Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services

Good afternoon. I call this hearing of the Assembly Committee on Human Services to order today. Once we have established quorum, we have 34 bills on the agenda. 19 bills are on consent. Please note that we limit testimony to two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition. Each witness is two minutes to testify. All additional witnesses will be limited to saying their name, organization, and, if they represent one, their position on the Bill.

I will also note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. Now for a little housekeeping. The Assembly Rules Committee has determined that the fiscal implications of file item 28 AB 2935 Main shine and file item 29 AB 3049, Brian, should be analyzed in the Appropriations Committee despite the bills being keyed non fiscal. Should the bills pass out of this Committee, they will be referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Thank you.

Seeing as we do not yet have a quorum, we will start as a Subcommitee to hear the bills, and we will start with file item number one. So, Assembly Rodriguez, when you are ready, you may please come forward. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, chair Members. I'm pleased to present AB 1786, which would establish 100.0 million California Individual Assistance act administered by the Department of Social Services, and a 400 million California Local Assistance act administered by the Strategic Growth Council, both funded by the Greenhouse Gap gas Reduction Fund. The purpose of this Bill is to provide timely and direct assistance to individuals and communities that have suffered harm due to disasters, but may not be eligible for, or may not warrant federal disaster assistance.

This Bill provides local governments, community based organizations, and individuals with the assistance they need to quickly recover from a disaster. All too often, FEMA and Cal OES have been unable to assist the most vulnerable communities when a disaster survivors have few paths to recovery. This is because critical aid from FEMA remains out of reach for families and individuals who have suffered a disaster if the local disaster does not meet the criteria for federal assistance.

In fact, FEMA recommends that each state establish its own individual assistance programs due to the limitations on the federal disaster assistance. Now is why we need to do better. This Bill would help as it will leverage 500 million annually from the greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to help communities and individuals recover from climate driven disasters.

Lastly, I want to thank the chair and the Vice Chair, as well as most of you on the Committee who supported my previous Bill last year, AB 1513, and with that I do have witnesses in support.

Thank you so much. Assemblymember. Two minutes each person, please.

Good afternoon, Chairman and Assembly Member Lee and the entire Committee on Human Services. My name is Kathryn Rees and I am the Deputy Director of policy, advocacy and impact at the California Community Action Partnership Association of California, CALCAPA. I'm honored to be here as a representative of the 60 community action agencies who provide opportunities in all 58 California counties. We are here in strong support today of AB 1786.

As Californians and leaders in the mitigation of poverty, we understand greatly and firsthand how devastating a natural disaster can be to community. We know community Members seeking support and resources during natural disasters rely heavily on previously known community based organizations, and that means especially community action agencies and our partners. Community based organizations roles in disaster response and relief is critical. First, CBOs are trusted messengers. Second, they are already in the community, so they are ready to respond timely in emergency situations.

While we often have funds set and ready for reimbursement of medical, fire and police, as well as midterm solutions for possible recovery opportunities, what we lack is the ability to have immediate resources for both recovery opportunities, such as housing or relocation payments, as well as the funding for costs currently absorbed by cbos who employ the people on the ground that deliver that immediate relief.

One such demonstration of this is just last year, during the late 2022 and early 2023 flooding that caused over 100 million damage to over 100 million homes in the Pajaro Valley. The Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, along with its partners Casa De LA Cultura and the Bajaro disaster long Term Recovery alliance, were there on site immediately before formal recovery began.

These community based organizations offered critical interpretation and case management services support to the Mexico speaking community during the emergency, then at the shelters before other state resources were even deployed. This legislation will ensure that what happened in Pajaro, where there has been no reimbursement support to agencies from local government entities, does not happen again. It is a stark reminder that many.

Could please wrap up, please.

Yes, it is a stark reminder that many local CBOs are often called upon first to organize resources in any emergency. While they are often the first to arrive, they are for sure the ones still in the community way after the emergency and waters have rescinded. So that is why we are in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, next one, just please, two minutes.

Good afternoon, chair Lee and Members of the Committee. My name is Noe Paramo. I'm with California Rural Legal Assistance foundation. Thank you to Assembly Member Rodriguez for presenting AB 1786 and to the Committee for the Opportunity to testify in support of the Bill, which creates two needed rapid relief programs to help California's residents and families impacted by natural disasters. Due to climate change.

AB 1786 establishes the California Individual Assistance program to provide direct financial assistance to impacted individuals and families who are ineligible for federal or state assistance due to their immigration status. Climate change impacts all of us, evidenced by the storms of 2022 and 2023 that resulted in federal and state disaster declaration. In California counties, we saw what the storms did to the towns of Planada and Pajaro. It displaced families from their homes and caused economic losses.

AB 1786 also establishes the California Local Assistance program to help local communities rebuild, restore and support badly needed infrastructure and lifeline systems for prevention and recovery from damage. The Bill recognizes local governments need to be responsive and work in partnership with the state and local community based organizations. Specifically, 1786 will partner with trusted community based organizations as key messengers with experience and capacity to deliver culturally and competent emergency prevention, response and recovery services to immigrant and farmworker communities.

CBOs have successfully demonstrated through the storm assistance for Immigrants program to implement service delivery models customized for their local communities. We must establish and sustain equitable resilience policies and programs to help our most vulnerable communities from the effects that climate change causes, such as storms, excessive heat, freezes, wildfire, smoke, and drought. We look forward to working with the Legislature and the Administration to provide rapid relief to individuals and families who've suffered harm due to natural disasters. Thank you for your consideration and support of this key Bill.

Thank you so much. Now, do we have any Members of the public wish to sign support of the Bill? Please come up to the microphone. Name and organization please.

Kevin Aslanian Coalition for California Welfare Rights Organizations. Strong support. Thank you.

Josh Gauger. On behalf of the County of Santa Cruz, in support.

Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Please come forward. Any Members of the public in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. I'll bring back the Committee for any comments, questions.

Is this the identical Bill you had last year? Are there any? For the most part. Okay. What's the difference?

I think now more than ever, I think it's still something.

We need somebody Rodriguez, if you could use the microphones for the TV.

Well, the purpose is, once again, it didn't make it through last year. Want to bring it back? We all must realize that California is a disaster prone state. Things are going to happen more severe than ever, as we noticed the last couple years. So now more than ever, we need to establish our own funds as FEMA also recognizes that each state should do it. So we want to be the leader in a lot of other things in the state we should be later in protecting our communities.

Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. Senator Rodriguez, since we lack a quorum, we will take action at the appropriate time. But thank you for bringing this field forward and making sure that those impacted by climate change, as it gets worse, are taken care of. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

We shall move on to the next item, the next author. I think I see Assemblymember Ting here, who will present either file item eight or file item 30. Which Bill do you want to start first?

AB 2155 if that's okay.

Yes.

Great. Thank you, Mister chair. So AB 2155 creates a grant program within the California Department of Social Services that will provide community based organizations serving limited English speaking populations funding to continue providing language assistance services. As we all know, our nonprofits are part of our social safety net. They provide critical, critical services. Many of them have hired employees who speak multiple languages. However, the state is still way behind in terms of really acknowledging funding language access.

What oftentimes happens is the state can't provide these services, so they have nonprofits who have this language ability to provide that. What we really want to do is just make sure there's a grant assistance program to really help nonprofits who are spending extra money to hire employees with a multitude of language skills. These are some of our most vulnerable families and Californians who really rely on these nonprofits for assistance and need it in language. That's absolutely very critical. So with that respect for your ask for, I vote on AB 2155. I have Ben Tran here from Asian Americans advancing justice.

Hello, Chair and Members. My name is Benjamin Tran, policy strategist with Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California, and a proud sponsor of AB 2155. Our staff provide a variety of legal services, such as applying for citizenship or filing domestic violence restraining orders in eight different Asian languages. Story after story, community Members will tell us how these systems are confusing and intimidating. I'm bilingual, and I'll tell you, I get nervous just trying to order at a restaurant in my second language.

So I can only imagine the difficulty of seeking vital help in a language you're not comfortable in. One story I will share is about a client named Jane who decided enough was enough after she was sexually assaulted by her husband. The couple had been married for five years with two young children, during which there were multiple instances of domestic violence. Being a limited English speaker, she was referred to our organization for legal aid by the court.

After a six hour hearing, the Aj SoCal attorney was able to successfully request full custody of the children, spousal support, ownership of her vehicle, and DVRO for five years. Currently, our organization is assisting Jane with her divorce proceedings and U visa petitions. It's essential that the staff who are experts at delivering these services to community Members are supported. Bilingual pay is one of the many sensible solutions to support the programs that make a difference in the lives of people like Jane.

However, according to the fair Pay for Nonprofits in Southern California report, out of 992 organizations, 81% did not provide bilingual pay, leaving these workers uncompensated and unrecognized for their labor and skills. This investment will protect and enhance these programs so that all can equitably access them. For these reasons, I urge support for AB 215. Thank you very much. Do we have any additional witnesses in the room who wish to testify in support of the measure? Yes. Yes.

Hi, my name is Faith Lee. I'm with Asian Americans advancing Justice Southern California. Of course we're in support, but I'm also here to provide a me, too. On behalf of Southeast Asian Resource Action Center, Korean Youth and Community Center, Filipino Workers Center, Hmong Innovating Politics, and Asian Pacific Environmental Network. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Cynthia Gomez, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, treat law and strong support.

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

Toni Trigueiro, California Teachers Association in support.

Far had no other Asian resources and support.

Thank you. Thank you. Now, are there any witnesses in opposition to the Bill, please come forward. Any Members of the public wishing to express their opposition to the Bill, please come to microphone. Seeing none, I'm going to bring that back to Committee. But first, Assembly Member Ting. Just want to clarify you're accepting the Committee amendments?

Yes.

Okay, fantastic. And then, Committee secretary, since we have a quorum now, let's establish a quorum real quick.

Lee. Here. Assailey. Here. Calderon. Here. Gibson. Jackson. Here. Mathis. Ortega.

We have a quorum Members. Any questions? Comments? All right, seeing none, the Bill has been moved by somebody Calderon. Can I get a second? All right, Assmblymember Tong. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I'm recommending an aye if amended today. We have a motion. oh, actually, would you like to close first?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. Thank you so much. The bill's been moved and seconded. Thank you for working with our Committee and I recommend aye vote. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on AB 2155.

[Roll Call]

Five is zero. That bill's out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members.

And Assemblymember Ting, you have another Bill your file, item 30.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'm presenting AB 3079. And first, let me thank you and the Committee for its help. We are absolutely taking the Committee amendments. AB 3079 allows families that are participating in the in home Support services program to allow family Members who are undocumented to be employed through that program to serve to care for their other family Members. Right now. We did a great expansion a few years ago to allow family Members to be paid within in home support services.

This will further clarify that if your family Member happens to be undocumented, that they will be also able to qualify for this program. We all know how critical the in home Support services program is. My grandmother was a beneficiary of that. They come into your house so that your loved ones don't have to leave home, don't have to go into a nursing home. They do many of the household chores of taking care of the elderly, taking care of someone who's disabled.

Critical, critical services, some of those are done by family Members. So again, that expansion done a few years ago to expanded family Members, now this just goes one step further to ensure that if that family Member happens to be undocumented, that they, too, can qualify for this program. Happy to have Kelly Dearman, of course, our Executive Director at the San Francisco Human Services Agency and Disability and Human Services program, and also Susie Smith from the agency, is also here to answer any technical questions. So thank you very much.

Two minutes, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Kelly Dearman. I'm the Executive Director for the San Francisco Department of Disability and Aging Services. On behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, I am here to convey San Francisco's support and proud sponsorship of Assembly Bill 3079 by allowing undocumented in home supportive services recipients IHSS to select an undocumented family Member to serve as their IHSS provider. AB 3079 helps more Californians receive the care they deserve and to which they are entitled.

The vast majority of IHSS recipients rely on family Members to serve as their IHSS provider. However, unlike other IHSS recipients, those who are undocumented are denied the right to select an undocumented family Member to provide their care. This often leaves those family Members doing the work unpaid and at an economic hardship. This also happens in spite of the fact that California faces an unprecedented labor shortage of home care workers.

According to California's master plan for Aging, the state will face a shortage of up to 3.2 million paid direct care workers in the coming years. As California's demographics shift, state data sources also show that there is currently an equity issue in who can access care. Latino IHSS recipients have particular difficulty finding an IHSS provider and therefore getting services. Given these considerations, AB 3079 is both a moral and practical necessity.

