van Leeuwen, survivor of institutional child abuse at Alpine Academy, funded by Los Angeles Unified School District. Strong support of this bill.

Chelsea Filer, CEO of the Institutional Child Abuse Prevention and Advocacy Network. I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Natalie Wills, survivor of institutional child abuse, run away at a very young age to hide from this big abusive industry. Please vote yes on SB 1043. Thank you.

Aviva Kirsten, survivor of group home abuse. I support this bill. I'm also an advocate of disability rights.

Thank you.

Ashley Thompson, advocate, the Valkyrie Network, and I support 1043.

Carly Kane, Valkyrie Network, from Bakersfield, California, and I strongly support this bill.

Michael Mendoza, children's rights advocate, in strong support.

Thank you.

Nelson Diaz. I support SB 1043.

Thank you.

Christine Diaz, Bakersfield, in support of SB 1043.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, we will now move forward to witnesses in opposition of this bill. Please come forward If we have any opposition. Oh, we still have support? Okay. We will hear from the support.

Good morning. Good afternoon. Kevin Aslanian, Coalition California Welfare Rights Organizations, strong support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll give it a minute to make sure we hearing from everybody. Good? Okay, now we'll move forward with witnesses in opposition. Any witnesses in opposition that would like to address the Committee today? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to members of the public wishing to express their opposition to this bill. Please come to the microphone with your name, organization, and your position only, please. Okay, hearing and seeing none, we'll bring the conversation back to the Committee. Senator Ochoa Bogh, would you like to have any comments or questions?

Just would like to. Sorry. Just would like to thank Senator Grove for bringing this bill forward. I want to thank Ms. Paris Hilton for shedding light on this issue and the needs that we need to literally oversee within our state. So, thank you both and the team for being here today, for bringing that forward. So glad to support the bill, and we'll move the bill when the time is appropriate.

Since we are still in subcommitee, we will continue to have conversations. But I do want to thank you for being here. I know how courageous it is to bring forward a story of survival. I understand that this is a bill that was a long time coming, and Senator Grove has been a champion for bills that are common sense and really speak to family. And some of our most vulnerable are children and victimization of women and girls.

And so I would not expect anything less from Senator Grove in terms of what she brings to the floor. There is no opposition to this bill. I would wonder who would come to oppose this bill, because I think the nature, the intent of what you're bringing forward, Senator Grove, is really awareness, but also accountability.

And so oftentimes we, as parents, we believe we're doing the best for our kids, but there's also an acknowledgement that when we make those decisions, perhaps they are more harmful, more traumatic than what we intend. But without having our survivors come out and speak out, without having that accountability, it makes it very difficult for us to change, change the system. I will say that I feel very fortunate to be on this Committee, not only because of my lived experiences, but I've also worked in these residential treatment facilities here in California as a very young person.

And oftentimes what you see is a recruitment of young people who have little or no skill sets to work in therapeutic environments and given a lot of power, a lot of power and control in a situation where, again, not having that awareness of how to work with an individual in a therapeutic way, but simply to fill a time slot or to fill a job position.

And, you know, I've talked about some of those experiences now, you know, with my children in terms of how we can do better for our foster kids, for our kids that are in these therapeutic settings. And I don't think they're all bad, but I do think the ones that are bad, that impact the trauma of our children, that are unregulated, that are unstructured, that do not have evidence-based programming, I wonder how we get away with that here in California. So I really appreciate you bringing forward your bill. Not seeing any other questions. Senator Grove, we will put your bill on call until we can have a quorum.

Permission to close?

Oh, yes. Very sorry.

Thank you. I applaud the Chair's recognition of the importance of this bill. And thank you very much for the comments that you did make. You know, listening to some of the testimony that we had this morning from survivors, and including Ms. Hilton, but Zoe and others, the word trauma kept coming up, and we have to address that. And if there's nothing going on, there's nothing to share.

But if there's something going on, then we should know. We do know from DSS website that there are complaints, broken arms, slammed hands in doors, but there's no data to show what happened and what caused that. And so the goal is to go after the data and make sure that, in the future that if there is policy that needs to address these issues, that we have that data to address, be that policy. And so I just thank you and respect lease for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. And follow up to your closing, I do want to note, you know, we use the word trauma, and I think it's a misnomer to think that trauma is only in the moment. Trauma can arise at any time in a lifetime. And although we're talking about data on broken bones and slammed fingers, trauma, particularly psychological trauma, internal trauma, can live with a young person for so long and come out and be triggered through other avenues.

I was on social media today, and I read something that was uplifting that I'll share with the public today was the word glimmer. And that we know what a trigger is. A trigger is that what causes that pain to resurface. And the glimmer, perhaps, is something that gives us a statement or a color or a feeling or a sound that allows us to soothe. And I think for me, you know, Senate Bill 1043 is that glimmer that gives me that soothing feeling. So thank you so much for being here.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

All right, we are going to take a brief recess. I need to run to B&P, and we will also call on the Committee Members to come into room 2200. We will reconvene at 4 o'clock.

Alvarado-Gil. Present. Alvarado-Gil. Present. Achoa Bogue. Present. Achoa Bogue. Present. Blakespear. Present. Blakespear. Present. Hurtado Menjivar. Present. Minjivar. Present.

All right, so it looks like we have a quorum. We have 11 bills on today's agenda, and one of those are on proposed consent. Do any Members wish to remove bills from consent seeing and hearing? None. We will now take up our bills in file order. We did hear item number two before the recess, and I'm looking for an author. I see. Is Rubio here? zero, I don't see her. zero, there she is. Hello. Hello, Senator Rubio, my apologies. Okay, and before we begin, do you have any witnesses for you today?

Yes.

All right, we'll ask you to bring two witnesses to have them sit forward. Come. Yes, all the way to the side, please. Yeah, could we have them to the side just in case we have opposition? There's two seats left. Thank you. zero, you're remove. Okay. Thank you so much. All right, Senator Rubio, item number one, Senate Bill 998. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone. Chair and Members of the Committee, today I'm proud to present SB 998, the Human Trafficking Child Protection Program. Across our nation, there have been increase in minors who are being illegally exploited for labor. According to the US Department of Labor, for 2023, there has been an 88% increase of this illegal employment practice. Just last December in the City of Industry in my district. At the time, the US Department of Labor found that two poultry processing plants had at least eight children working there.

Really dire conditions, and usually at night, where no one was watching. And so that prompted me to want to take on this Bill. They had their wages withheld and were working longer hours permitted by child labor laws. This growing issue is being left unattended. California has done a tremendous job in combating child sex trafficking and other trafficking, but yet labor continues to be left untouched. Like the rest of the nation, California is behind in identifying and supporting children who are being subject to labor exploitation.

The Little Hoover Commission had released two reports on which had come out last year, highlighting the need to update existing laws, especially updating the CSAC program to equally address all forms of commercial trafficking. SB 998 will close the gaps and give vulnerable populations the protection they deserve. This Bill will require that social workers cannot separate victims of labor trafficking from their families. And that's something that I want to be clear on because we've heard concerns that it may separate families.

Once again, they will not be automatically removed from their parents. There have to be signs and it has to be shown that they've been neglected or abused. So again, not automatically taken away from their families. County child welfare agencies will also have to work in consultation with the departments and experience agencies serving youth and children to expand policies and procedures to apply to children who are victims of human trafficking.

This Bill requires the Child Welfare Services case management system to collect data on children who are victims of human trafficking. There is an overwhelming number of children who already have contact with the child welfare system but are being misidentified as criminals and not being recognized as victims. In other words, these children that were trying to protect already, most often than not, have already been touched by social services.

Some of these victims are youth facing homelessness who lack stable and social support services or networks, leaving them at risk for being sex trafficked or labor trafficked. The Human Trafficking Child Protection program is sponsored by the Sunita Jane Anti Trafficking Initiative at Loyola Law School and supported by many organizations. We're currently working with the opposition to address the pending issues, and with that, I want to turn it over to my witnesses who have joined me today, Jimmy Lopez, who is a survivor of child labor trafficking. And I will let him start first.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. You'll each have two minutes to present, and then please say your name in your organization as you present. Thank you.

Thank you for giving the opportunity to have me here. My name is Jimmy Lopez, and I am survivor of child labor trafficking. When I first entered to the United States, I was only 12 years old, and I came alone. I had no family. And here in the United States, I met a man who told me that he would help me out, get a job and be stable. He took me to a furniture factory where I worked for and lived for two years.

I lived in the same factory where I worked, and I was physically beaten and I was not allowed to leave. I was not paid for my work I did for this entire two years. And one of these times, I ran out and I ended up in a restaurant, and I asked for help. They offered me a job. Soon the restaurant offered me to work and drive a car. I was only 15 years old when I started driving this car. I didn't have any driving license.

I thought I could trust them, but they treated me better than the other people before. And one of these times, the police stopped me and found drugs and realized that I was doing. I had no idea that the drugs were in the car and I was delivering this car to different places. The police arrested me and took me to a detention center. The judge told me that I was a criminal. They all treated me as a criminal.

The court system never knew I had been a victim of human trafficking twice. Once for legal work and other ones because I was coerced to commit a crime or transporting drugs. I later learned that this was human trafficking for forced criminality. The system didn't knowledge where human trafficking was, especially child error trafficking. It was known sex trafficking before. But at the moment the court and the judge didn't know that.

And I didn't want to leave because I was thinking no one was on my side while I was in jail. I intend to kill myself. When I was 18, I think I was being transferred from a Germany to a dull prison. And the public defender coalition to avoid celebrity and trafficking cast helped me to identify me as someone who has labored traffic and connect me to services. Because no one saw me as a victim and no one asked what I was arrested, instead giving help.

There are a lot of children with similar stories like mine who could benefit from SB 998. If the system had been trained to identify me, I wouldn't have understood what happened to me. What happened to me while a crime that was not a criminal. Also, maybe I would not have been trafficked twice. Or someone who had called the child welfare system and identified me in the furniture factory early where I was working as a child for two years without getting help.

And then it was only another criminal who ended up helping me and then exploiting me. SB 998 will help child will help child and labor trafficking victims just like me. For this reason, I ask you to vote for this Bill to pass. Thank you.

Hey, you need to move along. You have a little bit of a shortened time. But please go ahead.

I will try to go as fast as possible. Hello everybody. My name is Aradhana Tiwari I am the Senior Policy Counsel for the Sunita Jain Anti-Trafficking Initiative at Loyola Law School. Prior to joining this position, I myself worked for 10 years as an immigration attorney on complex removal defense cases, primarily involving survivors of trafficking facing deportation.

What has been most alarming to me in my work in direct services is that the number of individuals that I have represented whose victimization actually began in their youth who were either overlooked, ignored, or dismissed by the systems intended to protect them. This Bill, formerly AB 235, was originally on Governor Brown's desk in 2014, and he vetoed this measure, citing that the Bill was premature.

And more information was needed on child labor trafficking, where the original intent of the Bill was to clarify that child abuse included all forms of human trafficking. The legislation that went into effect that year only recognized commercial sexual exploitation as a, as a form of human trafficking, thus excluding protocol and training development in the child welfare system for children who have experienced labor trafficking.

The result is that 10 years after special protections were put into place for child sex trafficking victims in California, the state has not addressed child labor trafficking within the welfare system at all. The failings of this have been reported in the Little Hoover Commission in 2020 and again in 2024. I was alarmed when I first began working with survivors of human trafficking at the number of individuals who were arrested for commercial sex.

It was insane to work with children that were as young as 11 or 12 who had been arrested multiple times for commercial sex work. Our child welfare system had failed these children, but it corrected these mistakes in 2014 because the state has failed to clarify that child abuse includes forms of labor trafficking. We now see an alarming number of children who are subjected to forced labor by forced criminality, who are being arrested and criminalized, just as the state did prior to the legislative change in 2014.

I know this is a problem because reports and evidence suggest the connection between all forms of human trafficking and the child welfare system. And because of my own professional experience, just in the last month, our program provided technical assistance on a sex trafficking case to a dependency attorney.

We'll just have you wrap up your, your statement.

Okay, then let me just jump to the end. All children who are victims of human trafficking, while they experience each child who is a victim of human trafficking, has unique needs. However, the factors underlying that vulnerability are the same. Children facing housing insecurity, unstable homes, and other desperations to find stability are vulnerable to human trafficking.

In the end, when we are not acknowledging this as a problem with the children who already have contact with the child welfare system, what is happening is that the overwhelming number of children who are subjected to this type of crime are being overlooked, ignored, dismissed, or criminalized, and that is simply unacceptable given the explosive numbers.