Its passage will reflect the commitment we made in 2023 when California took the groundbreaking step of expanding eligibility for Medi Cal to include undocumented community Members. For all these reasons, the city and County of San Francisco is a proud sponsor and strong supporter of AB 3079. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Right on the dot. Now, are there any witnesses in the room or any Members of the public in the room wish to express their support for the Bill? Please come up to the microphone. Yeah.

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

Cathy Senderling-Mcdonald, representing Alameda County's Board of Supervisors, signed on in support and as a co sponsor of the legislation. Thank you.

Tiffany Whiten and SEIU California in support. Thank you.

Malik Bynum, UDW AFSCME Local 3930 in support. Thank you.

Josh Gauger, on behalf of the counties of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz, both co sponsors, in strong support.

Good afternoon. Jared call with Nourish California in support.

Sam Wilkinson with Grace & End Child Poverty in California and support.

Thank you very much. Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Please come forward. Any Members of the public who wish to express their opposition saying, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Comments Assemblymember Essayli.

Thank you, Mister chair. You won't be surprised by my position. I strongly oppose the expansion of Medi Cal to illegal immigrants in the State of California.

I think it is unconscionable that in a state where people who have been here paying taxes and came here the right way can't even get quality health care, and we're expanding it to almost a million new people who just showed up to California the wrong way. And so my question here though is, how is this Bill consistent with federal law? Because under federal law, IHSS workers have to be qualified to work in the United States. So is this not illegal?

I mean, how are you going to have people who the state's gonna essentially be hiring and paying them from state tax dollars who don't have the legal eligibility to work in the United States? How does that work?

We'll have Susie answer that question.

Good afternoon. Susie Smith. I'm with the San Francisco Human Services Agency, and the legal precedent that we are relying on has been set forth by UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy, and they have developed a legal brief that has been supported by 40 legal experts across the country that shows that if the immigration Reform and Control act does not specifically say that states are subject to that law, and if the states are not specifically noted in the legislation, then states have the ability to hire who they want, including undocumented community Members.

There's a long legal precedent and case law that we can share the brief with you after the Committee. It's actually in the analysis of reference to, that enables states to be able to set their own eligibility requirements.

Has that been actually tested in court, or is this just a legal opinion of some 40 folks that you mentioned?

This would. There's a parallel law that the UC regents have been put forth to allow undocumented students to be hired by the UC system, and Assembly Member Alvarez has put forth that law that's also moving through the process that relies on the same exact legal theory. To my knowledge, it has not been challenged.

So it could expose the state to some liability, or it could expose these workers to potentially prosecution if they're working here unlawfully. So that does concern me. The other part of this Bill that concerns me as well is that we're exempting background checks. So why. I mean, some of the people that we're taking care of here are very dependent.

And if you have a family Member that, let's say, has a conviction for fraud or taking advantage of people's finances, why would we want to enable somebody like that to be in close proximity to somebody in need? So why take out the background check requirement?

Because it's a family Member.

Because a family Member. But they're degrees. Very broad, right.

Family Members gonna know a lot more than a background check.

Does the person who's receiving the services have to approve of this family Member?

Yes, they select.

Absolutely. They select them.

So not like some other. So I can't apply on behalf of my mother, for example.

Unless you had, Power of attorney over her.

Okay. I just think it's probably a good idea to background checks, but I have no other questions, Mister chair.

All right, Senator Gipson. And then Assembler Jackson,

Thank you very much. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward me, because I, you know, one, I appreciate this, and I have, in fact, read and appreciate the legal opinion that the UC regions are using to bring in our undocumented brothers and sisters in this space.

I have undocumented family Members in my family, and knowing that those individuals could receive care from a relative in the home who knows intimately what they need because they're there and they had that relationship and was also indicated is that power of attorney, you're not going to have someone care for you if in fact that person is not reliable and also trustworthy.

And so, you know, one, I want to certainly be considered a joint on this and be with you at every juncture because I believe that one, this is a step in the right direction.

In addition to that, just had a family Member who we brought in a home care worker into the home who's been there, who has absolutely been amazing, providing the kind of care and nurturing that is needed because everybody else works and they can come in and provide the kind of care that we look for when someone's caring after our loved ones and our relative. And so I would like to move the Bill. Fact it hasn't been moved already. It has. Well, I want a second.

Well now Mister Gipson moved it. Yes. Are you asking to be a joint author?

Move the Bill and happy to make you a joint. Thank you.

Fantastic. All right, Assembly Jackson. And then we'll have Assembler Calderon.

Thank you Member as always for your thoughtfulness on issues like this. Would love to participate on your Bill as a co author or wherever else you have me on the Bill. I think for those that don't know about how IHSS works and other things, in many cases these family Members are already taking care.

That's right.

That's exactly of the young people. They're just not, I mean, of their family Member. They're just not getting paid for it. And the economic impact to the household is astounding. In many cases, sometimes in the prime of their years, they are unable to participate fully in the workforce because of their dedication to their family Members. So this is certainly a moral thing for us to do. It's actually a moral imperative because we also have a workforce shortage.

And so the idea is who's going to look out for these family Members who are in need of basically 24 hours care? And so thank you very much for this Bill. It's definitely a huge necessity. And again, these are the people who are already doing the work. They should be compensated and the whole household should be able to benefit for the love and care that they're giving to their family Members. Look forward to supporting this Bill.

Thank you. And happy to add you as a co author. I thought you might have already been, but we'll double check on that.

Madam Calderon thank you, Mister chair.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. You know, the idea that a family Member can care for somebody who needs this type of care, whether they're, you know, here, whatever their status is, being here, it's just so important. And also, I think that these are incredibly hard jobs to fill. Many of the IHSS workers have 2 and 3 jobs, and we've heard stories of how some of them have to live in their car. And so I really appreciate your work on this Bill. And I'd also like to be added as a co author.

Absolutely happy to add you. And just to reiterate all of your comments, again, these workers are paid very low wages. We're not talking, I mean, frankly, they're not getting paid a living wage, which I know we're trying to address. But at least this is some compensation to what my colleague from Riverside said, because oftentimes people are giving up their jobs to take care of a family Member they would normally be working otherwise. And so it's absolutely, I think, critical to be providing some level of assistance.

Well, thank you so much, Assembly Member Ting. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I'm going to join the chorus of our Committee Members adding on as a co author, if you have me as well. And I really do want to commend your work on this to make sure that more people are included within the IHSS provider system. And you're right, family knows best, more than any background check will ever know their status. So happy to support the Bill today as well. The Bill has been probably moved in seconded, but I'll invite you to close as well.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Four to one that Bill is out, and we'll keep the roll open for absent Members. Thank you. And next, I think we'll have a similar Juan Carrillo come presents file item 15 AB 2415 and you may begin when you are ready.

Thank you, Mister chair Members. AB 2415 seeks to expand access to the CAPI program, an already existing benefit for the state's most vulnerable seniors and disabled and documented population. California is home to approximately 17,000 undocumented seniors 65 or older. By 2030, 10.8 million Californians will be an older adult, making up one quarter of the state's population. I understand the struggles and aspirations of those who came to this country in search of a better life and the American dream.

I know firsthand what it's like to work in a back breaking job and working long hours. They have been denied access to life savings funds like this one. Despite their contributing billions of dollars a year in state and local taxes. California has made historic investments in expanding food assistance benefits and unlocking medi Cal for undocumented seniors. But we are falling short in doing the same for the cash assistance programs for immigrants.

Currently, this life saving program is only available to qualified immigrants, which excludes our larger undocumented population. When we talk about inclusivity in our state, I want to remind everyone that it also includes our seniors, especially our undocumented population. We've seen over time and time again how impactful these dollars have been for individuals facing extreme poverty. Our immigrant families have been at the forefront of California's when California needed the most during the pandemic, they were considered essential in ensuring them.

Access to this critical safety net is a commitment that we will continue doing better by them as they have done for us. Joining me today to speak in support and answer technical questions is Cynthia Gomez, Deputy Director with Sheila and Alicia Olmedo, A. Shirley, Member of the City of Southgate.

All right, thank you so much. Two minutes per person, please.

Yeah, Alicia will be doing her testimony in Spanish, and I'll be quickly translating for her. I will start with my testimony. Good afternoon, Mister Chairman, Members. My name is Cynthia Gomez, Deputy Director of state policy and advocacy with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. CHIRLA. CHIRLA is proud to sponsor AB 2415 and are thankful for the leadership of Assemblymember Juan Carrillo on this important piece of legislation.

California is home to a rapidly aging population, of which nearly 17,000 individuals are aged 65 and over and are undocumented. Recently, a concerning trend has been the increasing rates of poverty among seniors. California's master plan on aging highlights that approximately 20% of all individuals aged 65 and over live in poverty, and the rate of poverty nearly doubles for folks who are black, indigenous, or of Latino descent. Because of their immigration status, undocumented seniors are an even greater risk.

In recent years, California has taken great strides in ensuring that no individual has turned away from accessing the critical programs that they need to remain healthy. However, we have fallen short of opening access to the state funded cash Assistance program for immigrants, also known as CAPI. CAPI was established in 1998 following changes to the federal welfare law that restricted qualified immigrants from access to federal supplemental security income, also known as SSI.

CAPI is a critical lifeline to vulnerable immigrants and provides a monthly cash benefit to folks who are aged 65 and older, blind or disabled. Currently, undocumented seniors and folks with disabilities are unable to access CAPI solely based on their immigration status. Without immigration reform, undocumented Californians are aging into poverty and uncertainty, despite spending much of their working life contributing to the state's economy. In 2021 alone, undocumented Californians contributed $51.4 billion in state and local taxes.

Nearly 30 years later, it's time we open access to this critical program for individuals who have called California home. We thank you for your consideration of this Bill and ask for your support on AB 22. Sorry. 2415 thank you. [Spanish]

Good afternoon. Blessings. My name is Alicia Almedo. I am 64 years old and I am a Member of Chile. I live in the City of Southgate and I immigrated from Mexico 19 years ago. I have worked in restaurants, hotels, and currently work cleaning houses. I work three to four days a week, including on weekends, to take care of my family. During all these years, I have paid my taxes using my itin.

My iTin allows me to pay my taxes but not benefit from the programs that I contribute to. Today, I ask for your vote that would help me access the program that I have contributed to. As I am approaching retirement age, I worry what will happen of me if the expansion of AB 15 or sorry 20415 passes. I will have access to receive a cash benefit that will help me pay for my basic necessities such as food, medicine and housing.

I don't want to be a burden to my adult son who has his family. I want to age with dignity just like everybody else. I call for action to vote in favor of the expansion of AB 2415. It is urgent because we are now of age and in a short time many of us will not be able to work to support ourselves. I appreciate your support. Thank you and God bless you.

Thank you. Now, do we have any Members of the public who wish to add their support to the Bill? Yes.

Kevin Aslanian Coalition California Welfare rights organization strong support. Thank you.

[Spanish] support AB 2415 thank you .

[Spanish]

Cynthia Valencia ACLU California Action in support of AB 2415.

Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Veda group representing Inclusive Action for the City and strong support.

Tiffany Whiten SEIU California in support

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

Lanle from Asian Americans advancing justice, Southern California in strong support.

Noe Paramo California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in strong support

Jared Call with Nourish California in support.

Sam Wilkinson with Grace & End Child Poverty in California in support thank you.

Now, are there any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Please come forward. Any Members of the public who wish to testify against the Bill? Seeing none, I'm going to bring it back to the Committee, but before that I'm going to hand the gavel over to Assemblyman Calderon. I'm going to be presenting a couple bills, but I will be right back after that.

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote. This program will be very beneficial to all the seniors in the state.

Thank you very much. Second. Okay. Secretary, please call the roll. [Roll Call] You're welcome. Assemblymember Friedman, would you be ready to present on AB 2263?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. And Members. 5 million Californians are living in poverty. It shouldn't surprise anyone that California contends with the enduring challenge of having one of the nation's highest living costs. The staggering of housing prices, relentless surge in educational expenses, and the overall burden of meeting basic needs pose a formidable economic hurdle for a substantial segment of our population.

With these factors and the institutional barriers that make accessing aid programs difficult for many, it's no surprise that California is home to the nation's starkest income and wealth inequities. Guaranteed income, or GI, programs, offer a beacon of hope. GI extends beyond alleviating financial hardship. It infuses dignity into the lives of those facing economic adversity and grappling with long standing systemic inequalities.

Thanks to the tireless work of many of the people here in this room, California allocated 35 million to launch the nation's pioneering GI program three years ago. Over $25 million in grant funding went to seven distinct GI pilot initiatives statewide. These pilots aim to provide unconditional individual and regular cash payments to disrupt poverty, promote equity, and meet the basic needs of California residents in pivotal life stages, including those who are pregnant or aging out of foster care.