Thank you so much. We're going to have to wrap up. Thank you. All right, so we will open up to the public. This is the opportunity for any Members of the public that want to express support to come to the microphone and give their name, organization and their position, please.

Kevin Aslanian, California Welfare Rights Organization strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any support? Go ahead, we'll give you time.

Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Veda Group representing CARC and the Central American Resource Center and support.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, we'll wait to hear from sergeants. Okay, great. That's all our support. I'm going to now invite the opposition to come forward to give their testimony. You will each be given two minutes to present, and we'll sergeants when we do Q and A. I usually have the witnesses here to answer. Okay, thank you.

Welcome. Ask to state your name and your organization and you'll each have two minutes to speak when you're ready.

Eileen Cubanski with the County Welfare Directors Association. While we appreciate the author's intent with SB 998 to help labor trafficking victims, unfortunately, we do oppose the Bill at this time. The mandate of the child welfare system is to protect children from abuse and neglect from their parents and caregivers. Our workers are trained to investigate those allegations and respond accordingly.

While commercially sexually exploited children can never consent to sex trafficking as a minor, labor trafficking investigations are much more complex as minors can participate in any number of work activities legally. It would therefore be up to the child welfare system to determine if force, fraud or coercion were part of the child's labor, where currently this is the jurisdiction of trained law enforcement or the Labor Department to investigate and handle.

CWJ has concerns about whether the child welfare system in and of itself is currently prepared to handle investigating these cases. We also have concerns about the current capacity of the system to provide appropriate services to these victims, where parents may also be the victims of unscrupulous traffickers, or the coercion could be a child working to help pay off family debt.

Contact with the child welfare system and potential removal of a child from their home may exacerbate the trauma by creating more system contact with no clear path forward. Simply expanding the existing CSEC program as currently proposed is not the answer. Trafficking and labor trafficking are distinct, and although some victims may experience both, the services offered should be provided based on what the victim experienced.

If the Legislature decides to move forward with SB 998, we need the same approach as when CSEC was incorporated into child welfare's mandate, providing dedicated, ongoing, distinct funding and training requirements with ongoing implementation and technical assistance from the state, as well as identifying and contracting with service providers who can meet the needs of this particular trauma in children. SB 998 in its current form creates a new mandate for a new population without ensuring there is adequate training, policies, services or funding in place to do so.

And if the Bill moves forward, we are committed to work to ongoing discussions to try to get it to a place where we can remove our opposition. Thank you.

Amanda Kirchner with CWDA here for technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We will now then move the opposition. Any Members of the public who wish to share their opposition to this Bill, please come forward. Name, organization and position only. Okay, great hearing and seeing none, we will bring the conversation. Oh, excuse me.

My name is Jumari Fernandez and I want to express my support okay.

Thank you so much. Right. Check the hallways real quick. Are we good? All right, we'll now bring the conversation back to the Committee. Questions or concerns for the author? I'll go. Senator Blakespear and Senator Menjivar. Yes.

Thank you. I appreciate you bringing this Bill. And I thought your witnesses were excellent and provided a lot of important information. And I also appreciated what was just shared. This is not an area that I already know a lot about. And it does seem as if there is a solution that is needed here. There's clearly a potential problem.

And in some ways, as the gentleman was speaking here, I was thinking is what he needed was the stability of housing and maybe a foster care system, because basically the job and the exploitation was coming from the job that you needed in order to have a place to live. I'm concerned about what the opponent, the opposition was saying.

And I wanted to just hear from the author about why you think the Committee consultant analysis said that the Cal/OSHA labor trafficking unit might be the better place for this to be housed. And I just wanted to hear from the author about why you don't think that's the case. And then also just particularly around the realities that if children are not being abused or neglected, they're being labor trafficked, that those are really different. So I guess that's one of the questions, is, is this the best place for it to be housed? The child welfare agency?

Sure. Well, I'm going to let them answer some technical questions, but I just wanted to share that we already have knowledge that 10 other counties have been implementing the labor trafficking into the CSEC program. So it's already working within their budget and with minimal cost. So they're already doing it in 10 other counties. So we just wanted to see we can make this work clearly. I think I also heard someone say, you know, public safety in other areas, it is a growing problem.

And if you're not necessarily trained or, and I do a lot on domestic violence, as you all know, and we rely on our public safety all the time, and yet, you know, victims continue to fall through the cracks and because these are children that we're dealing with. When you think of sex trafficking and some of the coercion and trauma that they deal with, it's not the same, clearly, sex traffic and labor traffic, but they're still children and they still need to be identified.

I think the biggest issue for me is that they're not being identified. Like this gentleman that just told a story, they're not being. So we need someone with that expertise but I'll turn it over to Aradhana. Go ahead and see if you can add to that.

Oh, excuse me. Can you hear me?

Thank you, Senator Blakespear, for your question. So we agree with the Committee analysis that our civil agencies, like Cal/OSHA, should be given more authority and resources to support survivors of labor trafficking, and we hope we have the Committee's support on such measures in the future. However, we believe such protections will not address a primary problem in California's current definition of child abuse, which excludes labor trafficking.

Okay.

Currently, children who are forced to commit crimes are being wrongfully arrested, incarcerated, and often deported, instead of being protected by the system intended to protect all children. As I mentioned in my testimony, prior to 2014, we saw this exact same pattern with children subjected to commercial sex. We saw them being arrested instead of being identified as survivors of abuse who need support. Labor trafficking by forced criminality refers to all labor trafficking, where the labor is an illegal activity like theft, assault, drug dealing, or commercial sex.

Whereas an individual who is sex trafficked is forced, defrauded, and coerced to commit a sexual act, an individual who is labor trafficked by forced criminality is forced, defrauded, and coerced into committing a different type of crime. Research has shown that as many as half of all identified human trafficking survivors amongst youth facing homelessness. That is, children already in contact with the child welfare system, have been labor trafficked, half among this group, the most common. I'm gonna pause you because I just.

Want to make sure we're answering the question and not giving re-testimony. Yeah.

And I guess what I really would, you know, I would like maybe some thought about, or some feedback about the issue of kids who are contributing to their family. So there are many families that have family businesses or the kids are working to help support the family finances. And there are, as the opposition witness said, there are a lot of legal ways that minors can be working. So how is it that that would be reconciled or negotiated? And I think that's part. I do think that's a particular complexity here.

Sure. And before she answers more technical answers, because it's double referred. We've been talking to Judiciary Committee, too, because we want to make sure we don't put you all through something that's not going to pass judiciary. So they had already expressed some language that we could incorporate that's very specific. And they wanted us to consider. The fact that a child is a very victim of human trafficking does not alone constitute grounds for a social worker to take temporary custody of a child to be more specific.

I think we talked about with some of you, maybe someone working on the weekend, on their restaurant, you know, a family restaurant that does not in itself constitute calling someone, you know, they're being labor trafficked. But there has to be. That's why we want to identify, make sure that we have a social worker to identify. Is this forced or is this just contributing to the family? So it's just a safeguard. But we are talking about specific language to your concern, and judiciary is working with us. And I know it doesn't help right now, but I'll turn it over to you to add a little bit to more of that.

And please focus just on the question.

Definitely. So to answer specifically your question, we are advocating for children already in the system to be better identified. And section G that is part of this legislation is designed by practitioners to protect parents from being at blame for their children's victimization. Because we see this all the time when you work in direct services. This type of protection is needed for sex and labor trafficking survivors.

And this Bill is setting the same standard for both types of crime in which individuals who first identify this form of child abuse then must make an additional assessment as to whether or not there is actual abuse or neglect in the home, thereby avoiding the unintended consequences that you are listing of children who are working to support their families, not necessarily children who are being forced, fraud, or coerced into a type of labor.

Okay. And I just want to say for the records, sorry Chair I'll conclude shortly. But to me, it seems like we need to have some type of system in place, not just where there's an analysis of, zero, this child is helping support the family, but there, I'm sure, are many circumstances where the child is actually working too much and there needs to be some type of intervention or oversight that says, hey, you can't continue to do this or there will be these consequences.

But basically that recognizes that the child is otherwise not abused or neglected and that they should follow the child labor laws that we have. But I did want the opposition witness just to briefly address that question of where do you think this is best housed? Do you think it's Cal/OSHA labor trafficking unit, or is there some other place? Given that this, it seems like this is a problem, what would be the suggestion that you would have for how this could be handled?

I think to some degree it depends on the situation. There are numerous examples to the sponsors point where there are already children and youth in our system who are also victims of labor trafficking and including in C Sec, there are crossover youth. There's youth with both experiences. And I don't know that we know how many there are. And certainly those youth that are subject to other abuse and neglect are absolutely appropriately to be served in our system.

Our system still does not give us the capacity necessarily to have the services that would address the specific trauma of labor trafficking. But that is certainly something we are willing to talk about, how we develop that capacity in our system. But that is different from the youth that you are mentioning. Where there are, there isn't parental abuse or neglect also involved, and that area is much more gray. And that's where it's unclear to us whether the child welfare system is the right system for those youth versus another system.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Senator Menjivar.

Thank you so much. Senator Rubio, can you clarify, would this in your intention, be added as another thing for someone to call in and make a report?

Well, it's not necessarily our intent to just give someone like a mandated teacher to report this. This is already in place, as they were saying, that most of the children that we're trying to capture are those that are already in the system. And the reason I brought it up, and I think it answers your question, is that where to locate this service is that 10 other counties are already doing it. It's because of the crossover and we're dealing with children.

And it's about, I think the biggest issue is identifying the children, which is not happening over and over again, where you don't know who these kids are. But the intent is not to make another report. But I'm going to let my white witness answer a little bit further with more technical.

Could you repeat your question, Senator Menjivar?

So the reason for my question is, even in analysis, is that in 2022, child welfare agencies received 440,212 reports. Of those, 51 were substantiated. Of those, 19,000, approximately were removed from their homes. I know we're inundated all across the state. Is this something the child welfare agencies, social workers, what have you are going to now also be responding to, to confirm that there is child labor trafficking happening?

It is our high hope that all child welfare workers are trained and able to identify all forms of human trafficking.

And so the intent with this Bill is that if a child welfare worker receives a call, and this is the way the Bill is structured, they will first, they will first be trained on force fraud and coercion, which is the legal criminal standard for labor trafficking, for all human trafficking. They will first make that determination of if this labor was performed under force, fraud, or coercion. That's the 236.1 criminal code for labor trafficking. And then make a determination about whether there's abuse or neglect at home.

Okay.

If there's no, in those instances, if the child, there is no abuse or neglect in the home, which is the child welfare's duty to make sure all children are safe, then the child doesn't enter the child welfare system. And that is how section G is designed in order to guard against these types of unintended consequences.

And I don't think, and I hope we're portraying this, no one, I don't believe here is saying there is no need here. There is 100% a need for this population. I think we all agree on that part. My fear is putting it in an area, and I hate doing this, like, no one should be pitying, like this is more vulnerable than the others. I'm not saying that whatsoever, but we have a system in place to address abuse, neglect. And those needs are so specific and unique that I don't think they transfer over to the needs in this population that we're talking about.

As somebody who has worked with sex and labor trafficking survivors for my entire career and who's worked with many direct service practitioners, the vulnerability factors underlying each type of human trafficking are similar. Children who are experiencing homelessness, who are experiencing family instability, who are desperate for stability in any way, shape, or form, are vulnerable to human trafficking.

And so we hope that with section G of this Bill, we are able to guard against the things you're intending by making sure that children who are not experiencing abuse or neglect at home are thereby not coming under the purview of the child welfare system. But that investigation is done because a red flag was raised that there were signs of labor trafficking.

And we might disagree on this, because even with that response, I still think different trained individuals are needed to respond to these two different demographics. And I agree that they're both in vulnerable situations and they're both vulnerable, and there could be an array of external variables that are similar to socioeconomic status and so forth. But I still, and Senator, I've shared with you fear, and I'm gonna, and I apologize if this language is incorrect. Can't figure out how to say it otherwise.

I fear that we're gonna put CWDA in positions where we're further gonna pull away from responding to the cause of the children they have responsibility for. Under my question to you counties is the Senator mentioned that there has been a pilot called the pact program where 10 counties were selected to do this, and a report back in 20, a report back in 2020, showed that it was successful in integrating services for both sex and labor trafficking.

One of the counties that participated was my county, LA County. Others were Sacramento, San Joaquin, Alameda, Madero, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Aventura, San Bernardino, and Riverside. If we had this pilot program and it was successful, what gives us the reason to believe that it won't be successful moving forward?

I'll let Amanda respond to the technical aspects of it. I'll just say that it was both. Right. The commercial sex exploitation and labor trafficking. And so I think it's that each.

Individual had both things happen to them. Yeah. Yeah. So what?

So the pact counties that were created in 2014 through the budget act were given sort of seed money to start. Federal money came down as well. And it was an opt in program for the counties. And it started with training. And out of that was developed protocols and interagency agreements for how you were going to treat the C Sec youth when they were brought into the system and identified. Right.

So, for instance, if a young person was picked up for commercial sex, it wasn't an automatic arrest. A social worker was called. Right. They did an assessment of what was going on, and they were put into the dependency side of the system instead of the delinquency side of the system. And so those 10 counties started with that.

And over the last several years, as part of that initial training, they have expanded their trainings to also include labor trafficking, but only in identifying kids who have already had touched our child welfare system. So they're not going necessarily out and responding for independent labor trafficking calls. They're responding and noticing labor trafficking when they're doing other child abuse investigations.

And it's not that sometimes those calls don't come in, but what we've heard from our counties and from LA specifically, is most of their time, there's lots of things going on at once that are getting our attention. Labor trafficking is one. It's not the only thing.

And so for this particular program, basically, we would need something like that was set up 10 years ago to make sure one the rest of the counties that haven't been doing that part of the training get that training, but also that they get all the rest of the opt in infrastructure that not all of the counties have right now.

Ma'am, shall I just have one more question? Well, I have a couple, but I'll use my time for a little bit. And this question's for both. And, Senator, maybe I should direct it to you, but feel free. Do we believe outside of those 10 counties, we have counties that have the education and training to address these kind of cases.

So I will let her address that. But, you know, I want to just point out something and the problem, or I keep hearing over, like, the criminality aspect of it, right. Because sex trafficking brings an element of criminality. They end up in the system and they end up arrested. But, you know, when I heard my witness Jimmy's story, these are the stories that are usually sort of that break my heart, because the histories are the ones that are not being identified.

But it's also child abuse, you know, and I believe someone like Jimmy, who was, you know, labored and beaten and forced into this, like he should have the same ability to be identified. I think the identifying part is what I'm struggling with. And yes, it'll take training just like the pilot program. But when you think, but do the.

Counties lack training right now, would you say there's.

I'll turn it over to you, because I have her answer.

Your original question was, did the counties currently, or you said, does any service provider, what was your original question?

Should the county agencies write out, would you say, at least outside of the 10 counties have participated in this pilot? Because I'm assuming they got some training? Yes. The other 48 counties, would you say that their education, or is there a lack of education and training for county agencies?

Absolutely. Absolutely.

This should be the first step, providing the training.

I would believe that the first step is to clarify that sex and labor trafficking both constitute forms of child abuse, because only when we acknowledge the problem can we address it through proper training. And the reason I preface it this way is because the way in which we are characterizing labor trafficking largely ignores that many labor trafficking survivors experience heinous forms of abuse that need similar services to those children who are subjected to sexual sex trafficking. Excuse me.

Beyond that, as somebody who's worked with both sex and labor trafficking, there needs to be a showing of force, fraud, and coercion in both types of trafficking. And the training that's already been in place at the counties has been training child welfare workers throughout the state for 10 years that sports fraud or that human trafficking only means sex trafficking.

So therefore, when our child welfare workers are encountering labor trafficking, perhaps exclusively labor trafficking, that has nothing to do with any type of sexual exploitation, they are overlooking, ignoring, dismissing, or criminalizing these cases into the juvenile delinquency system. Beyond that, I believe that the counties would bend. The counties are currently receiving training that sex trafficking involves force, fraud, and coercion, because that's part of the legal definition, even though if you don't ultimately have to show it in a child trafficking case.

And we are suggesting that that training be expanded just as it has been successfully through the PAC program, so that children who are exposed to either type trafficking or both trafficking are better identified for what is actually happening, rather than being completely overlooked and dismissed, just as Jimmy was when he was trafficked at 12, 14, and 15 years old.

Thank you. No further questions.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So, currently, it seems like we probably already have. I know that you're wanting to have a specific definition for child. Definition for child labor trafficking. What's that?

Child abuse.

Child abuse. Okay, so. And I can see the questions that they had, whether or not this should be under labor or the social services, and the lack of training in trying to identify kids that are currently in the process right now. So, first of all, I just want to clarify, when you speak of children who need to be. Who are already in the system, currently in the system, you're saying that they're lacking the ability to. Or people they're working with them, that have touched them, are lacking the training to identify the labor part of it. Is that correct?

That's correct. Over 83% of labor survivors who have experienced labor trafficking by forced criminality have. Oh, excuse me. Over half of the children identified who have been subjected to labor trafficking by forced criminality have already had contact with the foster care system. 90% of those children had at least one parent who was deceased or absent for a significant part of their childhood.

We are saying these children are already in overwhelming numbers in the child welfare system, and when we do not identify them properly, one of two things is occurring. They are either being ignored and told that the child welfare system does not have jurisdiction over these cases, so they cannot support, or they're being routed to juvenile delinquency, which are pathways to further incarceration or deportation in the case of many immigrants.

So what is usually the trigger for child criminality?

What is the trigger?

Yes. So what is it that you just said that they're normally put into the criminal justice system? What triggers that? What is it?

So, in the case, when Jimmy was trafficked at age 15, he was driving a car that he did not know had drugs in it. When the police pulled him over without a license, instead of asking, where's your license? Why are you driving at 15? Triggering red flags. They immediately put him in the juvenile delinquency system, and he received a 20-year sentence. 20-year sentence.

So he served two of those years, and at age 18, his public defender then identified that what had happened to him sounded like force, fraud and coercion in a commercial exploitative case. And he was finally identified as a labor trafficking survivor at age 18, after serving two years in juvenile delinquency for something that should have triggered the police calling DCSF immediately to make a determination if this child is a labor trafficking survivor and then if there's abuse or neglect in the home.

Okay.

I have some clarifying questions just on yours, if you don't mind. One. I just want to acknowledge that our witness is here and give him the opportunity to speak on his behalf, to answer questions. Are you. Are you a legal representative of the witness? No, I am not. Okay. All right. So I'm going to allow the witness to answer his own questions.

I think the second thing for me is that I just want to make sure that we are sticking to this actual policy, because one of the things that I spoke with the author about as well for the sponsors, is we are. This is a large policy issue that has many, many complex concerns. It will be double referred to Judish.

Our discussion today is whether or not in the form of the policy as it is presented to us, if we think it is ready to move forward. So I just want to kind of frame that. I'm not arguing with you, the facts and the figures. I think you've been more than compelling on those. So I'm just going to ask you to just keep your responses short and answer the Senator's questions so that we can get to the vote.

We've got a lot of bills to hear today, and I just want to make sure that this is not a platform to promote something that you've been working on for a very long time, but help us compact it into this vote for here today.

So do you want Jimmy to answer that question?

Senator Ochoa Bogh, did you get your answer?

Just one last question as the Bill stands. Going back to the question. This would not apply to families with businesses, especially because as a Latina, you know, we work in. You know, I remember working in my dad's restaurant, and I wasn't paid by the hour. You know, I was. You know, I remember just working for tips. But this would not at all impact the family businesses where the children are known to come and actually work.

We're trying to tackle the commercial exploitation of children. And I know you and I had a discussion about that, and the last thing I want in particular being also an immigrant. You know that and that I know that we have a lot of family businesses where children go on the weekend and just work. It would have to be much broader than that. And I'll turn it over to see if you have anything to add to that.

I hope I can answer the question. Sorry. I hope I can answer the question as succinctly as possible. I, too, am an immigrant, and I, too have been made to work at a very young age, although it was not under force, fraud and coercion. And that is the clear distinction that this Bill makes. And that is codified under 236.1 of the Criminal Code, which defines human trafficking in our state and has been the definition for human trafficking for both sex and labor trafficking.

And so in order to protect children that are not working under force, fraud and coercion, child welfare workers would then have to make that determination, just as they would have to make that determination on a case by case basis, in any case involving child abuse.

Right. Okay, so we're going to wrap this up. I do have a couple questions. So this is a Bill that has been in front of us for almost 10 years now, and we had the conversation about this as well. What has not changed is the approach from the multiple times that it's been tried, it has been vetoed, it has died both in the Senate and Assembly. I don't think there's any Members of the Committee that see that don't acknowledge there's a problem here. Right. There is definitely a gap for identifying labor trafficking. The question is, is this the right approach to get to what we need to help protect kids?

Well, if I remember correctly, the reason some stated the veto messaging was that it was premature and they didn't have enough data that they would like to see more data. And since then, I believe that we have a lot more information on it. You want to address some of the data that's come forward since it was vetoed last time?

Absolutely.

Approach directly to the approach. So the actual letter of the Bill is the same. Right. So changes to the actual Bill because a lot happens in 10 years. So we've had other policy pieces for to protect kids. We've had policy pieces around sexual trafficking. It's like, my question is, really, is this the right approach, being that it has failed multiple times?

And I know we have new data, but how are we going to get it over the finish line if even at this level, we're having concerns of whether or not it should be housed with our social workers and not in another Department?

And I see your concern. Well, since then, we also have had. I know they're not absolutely identical to what we're trying to do here, but, you know, we're encouraged by the fact that we have these pilot programs, these 10 counties that have already successfully figured out how to help both.

And on top of that, we are also encouraged by the fact that we've already talked to judiciary, which is the next Committee we're going to go, and they're satisfied with some of the amendments that they're going to implement in the Bill. And I know you don't have it, so, you know, I apologize. I mean, sometimes time gets the best of us, but we worked with them to see how that would be made better, and they've offered some amendments, and they've already sort of expressed favorable outcomes.

I would also like to add.

It's okay. That's all right. Author, you said 10 counties. Can you please let me know what those counties were? I think Senator Mandravar said them, but I wanted to make sure I know.

If you don't mind. Yes, I think they have them.

Yeah, I don't have them right in front of me. Senator Menjivar, do you mind writing them off?

Sorry. Okay.

Thank you.

Please, please remaster, Senator Menjivar.

Sure. Staff to Senator Rubio. I've got this information. Let's do San Joaquin, Sacramento, Alameda, Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, LA, San Bernardino, and Riverside.

And these were all counties that opted in, is that correct, Senator Rubio?

I believe so.

Okay. So I would assume that these counties would also have data in terms of how it worked or didn't work and if there was other resources that they needed to implement. My question is around how will the dependency system handle this new population of kids? Yes. 10 counties have figured out how to work it out, but of our. Of our 50 plus counties, 58 counties, how will the whole system in California do this? Like, why not just allow for more opt in? Why not focus on training and additional resources to ensure that we're meeting those gaps? Why have a statewide regulation?

Well, first, you know, when you say, like, a new population of individuals, and I think it was shared that already, 50% of, correct me if I'm wrong, already are in the system. So it's not like a whole new system that we're creating. This is a service that's already provided to 50%. So we're just trying to capture that few that just fall through the cracks that don't have the services.

So I just believe that when you see, like, these 10 counties that have opt in, and we've spoken to some of them and they find that it's effective and that they're working cohesively. I feel that, you know, it's time to see what we can do statewide because every child and every county deserves the same type of service. And I think to me, it's the inadequate way of identifying these kids that is my biggest issue.

You know, we need to identify them without that and being able to provide the services that we do for sex trafficking is we're leaving our children vulnerable. So that's my intent, doing it statewide.

Chair, may I ask a quick clarifying question on your question?

Yes, please.

So the way that I read the testimony was that these 10 counties have opted in and they have code, I think, of the word comorbidities. If people have multiple things, they die of, but they have co. I don't know if there's a word.

But basically it's sex traffic, dual sex trafficking, and labor trafficking. So these counties are not examples of counties that have only labor trafficking as a specific carve out that would serve this gentleman right here if he didn't have sex trafficking. But, so I think it's important to recognize that as a difference, I think because they've added it in as another layer, but they don't have it as a standalone.

Correct.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Yeah.

Which is what we're proposing with this Bill as well, adding in another layer.

We can't have conversations with our Members.

Sorry.

Thank you. So, yes, you're correct. So I'm going to bring it back to the opposition. So how will the dependency system handle this new population of kids if this Bill were to move forward?

Well, I'm not sure how they would handle it. We're not trained investigators to identify labor trafficking separate and apart from abuse and neglect. We don't have services necessarily specifically tailored to meet the needs of victims of labor trafficking. So that would be something we would need to develop.

There are currently a number of youth in the system who are victims of abuse and neglect in the home who also are labor trafficked, and they are receiving and their families an array of services and supports that the child welfare system offers. Those are not necessarily tailored, though, to specifically address the needs generally of labor trafficking.