These pilots will assess the impact of economic interventions during these crucial life transitions, building on the lessons and successes of previous GI projects. It's vital, though, that we translate these pilot initiatives into findings so that we understand as Californians how to interpret the data for future programs. Who is being helped the most? Who is not being helped the most? What happens through these programs? And that's where AB 2263 comes in.

Our Bill proposes simply to conduct a comprehensive study on the needed infrastructure, funding mechanisms, and prioritizations of populations for a statewide future GI program to alleviate poverty and promote economic empowerment with the guidance and assistance of a newly created coordinating council. So the early data from GI programs is very promising, and this Bill will build on that data to create an infrastructure so that in the future, the Legislature can create a statewide GI program relying on actual data.

With that, I respectfully request an aye vote and testifying in support, I have Kevin Dean and Lauren Delbert, and I'll let them introduce themselves.

Thank you. You may begin. Two minutes each, please.

Good afternoon, Committee. My name is Keva Dean. I am a Member of a board Member of the Contra Costa Solano Food Bank. I am a retiree of Contra Costa employment and human services Department. In 2023, I was forced to retire because of work injuries, and I found that my income was cut in half because I had to retire. I retired as a supervisor in the same building where 28 years prior to that, I received benefits.

So I was the kind of person that understood how it was to be on both sides of the table. And I did everything that I was supposed to do to make sure that my family was upward mobile. And so I found, since I've retired, that because my income is cut in half, and as a homeowner, I don't have the resources to save up money for things like an emergency, like a plumbing emergency, or if my auto breaks down.

So as a recipient of the Coco Go big pilot program, I've been able to take those few funds that I'm getting and be able to do things like save up. It gives me more peace that I can save up for an emergency. We know that seniors right now are the group that is the largest group that is in most danger of being evicted or being homeless, being impacted, their housing, being impacted. And so, as a senior, I ask you to please support AB 2263, close enough.

2263. Please forgive me, because it is important that you give people dignity. Just $1 sometimes can alleviate stress. If you think about it, if you have $5 in your purse and you have to feed your kids, if you have nothing in your purse, that's stress. But if you have five dogs in your person, you can feed your kid. That alleviates some stress. And so guaranteed income is a very powerful program, and it can impact people. And the bottom line is that it can impact. Our. Medical industry, health, and physically in a positive way. Thank you.

My name is Lauren Delbert, and Keva's a part of our community group, and she didn't say it, but she was not on board for guaranteed income when I first introduced it to our community, because she had done everything right and worked hard and didn't see the value in giving people money.

But hanging out with me long enough, she came around my name is Lauren Dalbert, and I live in Bay Point in Contra Costa County, and I'm the founder of the comment studio community group, and we are part of the East Contra Costa County alliance. We believe investing in families helps build stronger communities. That's why we designed and implemented the Coco go big guaranteed income pilot and campaign for our county because we strongly believe and have seen that GI pilots work.

I'm here today to ask that the state invest $500,000 to support because I'm a twice formerly homeless disabled veteran. I was homeless in my twenties because of PTSD and again in my fifties because of PTSD. And the only reason that I am not currently homeless is because I have a permanent Federal Government GI called VA disability.

And so now that I have my GI, I'm advocating for GI for all Californians because military trauma should not be the admission fee to be sheltered and live a life worth living. That's why we need to Fund this study Bill AB 2263 so that we can figure out how to best implement a statewide GI program and make it a reality for all residents. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any Members of the public in the hearing room? In support?

Kevin Aslanian and coalition, California welfare rights organization. Strong support.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Monica Miller, on behalf of the National Council of Jewish Women, LA chapter one of the co sponsors in support. Thank you.

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

Cynthia Valencia, ACLU California Action. In support.

Martin Radosevich, on behalf of United Way, California Capital Region. In support.

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

Natalia with cruise strategies, on behalf of California Latinas for reproductive justice in support,

Sam Wilkinson, with Grace & in Child Poverty in California, a co sponsor of this Bill and in strong support. Thank you.

Do we have anyone in opposition to this Bill? Any public opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee for questions. Okay. Would you like to close?

Well, I want to thank the witnesses for perfectly putting a face on what the programs do and to talk about why they are important. And this Bill, you know, is the first step only to doing a larger guaranteed income program in the state. The first step is to study it and create the infrastructure. And I hope that you can all see your way to supporting this today. Thank you so much.

Second, we'll take this up at the appropriate time. Thank you. Assembly one. zero, actually, we can vote on it now. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much.

So well said.

Good afternoon, Members. AB 2007 would establish a three year pilot project, the Unicorn Home transitional housing for Homeless LGBTQ youth program, in up to five selected counties. LGBTQ centers within each county would administer the program, providing crisis intervention with trauma informed approach there you go. That's the unicorn for the Unicorn homes, a trauma informed approach to housing eligible youth in LGBTQ affirming host homes.

This Bill is a reintroduction of a Bill that was vetoed last year, but we submitted a budget request this year to Fund the pilot. People who have identified as LGBTQ are experiencing homelessness have greater difficult finding shelters that accept and respect them. Oftentimes, the LGBTQ community is at greater risk of assault, trauma and early death compared to their heterosexual peers. Addressing the housing crisis is a key priority for the state, but there is no state housing program targeted directly at LGBTQ youth experiencing homelessness.

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

Unfortunately, due to challenges attributed to the pandemic, the host homes program in Sacramento had to end its operations last year. They made the difficult decision to divert funds from host home program to continue operating their youth shelter. Establishing a Unicorn Homes pilot would not only provide stable housing for LGBTQ youth experiencing homelessness, it would also provide paths to mental health resources, job readiness and independent living skills through LGBTQ centers.

The Unicorn Homes program does not require the development of new built infrastructure, making it a Low cost, flexible and valuable stepping stone while youth wait for more permanent solutions. With the increased intolerance and hostility towards LGBTQ community, it's imperative that we have a safety net for a population of youth that experiences family rejection at a higher rate than those outside the LGBTQ spectrum. I respectfully ask for an aye vote and I have with me here Craig Pulsipher. Did I get it right again? I'm getting good at this. Legislative Director for Equality California, one of the co sponsors of this Bill.

Good afternoon, Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California proud co sponsor appreciate the Members commitment to this issue. As many of you know, current estimates suggest that roughly 40% of homeless youth are LGBTQ, and data from the Trevor project according to data from the Trevor project, nearly a third of LGBTQ young people have reported experiencing homelessness or housing instability at some point in their lives. These rates were even higher among Trans and nonbinary youth and LGBTQ youth of color.

Many of these youth have been disowned by their families or are escaping emotional and physical abuse because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. But family rejection, of course, is not the only cause. Aging out of the foster care system, poverty and shortages of affirming shelters and housing programs can also leave many LGBTQ young people with nowhere to go. Low barrier housing programs like this one are desperately needed to support the growing number of unhoused LGBTU young people in California.

As they some Member noted, several LGBT centers across the state, including in San Diego, La and Sacramento, have developed innovative housing programs that provide transitional housing and support services for LGBTQ youth, and AB 2007 is an important measure to build on and evaluate these programs. The three year pilot would support up to five LGBT community organizations to help identify and train volunteer host families who could provide LGBTQ youth with a safe and affirming place to stay and provide crisis intervention services with a trauma informed approach.

Over the last several years, the Legislature has rightly made homelessness one of its top priorities. Yet programs to address the specific needs of unhoused LGBTQ youth remain far too limited, and this is an extremely important measure to help address the unique challenges that these vulnerable young people are facing. And I respectfully urge your. I vote.

Thank you. Do we have any primary opposition? Okay. Do we have additional support in the room? Please come forward.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, as well as the California Faculty Association, both in support. Thank you.

Martin Radosevich, on behalf of the San Diego Housing Commission, in support.

Toni Trigueiro. On behalf of the California Teachers Association, in support.

Susannah Niffin with Children Now in support.

Lanlay from Asian Americans advancing justice, Southern California, in strong support.

Christopher Hernandez with CYC California in support.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there any public opposition in the room? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments.

I just have a brief comment. I want to thank the author for one, bringing this forward and for one realizing that we do need to make sure there's spaces for these young people. I don't know what it feels like to be kicked out. I don't but I can imagine being in that space as lonely and trying to find a place that would take you in, that would care for you, that will support you, who you are.

It's a gratifying space for them to go to and know that that place exists. But also, as I heard Craig testify, he said that there's volunteer hosts or homes. I think that's wonderful. And just being able to create a place for these young people to go to, I think it's a step in the right direction. I want to commend the author for taking this bold and courageous step. We love for you to consider me as a joint and appreciate you bringing this Bill before us and look forward to supporting you on the floor.

And I'd be happy to do that through the chair.

Okay. We have a motion for Mister Gipson and a second for Mister Jackson. Secretary, please call the roll. Would you like to close, assemblywoman? Sorry about that.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

The motion is do pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call], this is on call. Thank you. And that's your unicorn.

It's a long. It's a long story. Don't bring up conversations.

McKinnor, would you like to present AB 2282? Whenever you're ready, ma'am.

Good afternoon. It's great to be in a happy committee after being in committees all day. Thank you. Hello Chair and members of the committee, I'm here to present AB 2282. Many parents in the family regulation system have suffered from the mass incarceration trend. The statistics show that 11.4 African American children and 3.5% of Hispanic children have an incarcerated parent.

It is not uncommon for parents in dependency court to have a conviction for offenses defined as a violent felony. While the majority of states bar reunification efforts to parents with convictions related to the harm of a child, California law provides no exception for those convictions unrelated to any harm to a child. California presents the most rigid barrier to reunification with the broadest list of applicable convictions and no requirements that a risk to a child safety be shown.

AB 2282 would limit criminal convictions used to deny reunification services to families. In the family regulation system. It would amend the law to deny services only to the most serious and violent felons who have endangered children. This reflects the safeguards taken by almost every other state regarding reunification for a parent with a violent criminal history, preserving the safety of the child and the family union. Here with me today is Julia Hanagan with Dependents Legal Service and Fidel Chagolla. Thank you.

You may begin. Two minutes each, please.

Thank you. Honorable Chair and committee members, thank you for your time. My name is Julia Hanagan and I am a policy director at Dependency Legal Services. We represent parents and children in child welfare proceedings in Northern California. We are proud to support amending the felony bypass statute to encompass violent felonies that involve a child. In terms of child welfare, the termination of parental rights is often described in case law as the death sentence for parents in dependency court.

In that context, the bypass statutes often mandate that parents are swiftly sent to this death sentence without the opportunity to prove that they can create a safe home for their children. It means families are immediately put in the position to be permanently separated. This bill limits the families that will be forced into that predicament. It focuses on bypassing the parents who have convictions that involved a child. This change would put California more in line with what much of the country already does.

We believe narrowing that focus makes sense in the child welfare system, which should only be focused about the risk of harm to the child. We do want to be clear, this bill does not mandate return to parents who still remain a danger to their children, nor does it require immediate placement with parents with these serious convictions. Instead, it requires the court to give parents the opportunity to show that they can make a safe home for their families.

We believe that this change benefits both our minor and our parent clients. It gives our child clients the full and fair opportunity to grow up at home with their parents if it is safe to do so. It also allows our parent clients the chance to make changes in their lives and become the parents that their children deserve. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Honorable Chair and members. My name is Fidel Chagolla and I currently work at Starting Over Inc. As an organizer for Riverside. All of us are none. Starting over Inc. Is a nonprofit that helps formerly incarcerated people navigate and obtain housing, employment, and getting the records expunged. I have a certificate of rehabilitation and currently finishing up my master's program in clinical mental health counseling at the University of Redlands.

I am speaking to you today because I am a formerly incarcerated parent who lost my rights as a parent. My first and only daughter, Zoe, was born in 2016 when I was 39 years old. At that time, I had been out of prison for six years and off parole for four years and had managed to find steady work, housing, and transportation.

During childbirth, Zoe's mother tested positive for opiates because of Tylenol with codeine that was prescribed by a dentist. And having previously lost parental rights to her other children, this triggered the involvement of San Bernardino's County's Children and Family Services, who looked at my past criminal record and said I should not have an opportunity to even reunify with my child due to welfare institution code Section 361.5 B12, the bypass provision.

My parental rights were terminated and in 2019, Zoe was adopted out with 119 other children in San Bernardino County. Even though my prior criminal history had no bearing on whether I would be a good parent or not, if this change in law proposed by AB 2282 existed at that time of my case, I would have had a fair chance of reunifying with my daughter.