I don't know, Amanda, if you have other technical aspects to add to the response, but it would be a new population and new services for our system and new investigative techniques that we would need to learn and establish to determine whether labor trafficking exists at all.

So because this is being added in as an expanded definition of child abuse. While we do serve the kids who have the abuse and neglect, the sole labor trafficking kids are not a current population that we serve. So although there is some crossover that's identified later on, it's not a population that we go out for. Right now in the 10 counties that are doing, as you said, sort of the comorbidity training where they have CSAC, but then they also are identifying signs of labor trafficking.

Those counties have that training. The other counties, that sort of pact has expanded out to, I believe it's out to 40 now. Don't necessarily do that sort of training. And I would also note that none of those 10 original counties are anywhere north of Sacramento. So a significant portion of the north state doesn't have sort of any of this in place as far as the infrastructure.

So to the extent that if this were to go in effect exactly as it's written, then yes, it's a whole new population for us. And no, not all of our counties are prepared to serve them.

I want to add something to that.

Please, Jimmy.

Yeah, she was mentioned that only people from youths, from the child welfare need to be identified. Actually, we all should learn how to identify the red flags of human traffickers in general. Not only sex trafficking but labor trafficking. Because any of you guys, 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation that come into this world, you never know what could go through there in life. Some of your family member can go through that, anybody. So we should all, you know, learn how, what the reflex are.

Because on the way either walking out of this building, we can see something. And why not report it? Why not? Because we all human beings, and we deserve the rights to live and be treated as a human being.

Yes, you're right, Jimmy, and I appreciate you addressing this question. And what I'm feeling here is that we need greater awareness that this is an issue and not only training and support for social workers to identify it, but in general, we as Californians should be able to identify that and be able to help that child that's being abused, traumatized, trafficked. So I'm hearing that, and I, and I know that Members here in the Committee, we feel that, we hear that the question is whether or not this is the right approach to get to that.

So, yeah, we all can say, we hear, we say that, but do action is a different thing. Right action is a different thing. So we all should do something about it. And then since we're here, you know, discussing this Bill, we should actually be voting for this Bill because, you don't know, you know, what could happen in the future with your family, the daughters, son, whatever, whoever is your family members.

Right. So this is one action, Jimmy, one approach that's been tried for 10 years. So my question is still to the author, is this the right approach? Because it has failed in the past? So how do we solve a problem with the same approach? Some people say that you do the same thing and get the same result, and it's insanity. But if you try a different approach, you try a different way to get to that same outcome, then you're actually, you know, making policy. That helps. So I'm going to bring it back to the author because I know you wanted to answer this question as well.

Well, I just have to think of just Jimmy's case in particular. You know, as he stated, he was working with this company that was beating him, keeping him, sort of, you know, trapped and really abusing him. So if the first person he ran to would not have been a bad actor and would have reported to chow welfare services, wouldn't that have. Would they not have recognized that this child was being neglected, was beaten, had bruises? I mean, that would have probably saved him.

Right? So I know that it's a complicated issue, but we just happen to have a bad actor that ended up traumatizing him and revictimizing him, and that's how he ended up in jail. But again, if the first person would have been a good actor and would have referred him to social services, I mean, would they not have been obligated to. To take care of him and identify already the neglect that he was suffering? So, in my personal opinion, this is me just. It's all the same.

We're trying to identify the kids that are being. That are falling through their cracks who don't have anywhere else to go. And right now, this Bill gives them hope that somebody is going to identify them so they can receive services.

Thank you, Senator Rubio. I would have hoped that someone would have called the police and helped in this situation. I think that anyone who is witnessing abuse of a child can either contact law enforcement or CPS. I know us Madden reporters were trained on how to do that. But, you know, to Jimmy's point, we should all be able to identify when a child is being abused and how to report that.

And also, I didn't actually. I'm sorry for interrupting you, but also, I didn't actually say many details that I went through that. Since this time is pressure, I don't want to take more of your time, but we should actually do something about it. Opposite, I agree with it, but you never know what life is beautiful and you never know what they can go through.

Yeah, it's a terrible thing. Terrible thing you were put through. I'm going to bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments before we move forward.

I'll just make a final comment. Out of respect to the author, I don't feel comfortable with where this is, and I think the Chair's comments about is this the right approach? I think maybe focusing on, on the education piece and the identification of it. So as a co-issue, I just, to me, it seems like that part needs to be worked on more before we just shove it in there.

So at this point, I'm not able to support it today, and I very much apologize for having to not support it because I would like to support in general. Thank you.

Senator Menjivar, you had one last comment, Senator. Yeah.

I don't believe we've been able to hear just some of your responses to the opposition. Anything that you could tell us on any commitments after hearing some further opposition?

Well, no, absolutely. See, the discussion is not done. And I think, as the chair knows, we missed the deadline to enter these amendments into the Bill, but we had already, like I said, it's double referred. And because of the time constraints, we've already working on amendments to address concerns, and it's not done. Like this is something that's so important that I hope to continue to sit down and see if we can nail down a more appropriate approach.

But again, I wanted to move it forward because I'm also talking to judiciary and there's a lot of things that they wanted to also change and implement, which I think would address some of the opposition's concerns. And, but that's all I can tell you, that we are working on the Bill and making sure that it gets to good point as it cuts out to the next Committee.

May I add one comment?

No.

Senator, do you have anything you can share in terms of commitments?

I just, well, the commitment is some of the languages specifically is not to get, you know, as I think Senator Ochoa Bogh was concerned about, like just the regular family who's working on the weekend in a restaurant with the family, trying to make sure that the language is really specifically clear so it doesn't drag these families into the court system if they're just, you know, families trying to help the children, trying to help the families. I think she expressed that she has friends who, their children work there. So that's one of the commitments. And I know that. Is it possible to turn it over.

To her if the witness.

Yes.

Excuse me. The problem regarding the other commitments that we've been exploring. The commitments. Sorry. I'm sending Senator Menjivar. Can you clarify exactly what you're asking?

We heard a lot from the opposition. We had a lot of questions, but I feel like we haven't heard anything, at least from the author, on what those conversations look like. Some commitments that the author will say that she will continue working on, some reassurance, just something. I just haven't gotten any of that.

Well, and additionally may add that we are going to be working with the Department so they can give us a little bit of guidance of what they'd like to see. So I know that necessarily answers your question, but we have been collaborating, working with them and asking them to give us guidance would work with them so that they can be comfortable with this Bill.

Thank you.

Any questions for either of the witnesses? Okay. All right. I think we are going to allow you to close. Senator Rubio, thank you.

And I thank you for the debate. I know it's flamethy, but, you know, as you know, I work a lot on, you know, protecting children from violence and harm. And this is just in my natural wheelhouse to try and ensure that the kids that are constantly being exploited, that someone is capturing these kids again. The poultry company that had eight children working in the middle of the night in their facilities was in my district before the redistricting.

And so I just, right now, I don't see anyone that's going to help these kids. And so we're going to continue to kick the can down the road, and we have absolutely nothing that's going to protect these children. So I just asked for the opportunity to move it and continue to work with it.

I believe I told Ms. Menjivar that if you know, and I'll bring it back to each and one of you, and if it's something that you're still not comfortable after we work and implement all the amendments that we had worked on, I'm willing to hold the Bill, but I know that it's an important issue to protect kids.

Thank you so much, Senator. You know, this is a, this is a, this is a difficult one for me because if I were a kid, there's nobody that I would want to protect me more than you. You are just so passionate and just caring for our kids. And I know if you put forward a Bill, you put forward policy, it's because you believe in it and you believe that this will eventually make true change. I'm concerned about the approach to this Bill and where it's housed.

I do want to make sure that the systems that we have here in California are in place to protect our kids. And you've identified a gap. You've identified a gap not only in identifying what child labor trafficking actually is, but what do we do about it once we have found that? And, you know, are we better than we were 10 years ago? Yes.

Are we better than the last four times this Bill was submitted? Maybe. I don't know. The data shows that the problem is increasing. And when we look at issues that come to this Committee, we are consistently looking at how this is impacting some of the most vulnerable. And you nail it with children, it's like we have to have an outcome where children are being protected. I just don't believe this is it.

So I think for this Bill, I do know that the Judiciary Committee, if this shall pass, would be referred to Judish. I know that they're working on amendments, but I don't think those amendments are in agreement with your sponsors. I'm going to be very blunt with you. And so I think that's going to be a difficulty getting this Bill to where it needs to go because it's a passionate issue.

And I think even having decorum in this room on this issue was a struggle for this Bill. We've been talking about this for, for an hour, and typically, you know, I can say we're going to move forward on questions, two minutes for responses, and we can keep things moving. But even this has been a struggle.

So I want to make sure that as if, indeed, you move forward with this Bill, that you take that account and keep your heart as loving as it is for our kids. Thank you. All right, so I think we will go ahead and open the roll. Please call. I'm sorry. Oh, we need a motion.

Okay. Absent of a motion. Okay. Senator Menjivar will move the Bill. All right. Please call the roll.

Alvarado-Gil, file item number one. SB 998. [Roll Call].

All right, that's one no and one aye. We will hold that. We will hold that Bill. Thank you. All right, I want to thank our authors who've been in the audience waiting for their turn here. I just want to just take a temperature. Do we have authors? Yes.

That have witnesses that need to leave in the next half hour? Okay, Senator Min, let's get you ready. Thank you so much for your patience. I know you've been here for quite some time. Okay. All right, we're going to move forward with item number three, Senate Bill 1078. Senator Min, whenever you are ready.

All right, thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Before I begin, I want to just note that I'm accepting the proposed Committee amendments, and I want to thank the Committee staff for their extensive work on this Bill. SB 1078 would create the Office of Language Access within the California Health and Human Services Agency.

This particular office would be tasked with providing oversight, accountability, and coordination across Cal HHS's departments and offices to ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency have meaningful access to the programs and services that are offered. This is an equity issue, but it is also a fundamentally important healthcare issue. For the nearly 6.4 million Californians who have limited English proficiency, language barriers pose a significant challenge to their ability to have access to quality healthcare coverage and services.

And, of course, I think many of us have stories from our districts of constituents who suffered adverse health outcomes because they didn't understand either how to get access to healthcare or once they were in the medical system. There were problems with translation, and studies show that the absence of culturally and linguistically appropriate healthcare studies have significant negative health outcomes for individuals with those limited English proficiency issues, including longer hospital stays on average and a much higher likelihood of hospital readmissions.

These avoidable clinical costs can be significantly reduced with improved interpretation and translation services. While this may score, we believe that the cost of this will actually be net positive over the long run. California has, of course, long recognized the importance of providing in language resources with a number of statutes and regulations in place. But as I think my witnesses will describe, these have not been implemented in an effective way.

And so this particular office that SB 1078 would create would essentially quarterback across different departments within Cal HHS and try to ensure that those laws and regulations were being effectively implemented, that laws were being enforced and complied with, and it would close an existing gap for those seeking a broad spectrum of health services, saving the state millions in avoidable costs, and bolstering our ability to meet statutory language requirements.

So I don't have Paris Hilton here with me today, but I do think that the paparazzi should be here because we have two excellent witnesses, Priscilla Huang from the Center for Asian Americans in Action and Tonu Uwe from the regional Pacific Islander Task Force, to testify in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Alvarado-Gil and Committee Members. My name is Priscilla Huang. I am the founder and Executive Director for the Center for Asian Americans in Action. We ask for your support for SB 1078, which will help improve language access for the 6.4 million Californians with limited English proficiency. I've been advocating for increased language services for decades, both professionally and as the eldest daughter of immigrants.

Thank you so much, Senator Min. You each have two minutes to present. Please proceed when you're ready.

Many of us children of immigrants and refugees grew up having to help our family members navigate a complex world of public systems and institutions that use terminology that is difficult for even native English speakers to understand. These language barriers meant there were negative experiences and miscommunications at the Doctor's office and at Social Security offices and schools. Numerous studies have found inadequate language services create disparities in health outcomes and result in avoidable healthcare costs.

SB 1078 is needed to bolster the state's ability to meet its federal and state statutory language requirements. We applaud Cal HHS's current efforts to implement the governor's equity Executive order, which has resulted in the development of a language access policy and guidance. However, there is no mechanism for requiring or monitoring the language access plans, coordinating language services across the agency's 17 departments and offices, or enforcing the provisions of the plan.

The Bill would create a centralized office that would support the effective implementation of the plans and lead periodic updating of Cal HHS's overall guidance. The Bill would also create important transparency and accountability measures by requiring CalHHS to submit biannual reports to the Legislature and create a language access advisory working group with impacted community Members. It would inform communities with limited English proficiency about critical Cal HHS resources on a public website, including information on an individual's language access rights and complaint process.

In conclusion, we ask for your support for SB 1078. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll move forward with our next witness.

Taloflava Good afternoon. Chair Alvarado-Gil and Senate Human Services Committee. My name is Tonu Uwe, and I'm one of the co-chair and also founder of the Regional Pacific Islander Task Force. I'm also come from an oldest Samoan family here in the Bay Area, so I grew up here. I'm here to speak before you that I express full support of the SB 1078.

The Regional Pacific Islander Task Force is a regional, Multi County focus and the goal to increase the visibility of Pacific Islander health disparities. Advocating for data equity in both collecting and reporting on issues impacting the Pacific Islanders in California like language access, nearly one in four Fijian families and one in five Tongan American families are limited English proficient. Over one in 10 native Hawaiian Pacific Islander, which is 11% out of 330 Pacific Islanders in California are limited English proficiency.

And during COVID regional Pacific Islander were there for all 10 counties to make sure vaccination is provided for our communities. We had the highest mortality rate in all 10 counties. We have data to prove that data was not available from the counties. So who did the work? It was us. It was because our communities, we have more than 30,50 churches in just the Bay Area alone, not including Sacramento. And some of those churches had to come out.

We had to ask them, please come and help us get the word out to get our communities to be vaccinated. So for the vaccination, I can tell you that even the language access was not available. Even the mainstream media didn't have access to underserved and unserved communities like the Pacific Islander, even though nationwide the statistics were still the same. So for me, during these COVID, the disparities have never changed.

And we want to make sure that we continue to look for the small population, underserved and unserved, so that we can help our communities. So this Bill is very important for our community, not only the Pacific Islanders, but all small communities across the Bay Area. So thank you very much for your time.

All right, thank you so much.

We'll now open up to the Members of the public, any Members of the public wishing to express their support, please approach the microphone with your name, organization, and your position only, please.

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

Marvin Pineda, on behalf of the California Primary Care Association, in support.

Kevin Eslin. Coalition California Welfare Rights Organization. Strong support. Thank you.

Adam Carbalito with the Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations in support.

Dorina Wong, Asian Resources Inc., in strong support of SB 1078.

Arnab Mukherjee, Asian American Research Center on Health, strong support.

Julian Johnson with San Francisco Community Health Center in strong support.

Kristin Hippuacoa Marquez, with Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander Data Policy Lab, in strong support.

Yeri Shon from Korean Community Center of the East Bay, in strong support.

Thu Quach with the Progressive Vietnamese American Organization, in strong support.

Preet Sabharwal with the South Asian Mental Health Consortium, in strong support.

Rhea Maharaj, residents of Hayward, California, in strong support.

Jumari Fernandez, resident of Contra Costa County, I'm in strong support.

Twee Do with the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center in strong support.

Natalie Ah Soon, RAMS and also Regional Pacific Islander Task Force. I stand in strong support.

Angela Tang, Richmond Area Multi Services RAMS, in strong support.

Ben Wong, Asian Health Services in strong support.

Peter Gee, Little Tokyo Service Center, strong support.

Kayla Uribe, with Alameda County, strong support.

Melina Ignacio, with Alameda County, in strong support.

Julia Liao, City of Oakland, in strong support.

Ian Rick John, resident of San Mateo County, strong support.

Tate Sen Wu and Solano County, strong support.

Priya Rahman, resident of Hayward, in strong support.

Thank you. Congratulations, Senator Min. You had quite the entourage with you today. Bigger than Miss Hilton.

They heard Paris Hilton.

Yes. Yes. All right, we'll give some time for the opposition to come forward. Any witnesses in opposition of this Bill? Seeing none, we will allow Members of the public that wish to express their opposition to come to the microphone. Nobody's coming forward, so we will move forward. Questions? All right, I see a move. All right. Would you like to close?

I appreciate that. I just note that this is an API legislative caucus priority Bill, and I would respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Senator, I just want to just clarify. You did say that you were accepting the amendments. Did you note an implementation date for the creation of the new office of language access?

I might refer? Yeah, I'll refer to my witness, if that's all right.

Yes, we did agree for implementation date of January 1, 2026.

Great. Thank you so much. All right. All right, we will call the roll. This is due pass as amended.

File item three, SB 1078. Motion is due pass, as amended, to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much. That's two ayes, and we will leave the roll open. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for being here.

All right, Senator Eggman, item number four, Senate Bill 1082. Thank you so much for your patience. And we'll have you come to the front. Do you have any witnesses with you today?

I do.

Wonderful. We'll have two of them sit up front here, and we will get them set. All right, thank you. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you very much. And thank you for hearing this Bill on this very long day we've all had today. And I want to start off by saying that I'll be accepting the amendments, and I want to acknowledge the Committee recommendations Friday, the analysis, and commit to continuing to work on those. And I want to start off saying, Members, a lot of my bills, you've heard me, that I've been working on for years and years.

This is not going to be one of those, because this is something that the two of you may have to take on even after I leave because it's complicated. But I think it's an important issue that we need to be able to get our arms around. So this is our first kind of run up on this. And anybody who's worked in the field for a while know that funding for residential care facilities is woefully Low.

And the ID and DD population, because they're recognized by the feds, are able to provide more augmented funding for their care. We do not have that same kind of thing for people suffering from mental health, illness, and substance abuse. So, and currently, and again, we need all kinds of care. Some people say, well, this is not the housing that heals, or we need all kinds of care from an entire continuum.

So people can move up and down on the system of care as their needs and symptoms call forth at the time. So these are a lower level, and oftentimes you'll get complaints in your neighborhood if you have them, because people say they're not supervised or something's going on. So we agree that people need more services when they're living in these kinds of facilities to be able to make it services better. People get safer. People get maybe even able to move to a lower level of care.

But the issue, of course, is then how do you pay for that? How do you pay for those services? So we acknowledge that this is complicated that we're trying to take on over the years. So the ARFs and the RCFEs and I've done work on those over the years more for just our senior facility. But now how do we make them more adaptable for the folks that hopefully we're going to have a lot more services to be provided for?

As you know, we passed the care court, we did SB 43, and just this last year, we passed Prop one. All of these are going to be provided more housing, more places for people to live. And while a lot of that is being built out. We should be able to use our existing stock to its fullest potential.

So that is what we're trying to do here, to provide a stable funding solution that allows for community care facilities to continue to provide this kind of care as another part of our need. We understand that we may have to ask the Administration to get a waiver because we understand that we currently can't Bill for those. But we also know with whole person care and calaim that that is going to provide a lot of funding to be able to deal with different issues as well.

So what we're trying to work on here is to provide a structure that DHS would ask the Department to help us with this, to implement a certification program, to provide augmented services to individuals. And again, a lot of these services, I think, have already been established just through basic practice. But we need to be able, if you will, put them on a menu and then be able to provide a housing if a single person goes.

So every person would have a different level of augmentation based on their needs. And so again, I understand that we're working on this. It's a piece of progress, and we're all going to have to get behind this in the next couple of years to come. All the other work I've done touches on this, but again, this is another step at this.

And today to testify and support, I have Theresa Comstock, the Executive Director of the California California Association of Local Behavioral Health boards and commissions, and Tara Gamboa Eastman, Director of government affairs with the Steinberg Institute.

Thank you so much. Welcome. Ask you to keep your remarks to two minutes, and please say your name and your organization when you begin.

Hi, I'm Theresa Comstock with the California Association of Local Behavioral Health Boards and Commissions. We're sponsoring SB 1082 because it addresses a critical need to increase support and funding for small six beds are smaller residential care facilities, often known as boarding cares. Unfortunately, we have seen and continue to see the closure of these homes. Lack of access to this essential resource impacts families, local communities, and most of all, those living with SMI, who, for health or physical reasons, cannot live independently.

Although we appreciate recent efforts from the state toward increasing related resources, we still must address a central issue. Current funding is insufficient because it is limited to Social Security funding of approximately 1400 per month per individual. Small boarding carers rely on this for their primary and often their only source of income. These facilities will not be functionally or financially viable until we address the need for increased support coupled with reliable, adequate monthly operating revenue.

SB 1082 draws on a model currently in place for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. For those with IDD, there is a tiered structure of funding for small, often four bed community care facilities that is administered by California's 21 Regional Centers, along with state agencies. Rates range up to to over 12,000 per month based on a consumer's needs, and this model allows for Medicaid matching through SB 1082.

We ask you to support providing this model for individuals with serious mental illness in order to address longstanding gaps in barriers, and we thank Senator Eggman for SB 1082 and ask for your support.

Thank you. Good evening. Chair and Members Tara Gimbo Eastman with the Steinberg Institute, proud co sponsor of SB 1082. California faces a crisis. Substance use rates have skyrocketed. Tens of thousands of people are struggling with addiction and mental illness and unable to access care. Too many find themselves cycling through our streets, emergency rooms, and jail cells. A recent UCSF study highlights the devastating scale of this crisis. Crisis in California. More than 170,000 people experience homelessness daily.

82% of people experiencing homelessness reported having a serious mental health condition, and more than a quarter of those people had been hospitalized because of it. 19% of people entered homelessness directly from an institution such as prison or jail. Breaking the cycle between homelessness, hospitalization and incarceration for people with a mental illness requires a multi faceted approach. But the bottom line is it's impossible to get well when you don't have the safe and consistent place to sleep at night.

Adult residential facilities and residential care facilities for the elderly are critical components of California's housing continuum for people with a serious mental illness, but they are closing at alarming rates. In just two years, from 2021 through 2022, nearly 1000 of these facilities closed. Closed. That resulted in a loss of over 7000 beds. Low reimbursement rates, increased labor costs, and increased land values are all contributing to the rapid rate of closures.

If we do not stabilize these facilities, our homelessness and mental health crises will only continue to worsen. SB 1082 will ensure the long term financial stability of these critical facilities and that California has a robust continuum of housing options for people with serious mental illness. Respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We will now open it up to the public. Any Members of the public wanting to express their support for Senate Bill 1082, please come to the microphone. Seeing none, we will give the opposition an opportunity. Any witnesses in opposition of this Bill? Seeing none, Members of the public wishing to express their opposition to this Bill, please come forward. All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions or concerns from the Committee, Senator Menjivar.

Thank you so much, Senator. And I'm not sure if you were the witness. I know the point is to provide 24 hours non medical care, but your Bill also defines intensive support needs. And under there, there's a lot of medical services. Is that, will we be replacing that, removing that? Or are we looking to provide medical care?

I think we're looking to provide non skilled care. But different kinds of medical care are often offered.

Right. Well, we didn't get amendments in yet, although Diana was really helpful in explaining to us that we would need medical personnel on site if we had some of those listed. So anything that would require, like a nurse or somebody that would be required at one of these small board dialysis.

One of them that requires. Right. So those are coming off. Point is to have no skilled needs. That would require a licensed. So, yeah, we do intend it for non medical care.

And I know we're trying to replicate some of the ones that exist now, like cliffs. Is this going to be similar to, like the congregate health living facilities, single family homes, six rooms, independent living for those on perhaps trachs who are non ambulatory.

That is not this intention.

No. Okay. But it's more similar to the homes for IDD, correct?

Correct. So someone may need help with, with bathing or something, but may not need help with. Right. Catheter.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Any other questions? Right. Senator Eggman, I love when you bring up Bill here because then I get to say good things about you. All things mental health. It's like, you know, you're my go to. So you're right. This is a complex one and this is one that is going to need some, some education, awareness and just fine tuning Department and everybody.

That's right.

Like, how are we gonna, how are we gonna do this, guys? Because this is our, you know, but what I, what I love about your approach here is you are looking long term. You're like seeing the horizon saying, if we don't get this done now, it's like we're gonna see more and more problems. And I consistently get that from you when you bring bills to us here. I did just want to note that the long term care budsman did reach out to us. I know they reached out to you.

To be fair, they did not submit their letter of opposition in due time. But I know that you're going to continue to work on some of those concerns to ensure that this is exactly what you want to put forward out, right?

Yeah, no, we appreciate their concerns, and their concerns are at the end of a bunch of other concerns. We need to get this set up before we can worry about the supervision part of it. But, yes, we totally understand that more will need to be done, especially in including them.

And thank you for being open to amendments and making this Bill the best it can be.

It'll take us all.

Yes, exactly. Yeah. I'm going to see how many batons you pass over. And yes, it's like the bouquet from the weddings. Right. We all want to grab the. All right, very good. So this Bill is going to be due. Pass is amended. Assistant, please call the roll. zero, I'm sorry. Did you close?

I thought that was level.