I am here for you to consider to making sure that many parents like me, who have felonies unrelated to their ability to be a parent and in many cases have paid their debt to society, a fair chance of getting their children back. For these reasons, I express my support for AB 2282. Thank you, chair Members.

Thank you. Do we have any additional support in the room from the public?

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

Madam Chair and members, Adam Keigwin on behalf of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, in support.

Sam Wilkinson on behalf of GRACE and End ChildPpoverty in California, in strong support.

Dave Shuster on behalf of Dependency Advocacy Center, in strong support.

Christina Curtis with the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, proud co-sponsors and in strong support.

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

Thank you. Do we have any primary opposition to this bill? Seeing none. Is there any public opposition to this bill in the room? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the committee. Thank you. Assemblyman Essayli.

If I understand. First of all, I appreciate the author. I know you're sincere in your intentions. I guess the concern I have here is existing law provides discretion to the court to already allow unification on a case-by-case basis, so the court can look at the circumstances of the particular case and see if it's appropriate to allow reunification. And these are cases which a person has been convicted of a serious felony. We're talking about murder, we're talking about rape, we're talking about robbery.

And so I understand this would basically require the judge to order reunification unless the violent crime was committed against a minor. And so I'm just worried that even if you didn't commit the crime specifically against the minor, let's say you raped an 18-year-old instead of a 17-year-old. I'm worried that this is going to create a situation where children are going to be placed in situations with individuals who may not be safe for them. I guess my question is, why is not the discretion to the judges sufficient already to deal with this on a case-by-case basis?

Sure. If I can respond. So, first, under 361.5, it's not complete discretion because the presumption's in the other way. Right? The presumption is the bypass. And through case law, the presumption is pretty strong. So it's not, all things being equal, it's in the court's discretion. It is not. And I have recently had a case where the court said, I'd love to give you services, but I don't think I can. And it was a violent felony bypass based on she drove the car in a burglary years ago. So it's not that the court really does have that discretion under current law.

Why don't we write it so the court has discretion?

And. Can I take a moment? Yes. This is just giving the opportunity for folks that are coming out of prison. Coming out of jail. Let's just start that we send people to jail to rehabilitate. We send people to jail and they pay for their crimes. Right? We trust the judge to send them to jail, and they go and they spend their time and they pay for their crime.

And so when they get out, they should have the same rights as everyone else, unless they abuse that child. Right? Or they abuse the child or the mother inside of the home. This is only giving them the opportunity to go through the same system we all would go to if we lost our children. They'd be able to go through with the social worker.

Go through that 18-month process to see if they're ready to get their kids back, and then trust that the judges that put people in jail. Right? Those same judges would have the ability to say if they can have their children or not. We're not placing the children back into anyone's hands. We're just giving them the right to go through the services, to go through the process. And that's what this bill does.

I understand. I just think some people should not be around children who commit certain really, really bad crimes, even if the crime wasn't against the child. So I respect your view and where you're coming from, but I do have concerns. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Would you like to close, Assemblywoman?

Yes. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. We have a motion by Assemblymember Gipson and a second by Assemblyman Jackson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We will leave the roll open, Assemblywoman. Thank you.

Okay. Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva, whenever you're ready, you can present AB 2452. Whenever you're ready, Assemblywoman.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Today, I present Assembly Bill 2452. I'd like to start by accepting the suggested committee amendment, and we appreciate the work from your team on this bill. CalWORKs is a safety net program which exists to provide equitable access to resources and opportunities that low income families need to help break the cycle of poverty. Transportation supportive services provided by CalWORKs often come in the form of bus passes or mileage reimbursement payments from the local administering county welfare department.

These services are largely funded by the federal government. This bill will help lessen administrative burdens for county welfare administrators and streamline transportation reimbursement for qualifying program participants who will also have the option to request supplemental payments for actual costs if needed. This standardized payment will better provide low income individuals and families the need the transportation and support resources they need for required program activities.

With me today to provide testimony and answer any questions is Mr. Christopher Sanchez, on behalf of the Western Center on Poverty and Law, and Kevin Aslanian, Executive Director of the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations and the sponsor. Thank you.

Okay, whenever you're ready. And you have two minutes each, please.

Sure. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Verde Group here on behalf of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, who is in strong support of AB 2452, a measure that lessens the administrative burden for CalWORKs recipients and county human service agencies.

Over the years, the legal service community has expressed their frustration and hopes and expressed their frustration of all the hoops that CalWORKs recipients must jump through to receive reimbursement for travel expenses that they are eligible for and accrue because they need to meet program requirements.

In fact, a recent report released by the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls and the Golden State Opportunity titled Everything At Once mentions that, in general, recipients of public benefit programs expressed that they would save more time and energy not trying to request reimbursement for various services because they could have used that time and energy elsewhere that would have been more productive for their families.

The requirements for reimbursement do not take into account the real life factors of living as a Californian today who are trying to meet their own basic needs. Additionally, we know that CalWORKs recipients are traveling from home to work from school and to childcare to take care of other things in their life as well because that's what the program requires. So instead of having recipients play cat and mouse with government, we ask that you simplify the process by passing this bill. And it's for those reasons, we urge your aye vote.

Kevin Aslanian, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. Just passed out a handout, basically saying that the statute says that necessary supportive services shall be offered and available to people who are participating. With me and you, we fill out a form, we turn it in, we get reimbursement. With the CalWORKs recipient, there's no place to, there's no form to fill out, there's no place to hand it, and nothing to get back.

And we have a whole table where table one shows that from day one, less than 50% or less people were actually getting transportation. That means in your office, 50% of the people who travel don't submit travel claims. That's just insane. And if you look at it, in July 23, there were 20, 34000 people who were actually working as a welfare to work activity. Only 11,000 received transportation. And in August 34000 were working, only 9000 received transportation. So I guess we need to change the system and just give people the standard allowance, $200, and make sure that they get it upfront. It's kind of unconscionable. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional public support in the room?

Sam Wilkinson with GRACE End Child Poverty in California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any primary opposition to this bill? Seeing none. Is there any public opposition to this bill? Okay, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Jackson.

Thank you very much, Assemblywoman, for this common sense bill. I think that once... We've got to stop, we've got to start eliminating as many barriers for people getting to what they're entitled to. And would love to see the bill, once it's scored, to see if we might be able to work together to get it done.

Thank you.

Second. Mr. Essayli, do you have any questions?