All right, all right, there is our close. She's gonna throw the. She's gonna throw the bouquet out. All right. Is there a motion? I've moved it. Senator, thank you for the motion. Do pass this amendment, as amended. Please call the roll. File item four, SB 1082. Do pass, as amended, to Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

Yeah, I was like, wait a minute. Yeah, four ayes. No one said no. And we're gonna be on call for that one. We got this. Thank you, everybody.

The 5:30 shadow. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you to your witnesses as well. All right, checking for authors. I see Becker is here. Wonderful. We'll go to item number five, Senate Bill 307, Senator Becker. Do you have witnesses with you today?

Yes.

Wonderful. We'll have your two witnesses come forward and get situated. And proceed when you are ready.

Thank you, Chair and Members. I'd like to first start by saying accepting the Committee's amendments to align the bill with federal statute. SB 1307, this bill encourages the growth of the early childhood educator, or ECE, workforce by making ECE workers eligible for state subsidized childcare and placing them on the prioritization list, this will place them third on the prioritization list. In 2022, California had 7200 fewer childcare slots and 7000 fewer child care jobs than before the COVID pandemic.

This shortage is often attributed to low wages, a lack of state support, and the high cost of child care for early childhood educators' own children. A shortage in the ECE workforce has large impacts on all other aspects of the economy. In 2020 to 2020, 113 percent of young parents had to quit, change, or refuse a job because of child care. To access state subsidized care, a family has to make less than 85% of the state median income dependent on their family size.

This bill will provide eligibility for state subsidized by exempting the child care worker's income when considering whether the household makes 85% of the state median income or less. I will note, quickly, that this was the winner of my district's Ought to Be a Law contest. And it was suggested by our witness here today, Carol Thomsen, who's the founder, Executive of All Five.

Congratulations, Carol. Please, when you are ready, you'll have two minutes to present your testimony. And congratulations. I know that those are some competitive... What do you call those? Submissions, yes.

Thank you so much, Committee Members. I'm honored to speak with you today and to co-sponsor SB 1307. I'm Carol Thomsen, founder and Executive Director of All Five. All Five is an early care and education program serving children and families, or children between zero to five and their families in East Palo Alto and Eastern Menlo Park. In response to our community's need for more additional early care and education spots, All Five is growing its enrollment.

Like many programs, the main barrier to growth is hiring skilled teachers who are qualified to be in a classroom with young children. Many of our peer programs are worse off, limiting enrollment, closing programs, closing entire classrooms due to the inability to find qualified early childhood educators. Because early childhood education wages are quite low and childcare costs are quite high, some teachers are required to pay as much as their own child's tuition, as much for their own child's tuition as their net income for teaching.

For many, this means they choose to leave the classroom. However, thanks to Becker, Senator Becker's efforts, you have the opportunity to make a meaningful impact on on California's ability to attract, recruit, and retain early childhood educators. Each qualified early child educator employed in a classroom creates eight additional spaces for children. Therefore, by providing any educator's child with a state subsidy tuition, you'll create spots for seven additional children. Boosting our education workforce has the potential to change the direction trajectory of children's lives, of educators, and of families who are desperate for care. I urge your aye on SB 1307.

Thank you so much. We'll now open it up to members of the public wishing to express their support for this bill.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Mountain View in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott, here on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Yarelie Magallon on behalf of Silicon Valley Community Foundation in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right, do we have any testimony for opposition of this bill? Okay, seeing none. Any members of the public wishing to express their opposition? All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions or comments for the author? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Senator Becker, for bringing this bill forward. I'll be happy to support the bill today and move it when the appropriate time is here. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions or comments? We have a motion. Okay, would you like to close?

No, just that thank you for our witness in suggesting this and respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you so much.

And the Chair for working with us.

Thank you. Thank you for working with us too. All right, we'll call the roll.

File item five, SB 1307, do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That is 5 and 0. Everyone's here. Great. So that bill is out. Thank you so much. And thank you. Congratulations. While we are waiting for our next author, I'm going to bring us back to the consent and go through some of the items that we're missing still. So do we have a motion on consent? Moved by Senator Menjivar? We'll call the roll on the consent item. Wait, can she motion her own bill?

Yeah, yeah, I'm just checking. I'm tired, but not that tired. Do we have a motion on consent? Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Please call the roll.

Consent calendar, file item 11. [Roll Call]

All right, the vote is 5 and 0. The consent calendar is out. Can you call some of the other items while we're getting situated? And I see author has just entered. I'm sorry. Yes, please.

File item one, SB 998. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

We'll hear item number seven, Senate Bill 1362, when you are ready. Do you have any witnesses with you today?

I should have two.

Okay, if you have two witnesses, we'll have to come forward and find their seats, so when you're ready, you can refer to them. You can get started whenever you are ready.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair Members. I'm excited to see you're offering evening classes here. Exciting way to get my degree. And we're ready. Madam Chair Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1362, which would make a change to the existing Cal Able act by providing seed funding of at least $250, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, in order to encourage eligible Californians to participate in this innovative savings and investment program, which helps foster financial security with a 529 investment account.

Cal Able is the California version of the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act, a federal program enacted by Congress in 2014 to allow individuals with disabilities to establish tax advantage savings accounts without adversely affecting their eligibility for other important public benefits. Disabilities, which manifest during childhood and early adulthood, often prevent individuals from generating sufficient income to support their medical care and basic necessities, and many individuals living with disabilities receive means tested public benefits like Medicaid and SSI in order to maintain basic necessities.

Prior to the able program, individuals receiving such benefits could not save more than $2,000 without fear of a possible loss of eligibility for other essential programs. California's implementation of the federal act allows individuals and families to build financial security without impeding their access to those benefits. Unlike so many other programs that are either oversubscribed or strapped for funds, the Cal Able program is currently underutilized, and without legislative action, millions of eligible Californians will miss out on the opportunity to save and invest in their financial future.

California is one of 47 states that has an able program, but less than 1% of the states eligible disabled population is currently utilizing this program to invest for their futures. SB 1362 will encourage eligible Californians with qualifying disabilities to set up the savings account to which they're entitled by requiring the Cal Able program to make a one time deposit of at least $250, either through a future appropriation or via funds raised from private donors or other entities.

By better ensuring the financial wellbeing of individuals with disabilities, we can create a more inclusive and a more prosperous California. Here to testify in support of SB 1362 is Stephanie Tom, deputy treasurer at the state treasurer's office, and Thomas Martin, Executive Director of the Cal Able program for California. Thank you. I respectfully ask for your. I vote to date.

Thank you so much. We'll hear from each of the witnesses for two minutes each, and please just state your name in your organization when you begin. Thank you.

Good evening, Stephanie Tom, deputy treasurer and I am proud to represent the California State Treasurer's office of Fiona Ma. We are here and responsible for representing Fiona Ma. Of course, as a sponsor of SB 1362.

In 2018, California launched its able program and the program to this date has approximately 10,000 funded Cal able accounts with approximately 127 million assets under management. While this is a great accomplishment, we do recognize that this means that less than 1% of the state's eligible disabled population is saving and investing their future in Cal able. SB 1362 will facilitate the financial empowerment of eligible Californians with disabilities with the seed funding of at least $250 per each new account.

By way of example, in 2021, the State of Nevada launched a $5 million seed funding campaign. Prior to this campaign, the program had approximately 100 participants, and by the end of this campaign, it had 1200 participants. If seed funding was adopted and appropriated by California, it would potentially increase this program, the Cal Able program, by 250%. This would provide resources for millions of Californians, including many disabled veterans. Seed funding has been utilized as an incentivizing tool for other savings programs in California.

With up to $1,500 eligible for children in the Cal Kids program, we want to provide the same financial opportunity to Californians with disabilities, our most vulnerable constituents. The treasurer is proud to sponsor SB 1362 and respectively request your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. Thank you for this hearing and thank you for your continued support for for the disabled community. My name is Thomas Martin. I am the newly appointed Executive Director for Cal Able. I've been on the job for 13 days, but who's counting? So calable represents a life changing opportunity for disabled Californians. More than half of Cal able account holders report an income of $25,000 or less. Many are using their Cal able accounts to save money in their own name for the first time.

Many are using Cal label as their very first bank account ever, and nearly all of them are using Cal labal as their first entry into investing and growing money. This is a direct result of the program's ability to support Independence and self advocacy among disabled Californians.

For decades, recipients of state and federal benefits like SSI Housing assistance and Medi Cal have been told never to save money in their own names or accumulate more than $2,000 in savings, or as Senator Newman stated, or they would risk losing their services, losing their benefits from the government. Cal able allows account holders to thrive to save money, and it grants them the opportunity to be financially secure and financially independent. The impact of Cal able doesn't just extend to those who are on government benefits, either.

Families who support a relative with a disability have greater costs than other households, as much as 28% more. So, Cal label helps families level the playing field by giving them a tax advantage incentive to save and invest. Parents of those with severe developmental or intellectual disabilities can now set aside money for their children's potential lifelong financial needs. Working individuals with disabilities can also save and grow their own money, and they can access it at any time for qualified expenses.

To date, Cal able account holders have informed us they are able to pay the closing costs on their first home or purchase a larger vehicle that can accommodate a wheelchair. Others are living on their own for the very first time. None of this would have been possible without a Cal able account. We're here today to help support Californians with disabilities. Created saving, create more saving and financial security opportunities.

SB 1362 will give Cal label even more equitable approach to supporting disabled Californians by allowing for potential account holders with limited savings to open up their first accounts.

Can you just finished up your thought?

This Bill would help lower the barrier of entry, and it's an important step towards greater Independence of financial security for disabled California. So with that, happy to answer any questions you have, and I appreciate your support.

Thank you so much. We'll open it up to Members of the public who wish to express their support for Senate Bill 1362.

Yeah, Kevin Aslanian, Coalition California welfare rights organization, strong support. Thank you.

Kelly Brooks, on behalf of the California community Living Network here in support.

Thank you. Okay, do we have any witnesses in opposition on this Bill, please come forward. Okay. Seeing none, we'll also give the ability to the public to express their opposition. Please come forward to the mic.

Was that you getting up, Senator Wahab? All right. Yeah, I saw her. I saw her. Okay, very good. We will bring the discussion back to the Committee. Senator Blakespear,

I know that we're not a fiscal Committee, but do we have an estimate of cost at $250 per person?

Miss Tom can speak to that. But this is subject to an appropriation.

That's correct. Right. But if it was funded at the number of people who qualify, approximately $6 million.

6 million. Okay. Because I noticed in the Committee consultant. Report that they ceded it with dollar 25. And this Bill does $250. That's correct. Okay. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions or concerns? Senator Ochoa Bogh?

I just appreciate any effort by the Legislature to incentivize the savings component in Californians. As we know, the last study that came out nationwide is we only had, you know, the average Californian barely had probably dollar 500 to their name as far as savings go. So anything that would incentivize financial literacy, that would incentivize.

Not to incentivize financial literacy, but actually encourage financial literacy and incentivize savings in full support, and especially when it comes to such a vulnerable population as our communities with disabilities. So I'm grateful to the author for bringing this measure forward. I'm grateful for folks coming and speaking today, and I will be happy to support the Bill and move it when the. The time is appropriate.

All right, thank you. Would you like to close Senator Newman?

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Committee Members. So I want to give appropriate credit to our treasurer, Fiona Ma, for her leadership in this space. What you're. You know, what we're considering today is important. There are so many cases where we find with veterans, with the disabled, where they get into a catch 22, where access to resources actually puts them in a position where they can't then access services.

So this is an iteration of the 529, which many of us use to save for a kid's college, but for an audience that has too often been left out. And this subject to an appropriation will make a huge difference in their lives and let them save for the first time for their retirement. And I'm glad to have the support of the witness. Mister Martin, welcome. You're doing a fine job 13 days in, but asking respectfully for your support today.

Thank you so much, Senator. So we have Senate Bill 1362 do pass. Assistant, please call the roll. I'm sorry. We do need a motion. Motion from Senator Ochoa Bogh.

File item seven, SB 1362, do pass to Revenue and Taxation Committee. [Roll call].

Thank you. Members. Gave you an easy one, huh?

Yes. Enjoy your dinner party tonight, too. Yes. All right. Hello, Senator Wahab. Item number six, Senate Bill 1352. We will hear you when you are ready. And do you have any witnesses with you today? I do. Wonderful. Ask them to come forward and take their seat at the table. That way, when you are ready to refer to them, they will be ready to go. Thank you.

Great. Go ahead and proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. I often say this when Menjivar is part of the Committee that this is going to be the best bill you guys hear today. So, Chair, colleagues, and members of the public, I thank the Committee for their amendments and will be accepting them. SB 1352 ensures independent living residents of continuing care retirement communities, also known as CCRCs, are made aware of their civil rights under the law when they sign contracts to live there.

When independent living residents sign their contracts, the extent of their rights are not disclosed to them. Many residents then remain unaware of their rights and feel uncertain about asserting their rights. CCRCs are licensed as residential care facilities for the elderly, also known as RCFEs. The Committee amendments clarify that residents of CCRCs have rights under both the CCRC Bill of Rights and the RCFE Bill of Rights. The fact that we have this clearly shows that there is a need for education to the individuals that live there.

Existing law requires residents receive a copy of the CCRC Bill of Rights upon signing their contract. The amendments state residents must also receive a copy of the RCFE Bill of Rights. I would like to introduce my first witness, Tony Chicotel, Senior Staff Attorney, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, or CANHR, and also Margaret Griffin, President, California Continuing Care Residents Association, with the Chair's permission.

Very good. Thank you so much. You'll each have two minutes to present, and please say your name and your organization that you represent. Proceed when ready.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Tony Chicotel. As mentioned, I'm the Senior Staff Attorney for California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform. Thank you to the Committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of 1352 today. As Senator Wahab said, CCRC residents do have a list of rights. Some of the more prominent ones are listed in the analysis. I think there were 10 rights listed altogether. CCRCs are also licensed as RCFEs, and that's a little...

A lot of residents that move into CCRCs are unaware of that fact, and I think even some of the providers of CCRC services are unaware of that fact. But it is true. And so the entire continuum of care that's provided in that facility has to comply with the RCFE regulations, and they must also abide by those RCFE resident rights, which are very robust and include 30 different rights.

So there's a lot of overlap between some of the CCRC rights and RCFE rights, but there's some important differences that I think a lot of consumers of CCRCs would like to know about and don't. So this bill would make it, I think, much more accessible, those rights much more accessible to the residents of CCRCs and give them a chance to be better informed of what their rights are and to expect more compliance with those rights. So urge your support for this bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Margaret Griffin. I'm President of the California Continuing Care Residents Association, or CALCRA. We've all heard that our facilities are included in the RCFE regs. Most of those, most of that statute does apply to us, but there are issues with, particularly, discrimination that is not included in the CCRC current Bill of Rights.

I was told of one incident where a gay couple was requested to tone it down a little bit because management was concerned that their facility would be known as a gay CCRC. Stipulating the anti-discrimination provisions provided in SB 1352, as amended, and that they will be upheld, is important. The provisions will serve to inform and guide management and to inform, reassure, and empower residents. These rights need to be included in our section of the code so that they can be distributed to residents as required. So I urge your aye vote, and thank you.

Thank you so much. All right, we now open it up to members of the public wishing to express their support. Please come forward with your name, organization, and your position, please.

Hi, Darby Kernan with LeadingAge California. We were listed as opposition, but with the... Thank you for the Committee working on the amendments and for the Senator accepting those, we've removed our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kevin Aslanian, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Peter Kellison on behalf of the California Assisted Living Association. Like LeadingAge California, we were opposed to the version as introduced due to some wording. With the acceptance of the Committee amendments, we're removing their opposition and supporting the bill.

Thank you. Great work, Senator. Any opposition in the room that would like to be heard today? Okay. Members of the public wishing to express their opposition? Okay, hearing and seeing none, we will move back to the Committee. Questions or concerns from Committee? Move the bill. Okay, we have a motion. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. Short and sweet. We like that. All right. We have a motion from Senator Blakespear. This is file item six, Senate Bill 11... or SB 1352.

The motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Can I see the vote? The vote is 4-0. We will hold that bill and go on call.

All right, thank you, Senator Wahab. Do we have any other authors in the room? We do. We see Senator Allen. Thank you to... Thank you to the witnesses. Yes, thank you so much. All right, Senator Allen, we're going to move forward with item number eight, Senate Bill 1406. I see you have your witness. Hello. All right. Of course, of course. We'll have you proceed when you're ready.

All right, well, thank you, Madam Chair Members. I first want to just thank the Committee, and I want to thank the Chair for consideration and feedback. I know we've had some good work. I also want to thank the California Assisted Living Association and associated groups for their engagement with us on the bill. We haven't reached a full agreement yet, but I'm feeling good about our conversations, and we're committed to working together with everyone should this bill move forward today.

So we know that seniors are the fastest growing population of folks experiencing homelessness, sadly. And between 2017 and 2021, our senior population only grew by 7%, but the number of people 55 and over who sought homelessness services increased by 84%. So, sadly, some of the best estimates suggest that by 2030, the number of seniors experiencing homelessness is expected to triple.

So amidst this crisis, assisted living facilities, also known as residential care facilities for the elderly, RCFEs, have been raising the rates that they charge residents like never before. Meanwhile, investors and regional companies and international real estate trusts have jumped into the mix. We have an industry survey that came out that shows that half the operators in the business of assisted living earn returns of 20% or more above the cost of running the facility.

And, you know, those older folks who can actually afford an assisted living facility often find their life savings rapidly drained. Unlike most residents of nursing homes, where care is generally paid for by Medicaid, assisted living residents or their families usually shoulder the full cost. And in these facilities, the base costs are often rivaled or exceeded by charges for services.

And so, despite the requirements that are out there that all of these RCFEs include comprehensive supervision and observation, one to one care as a basic service is a common add on imposed on residents, and that can often cost tens of thousands of dollars more per month. And there's no process to dispute these add on charges and no requirement that these services be reviewed by a primary care provider.

Most seniors are on fixed incomes. The rates have soared well above the rate of inflation, even though inflation has been incredibly high or the Social Security Cost of Living Adjustments. So this bill seeks to give assisted living residents and their families greater autonomy over their care and help to avoid undue financial burdens by doing three key things.

Members, first of all, require facilities to provide a detailed justification for any rate increase while capping annual increases at 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living index plus one half the percentage change in the annual median wage. So we provide some flexibility, but we're basically trying to say there's got to be some limit to these increases that keep getting slapped on folks.

Extending the notice period for rate increases from 60 to 90 days to give seniors and their families the necessary time to determine whether they can afford the higher rates or if they should appeal the rate change or find an alternative strategy or setting that will work better for them. Lastly, the bill ensures that residents have the right to request, refuse, or discontinue a service. That's an important thing.

I know that some concerns have been raised regarding a provision in the bill related to a refusal or discontinuation of services that would constitute grounds for eviction. Let me just assure everyone that that's not our intention. We certainly don't want to create new condition for grounds of eviction that would be counter to the intention of the bill, and we've been working with the folks who raise that concern to make sure we get that addressed.

So within the code of regulations, good cause for eviction already exists if a resident is engaging in behavior which is a threat to the mental and or physical health or safety of the resident or others in the facility. And my office has discussed this with the state Long-Term Care Ombudsman, and we continue to believe that this is merely a narrowed restatement of existing law intended to create clarity and preserve health and safety protections of residents.

But, certainly, should the bill move out of Committee today, I'm very interested in working with the Committee and the Ombudsman to take whatever revisions of the language might be necessary to ensure that we maintain protections for assisted living residents. We want to make sure they can discontinue service or leave if they want to, but we're not looking for for more opportunities to evict people. So in that spirit, I can ask for an aye vote. But we have Tony Chicotel, who's here from the California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform.

Wonderful. We'll proceed to the witness in support. Please state your name, organization, and you have two minutes.

Thank you. A little awkward. I'm still Tony Chicotel, Senior Staff Attorney, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform. Appreciate the opportunity to testify, and thanks to the Committee staff for their really great analysis on this bill. Really appreciated that. Senator Allen said it wonderfully, summarizing the need for the bill and how the bill addresses the concerns of the people who call CANHR. I'll just give you an idea of what we see and hear about daily. We've been doing... CANHR has been around for 41 years now.

We're very networked into the long term care world. We have a website that has a lot of information on it. So we get dozens of calls a day from long term care residents or the people who care and support long term care residents. And over the last year and a half or so, we've gotten calls and emails and concerns about assisted living rate increases like we've never received before.

I think what might be going on, what I speculate, is that a lot of the rate increases were deferred in 2020 and 2021 when long term care facilities were having a really rough go. And so the rate increases that have occurred the last year or two have been really compounded and have hit hard on residents. And a lot of residents cannot meet the rate increases and have very little room for negotiation. So as Senator Allen mentioned, there are really two ways that rate increases happen.

One is an inflationary rate increase across the board that all residents get. And what we've seen in the last year or two has just been unprecedented. What we've... The other way you raise rates is by add on charges. And we've been getting many, many calls from residents who dispute the merits of alleged increased needs that justify these rate increases.

And they're very concerned that they can't refuse them and that they're faced with either paying for what they don't think they need or being subject to an eviction for nonpayment. So this right to refuse offered services is something that exists in nursing homes, has existed for decades in nursing homes very uncontroversially. And we thought it would be a good idea to codify that to make clear that residents do have the right to control what care they get in these facilities. And if the facility truly thinks that they can't meet their needs and keep them safe for their refusal, then they always had the option of evicting them. Please vote yes for SB 1406. Thank you.

Thank you. I gave you that teacher look. Right, Tony. Wrap it up. All right, I will open up to members of the public wishing to express their support for this bill, please come forward to the microphone. Okay. Seeing none. Any members, any witnesses in opposition of the bill, please come forward to be heard. Are you... Oh, yes. There you go. So we have two. Okay, very good. Please have a seat. Welcome. So you each have two minutes to present, and then I just ask that you state your name and your organization. And begin when you're ready.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for staying late. Madam Chair and Members, my name is Rick Jensen, and I'm the President and CEO of Northstar Senior Living. We are a senior living provider based in Redding, California. We currently operate about 18 assisted living buildings in California and represent about 1500 seniors in California.

I'm here today in my role as a California Assisted Living Association Board Member to express our opposition to SB 1406 and, at the same time, acknowledge the productive and understanding conversations we've had with Senator Allen's office since the bill's introduction. We appreciate the recent amendments that have been made regarding the rate increase formula and feel like we've worked together well on that component.

The second main portion of this bill deals with refusal of services and an actual prohibition on providing the services, even when a service might be critically important for a resident. A core feature of assisted living is the ability to allow people to age in place. And as people age in place, oftentimes their needs increase, which is understandable. This model of assisted living has been based on that aging in place component, and it's one of the reasons why people choose to live in assisted living is because they can stay and age in place.

The Health and Safety Code and Title 22 require that assisted living communities monitor residents' needs, that they conduct resident care appraisals, reappraisals, and revise resident service plans as their needs change, and then to communicate that with family members and the residents, physicians, and so forth, and then to actually provide those services. The Department of Social Services holds assisted living communities accountable if they do not meet the standards I just listed. And if standards are not met, then the Department can issue citations, fines, and even revoke licenses.

The section of this bill dealing with refusal of services and a prohibition on then providing the services does not serve residents well and could actually leave them at risk, whether it is for a resident who is experiencing a cognitive decline and cannot manage their medications anymore or a resident who is at high risk of falling while showering alone or a resident who needs one on one care to keep themselves safe or the residents around them safe.

We propose that involving the Department of Social Services, the licensing body that understands the scope of services in assisted living, would be the best way to resolve resident or family concerns. As an assisted living provider, we work hard to deliver meaningful and quality care and services for older adults. We are proud of the work we do. On behalf of CALA, we thank the author for the ongoing conversations and opportunities to find workable solutions. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I'm Darby Kernan representing LeadingAge California. LeadingAge represents nonprofit providers of care, services, and housing for older adults, including RCFEs. Unfortunately, I'm here to respectful opposition to SB 1406. While we appreciate the conversations with the author's office and the recent amendments, we remain significantly concerned with the unintended consequences of this bill.

RCFEs provide older adults with the care and support they need to allow them age in place. Rightfully, more and more adults are seeking to live in assisted living and memory care facilities longer. Many of our member RCFEs are choosing to serve higher acuity individuals. In order to accomplish this, it means higher staffing levels and which, given the current workforce crisis, is costly and not necessarily covered by the wage index formula recently added into the bill.

We can't predict what further staffing challenges or increased costs RCFEs may face in the future, and we are concerned that this bill will implement an arbitrary one size fits all cap. Also, as nonprofits, we are required to reinvest into our facilities and into our programs. And so I think that, as the Senator was talking about these rate increases, I think that there is something really important to understand about, when nonprofits are doing this, they are reinvesting into their facilities and to their communities.

Lastly, we, in addition, have strong concerns with the language that allows residents to refuse service without parameters and guidelines in place. As you heard, there are very specific things like showering. If you are required to need assistance and you say you don't want that, it puts liability onto the facilities and creates a huge concern. As the state's older adult demographics are rapidly shifting, LeadingAge California is committed to advocating for policies that increase the state's supply of RCFEs and are concerned that this bill hinders that progress. And for those reasons, we are remaining in opposition.

Thank you so much. Any members of the public wishing to express their opposition, please come forward. Your name, organization, and your position, please.

Madam Chair and Members, Roxanne Gould representing 6Beds.org. It's an association of small residential care facilities for the elderly and developmentally disabled. In the interest of time and my broken back, I want to say I associate ourselves with the comments of the opposition.

You're opposed?

We're opposed. And I think it's the first time we've ever opposed a Senator Allen bill, and I'm really sorry to be up here.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Any other members of the public? Okay, I'm going to bring it back to our Senate Committee. Questions, concerns for the author. Senator Blakespear, please.

I appreciate this bill, and I think having a little bit longer of a timeline is really important. And I wanted to specifically ask your lead witness about the fact that, what I heard you say was that in nursing homes the right to refuse service has not been controversial. So I just wanted to understand that. Could you say any more about that?

Why, In my opinion, it's been uncontroversial, whereas here it would be a bone of contention? Sure. I think the main reason is because, as Senator Allen alluded to, most of the nursing home reimbursement is paid for by the federal government and state government.

So there's very little to no profit incentive to increase services that are delivered to a nursing home resident, whereas in an assisted living situation, I think the standard setup, and there's various setups related to facilities and how they do their contracts, but most of the time, additional services cost additional money.

Yes. My experience is that service increases go up rapidly and are for individual things that sometimes are not clear at the beginning when the tenancy is established. So I think that it is really important. And is the bill's current language, if amendments were taken, is still, is a 5% increase per year or...

Yes. Well, it's 5%, but tied to... So it's 5% plus the change in cost of living index plus one half the percentage change in the annual median wage. So it's actually more

Like seven.

Generous. Yeah.

Or eight.

So. Right. So it kind of depending on what the inflation numbers are that year, basically.

Okay. Thank you. That seems eminently reasonable to me, and I'm happy to support it and move the bill.

Thank you so much. Any other questions, comments, or concerns? Senator Allen, respective to the Consumer Price Index for California, it tends to be more positive, more fair to urban communities. How do you anticipate having a price index for rural communities?

Well, I'm happy to have that conversation with the Committee. If you want to create a, you know, a standard that reflects that. I mean, you know, once again, we're happy to have that conversation.

Yeah.

You know, is there another... We have all sorts of things that are tied to COLA.

Right.

What do we do in other areas of this, of the Committee's work, on that, on that rural urban divide issue?

Sometimes we, sometimes policy comes forward and it actually stipulates differences. But I think, for your bill, I just say continue to work with Committee staff. Is this one double referred? This goes to Approps. Okay. Yeah, it goes to Approps. I think, you know, you have opposition here that's willing to work with you, and I know you're willing to work with them. I'm really happy to see that you took the amendments to kind of massage that ambiguity around evictions. That was one of the sharpest pieces that I think we were all a little thrown back. So in terms of the intent, just making sure that the equity is there and that there is a respect for rural communities as in urban communities.

Yeah, I'd love to work with the Committee on that. I don't know if we do it county by county. Once again, before making any... Love to work with the Committee on that. I recognize that issue.

Okay. Would you like to close?

Yeah. I appreciate the discussion. Very much appreciate the work that we have done, and I know we will do with the opposition. I mean, I hear your comment about the nonprofits. I will say something like 90% of the RCFEs are for profits, so we're really not talking about a largely nonprofit sector here. But there have been some pretty compelling press, journalism done by the New York Times and others, Dying Broke. Really powerful, and I think worth reading.

It really gets into the details of how many of our elders are just getting totally squeezed dry. And I know that we've got some good people here at the table who aren't looking to facilitate that. And I like the way the conversations have been going, and I want to... I feel good about getting to a place that will do right by our seniors, but also allow the good actors in the assisted living space to do their important work. And that's what this is ultimately all about. So with that, and with a commitment to work with the Committee on several of the issues that have been raised, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Do we have a motion? Oh, thank you, Senator Blakespear. We have a motion. For Senate Bill 1406, do pass to Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll.

File Item eight, SB 1406, do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

I have four ayes and one abstention. That bill is out.

Thank you, Members. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Senator Glazer, welcome to Human Services Committee. We'll now prepare for item number nine, Senate Bill 1415. Senator, do you have any witnesses with you today? Okay. Any witnesses in opposition on this Bill, just wave and let me know you're here. All right. Okay. We'll have you proceed when you're ready.

Great. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good evening, Chair and Members, thank you for allowing me to present this Bill to you today. Let me thank the Committee staff for their work on it.

This Bill would allow counties to consider government assistance, non-profit assistance, and other forms of private assistance. A family regularly receives to count as income for the purpose of applying to the CalWORKS permanent housing program within the homeless assistance program, it would also confirm that students participating in the Welfare-to-Work Program can use the financial assistance provided to them to purchase a computer. CalWORKS Homeless Assistance provides a temporary shelter program and a permanent housing program to low income families.

However, the program only allows a CalWORKS family to qualify for permanent housing assistance if their rent does not exceed 80% of their income. With current rent soaring in California and wages stagnating, low income families use a greater percentage of their income towards rent, leading to low utilization of this program. Additionally, CalWORKS Welfare-to-Work Program offers students a payment at the beginning of each semester for school expenses like books and other college supplies.

As assignments and classes shift to online, students need for owning a computer is certainly increasing. While some counties are allowing students to use assistance from the Welfare-to-Work Program to buy a computer, others are not. As a result, students, particularly low income, are falling behind because they can't purchase a computer. This Bill would guarantee that students in any county can use their payments to purchase a computer and succeed in classes. With that, thank you for the consideration.

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. With me today is Kevin Aslanian, who's Executive Director, as you know, of the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization to testify in support.

Good evening, my name is Kevin Aslanian, Coalition California Welfare Rights Organization. This Bill does two things: one is that in order to get off of CalWORKS, one of the best ways to get off is get an education. In fact, pattern shows that if you have a BA, you have about 30 more $1000 that you could get than you could provide for your family. People on CalWORKS are living on a fixed income. On average that is below 50% of the federal poverty level.

That's deep poverty, toxic poverty. This Bill basically will say that one time, if you start going to college one time, you will get a $700 payment. And you could use that to buy a laptop, because in these days, my days, you didn't need to get a laptop. These days, they just require a laptop. And the other big problem is that about only 8% of the people who apply for in the homeless program, you have temporary homeless assistance and permanent.

The temporary is to put people in a hotel for 16 days. After that, they have to get permanent. Only 8% of the people who get temporary homeless assistance get permanent, or they end up in the streets. So this Bill would basically find other ways to help people meet the 80% requirement to get homeless assistance. We appreciate an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any members of the public want to share their support for this Bill, please come forward. Hello.

Hello. Good evening. Rebecca Gonzalez with The Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you so much. Any opposition in the room that's like that would like to be heard today? Okay. Seeing none. And members of the public that want to express their opposition? Okay, we will move forward to Committee. Questions, concerns?

I'll move the Bill.

Moved by Senator Blakespear. Seeing no questions.

Would you like to close?

Thank you for your consideration. Appreciate your support today.

Wonderful. Okay, so this is Senate Bill 1415. Do pass to Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll.

File item nine, SB 1415, do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

All right, that is 4-0. We will hold that open. Thank you so much, Senator Glazer. Thank you for your witness. We are now moving on to the last item on the docket. I do need to pass the gavel. Will the Senator be joining us?

Is there a piece of paper I can follow? I'm sure. All right. Okay. This is SB 1396, and we will hand it over to you to present your Bill.

Oh, okay. Just checking on the matter. All right. Is there any objection to me passing the gavel to another Member of the Committee to be heard? Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, fellow Committee Members. Thank you so much for this opportunity to present Senate Bill 1396.

The most frequent were for food, material goods, housing, support and mental health services. Of those referred to services, 60% to 90% or more access them. Home visitors are the supportive connectors who help ensure we are maximizing the resources already in place for families and children in their own communities. Additionally, 91% of children participating in the CalWORKS agency received a developmental screening, compared to only 23% of children in MediCal alone.

This is a Bill that will unlock the full potential of our CalWORKS home visiting program at the Department of Social Services. It will provide the ongoing support that families deserve during the development and early stages of their child's life. This program aims to equip families with the necessary tools to expand their educational, economic, and financial capabilities, thereby addressing poverty through a two generation support approach.

Research shows that the critical importance of the first five years of a child's life for their development is in fact 90% of the child's brain developing by age five. Early adverse childhood experiences are aces can have long term negative effects on a child's physical, social, and behavioral health, as well as their educational and economic well being well into adulthood. Despite the proven effectiveness of home visiting programs, the current CalWORKS HVP statute only funds participation until a child's second birthday or 24 months.

This premature end to services prevents families from fully benefiting from the program and its potential long term impacts. Senate Bill 1396 will guarantee that pregnant individuals, parents, caregivers, caretaker relatives, and children receive support for a minimum of 24 months, aligning with the duration of the respective home visiting program model. This Bill would only be implemented if funding is allocated, directed toward the counties, and contingent upon program capacity and costs not exceeding the allocated budget.

Thank you, Chair and Members of this Committee.

We did agree to amendments or submit amendments ensuring that tribal families are explicit in the Bill Language and clarify the criteria of a family's program eligible duration time here to testify in support of the Bill I want to thank Stacy Lee from Children Now for changing her flight and being with us in this evening hours and Amanda Kirchner from the California Welfare Directors Association.

Thank you,

I'm Stacy Lee, the chief learning officer and senior managing director for early childhood with Children Now a whole child children's research, policy and advocacy organization focused on building power for kids prenatal to 26. I'm also here today with my colleague Leticia Cacia Sanchez, Director of early Childhood, and Kim Lewis, our advocate here in Sacramento.

Thank you for the opportunity to present in support of SB 1396, an important Bill that will help ensure the state's investments in the CalWORKS home visiting program at the Department of Social Services are maximized. Voluntary evidence based home visiting programs match new and expectant parents with trained professionals who provide ongoing, tailored support starting as early as pregnancy and during the child's early years.

Research shows that the benefits of evidence based home visiting last a lifetime for both the child and parent and generate significant cost savings to multiple public systems.

Prior to working with families, home visitors are trained on cultural competency and implicit bias, trained to build relationships, focus on strengths and skill building to listen to the needs and aspirations of parents, identify and reinforce cultural practices in parenting, make referrals to available resources, and support their clients to succeed over the span of two years or more in the evaluation of the CalWORKS Home visiting program there are over 26 services families were referred to.

Children Now conducted a policy interview project last fall, culminating in our report, a statewide approach to strengthening home visiting. Our home visiting team interviewed over 50 people, including local home visiting providers, county staff, local and state. First five staff, state agency leadership, and national home visiting models, to identify opportunities to strengthen the home visiting system system in California. These recommendations are reflected in the changes included within SB 1396. Thank you for your time. I respectfully request your aye vote on this important Bill. Thank you.

Good evening. Amanda Kirchner with CWDA. We are one of the co sponsors with Children Now of this important measure. We believe that for our CalWORKS families who are participating in this home visiting program, the ability for them to be able to stay past just an arbitrary statutory deadline, but through the program's full model, fidelity will really allow these children and these families to get the entire benefit of that program.

We know that based on the research that shows that these programs have benefits for maternal health, for children's health, and then further on in their own educational opportunities as well, we see lower incidences of special education, lower incidence of Criminal Justice Involvement, and we know that unfortunately, there is such a link between poverty and our child welfare agencies. And so for us, we really see it as a measure that will help us continue to reduce system context, especially for families of color.

Okay, thank you. If we have any Members of the public wishing to express support for this Bill, please approach the microphone.

So for those reasons, we are very supportive. I want to thank the Senator especially for taking on this issue and the staff for such a helpful analysis. Happy to answer any questions.

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

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

Okay, thank you. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have any. I do not see anyone coming forward. Okay. Do we have any Members of the public wishing to express opposition for this Bill, please approach the microphone.

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

Hello, Maria Romo from Child Care Resource center in support.

Thank you so much for your time. Thanks for being here this evening. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Assistant, please call the roll.

Roll Call

Seeing none, we will take this back to the Committee. Any Committee questions, comments? Okay, we have a motion here, so we'll allow you to close.

[Roll Call]

All right, so it looks like we have done this. Congratulations. Congratulations. I'd like to thank our consultant, our staff, our office staff as well, for helping us out today, the sergeants, for staying late, our witnesses. Thank you so much for being here. We will now adjourn.