Yeah, I just have questions. So this is to help people, program that give them work skills or to go to work, essentially. Right? So. But we're just gonna hand them cash? $200 cash? Well, you proposed 100 and the Committee said 200, right? Is that what happened?

The Committee would like that, although we are very aware of the scenario we are in with the deficit. But no, it would not just be, here is $200, kind of float it anywhere. It is to reimburse for travel expenses. Most of this reimbursement is bus usage, for the cost of bus passes and so forth.

But it's an advance payment, so it's before they've actually traveled. So how is this going to work?

It's so to streamline the process in order for them to be able to have that support and get back and forth to work.

If I may. So essentially you're correct that we would be fronting the payment. I will just note that most of these dollars are federal dollars that we're trying to bring down. The state does provide some of this dollar, these dollars. And then I would note that the numbers that Mr. Aslanian has provided shows the underutilization. So by drawing down more federal dollars for this program, it's a benefit to local governments.

Because in addition to buses, you could also use this for a car repair if you have a car and you need to get to work as the program requires you to do so or something. So now your local auto shop is also receiving some of these dollars. But essentially you're correct in that it is a front.

And I would just say if the worry is someone might be misutilizing this program or something of that nature, there are measures in place of the program that hold the recipients accountable for there... They would most likely have other consequences that they may go through or administrative hearings if they didn't meet program needs or.

So how will you know if they misuse the money?

Well you wouldn't know if they use the money on travel or not. But if they don't meet the program needs, and that's where the county...

Right. If they don't meet the eligibility requirement overall. I support the concept. I just, I'm a little uneasy with the way this is being proposed. And I'm hearing that this is, I mean, just cause it's federal money, I mean it's still our tax money.

And it's not like basically it's been 25 years and less than 50% of the people are getting something has to be done.

Maybe they don't need it.

The average cost of transportation is... Oh, you don't think 50% of the people need it?

I don't know if they're not asking for it. I said maybe they don't need it.

I mean, in order for me to go to work or to go to an activity, I can't beam over yet. That day may come, but right now, today, we have to go from point A to point B.

Maybe we do like Uber credits or something, and then you could see where they went. So I don't have any more questions, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. That might be a bill idea for you next year, Mr. Essayli. And just to clarify, this is to allow people without money to pay upfront for transportation funds. So I think there's a bill idea in there for you. Madam Secretary... I mean, would you like to close?

I am understanding where your comments are coming from. I don't agree with them. I think if you think about it more in the sense of support to get them back and forth to work. And typically you could have them go to a county office, apply for a bus pass, do a lot of different types of paperwork. And the point is to streamline them, but the goal is to get them back and forth to work, which is ultimately what many people want to see.

They want to see individuals working and contributing. So I think there's a place here that streamlines. I will just add, and I usually don't spend a lot of time on wrapping it up. On a whole other topic, rental assistance, say for foster care aging out. I saw the binder. I have it in my office. It's this thick of the work you need to do in order to qualify.

So when somebody is getting CalWORKs, not talking about the transportation part. They are responsible for many, many measures in order to make sure that they're staying on program, if you want to say that. But the point here is use the funds to get back and forth to work. And if they stop working, that's going to be come out in their casework as they go through the casework that has to happen as they meet with their caseworker provider. But with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Okay. Oh, motion by Gipson, second by me. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

We'll leave this on call, three to zero. Thank you.

Thank you, Members.

Assemblymember Jackson, whenever you're ready, you can present AB 1967. Second.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. AB 1967 seeks to. How you doing?

I got backup. AB 1967 seeks to create a food insecurity officer within the California Department of Social Services tasked with coordinating and addressing food insecurity throughout state government operations. Data from March of this year has found that 20% of households and 24% of households with children suffer from food insecurity in California. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP or CalFresh, is an invaluable tool in the fight against food insecurity and poverty.

However, California is lagging behind other states and its SNAP enrollment rates, and it's not because of the lack of people who need it or qualify. In 2018, 70% of eligible Californians and only 59% of eligible workers participated, falling significantly behind Oregon, Washington state and even Texas. California can no longer afford to leave options on the table when combating food insecurity, especially when existing blueprints can be used to improve outcomes for working families.

Joining me to testify and support today are Marchon Tatmon with the San Francisco Marin County Food Bank and Christine Fallable with the American Diabetes Association.

Whenever you're ready, two minutes each, please. Okay.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Co-Chair and Members. My name is Marchon Tatmon. I'm the Associate Director of Policy and Advocacy at the San Francisco-Marin Food Bank, and on a personal note, my family and I once struggled with food insecurity growing up. I'm here today to testify as a co-sponsor in support of AB 1967, which would create a cabinet-level position dedicated to ending hunger in California.

Despite California financial difficulties and acknowledging these potentially turbulent years ahead of us, California is still the world's fifth largest economy. However, that wealth is not transferring to the many people struggling because California food insecurity rate is estimated at one in four Californians, yet 34% of eligible Californians are not receiving CalFresh. We are falling to meet the potential of this critical anti-poverty program.

CalFresh, formerly known as food stamps, provide vital benefits to people who need them the most, but the rising costs and necessities are forcing difficult trade offs as inflation is persistent and the cost is rising. On average, more than one out of every four Californians face uncertainty because of vast structural inequity. Much higher levels of food insecurity are experienced in the BIPOC community in comparison to white communities, we have a powerful tool on our hand.

Yet California is six to last of all states in participation in CalFresh, with only 66% compared to the national average of 78%. California also trailed 10 states who has 100% participation rates in CalFresh. In addition to the my react programs designed to increase nutrition and help to reduce hunger across a growing number of states. However, we don't have an accountable leader for the results we desire.

I will be remiss, not to mention all the incredible work folks did before and throughout the years, but California still ranks one in four when it comes to food insecurity. The creation of this cabinet-level position would assure policy alignment, implementation, optimization of outcome and resources between diverse departments and agencies. We need to invest in solutions that reduce barriers to access these programs, and solutions to increase collaboration and alignment between the different departments within a state.

This approach is proven in states like Maine and New Jersey, which has a cabinet-level leader to address food insecurity. We know poverty is the root cause of hunger, and we cannot afford to ignore this issue that we can profoundly address.

10 seconds.

The question is, what will we do about it? Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm happy to take any questions. I would now pass it on to my colleague, Christine Fallabel, who will share what they are seeing on the ground with America Diabetes Association. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you so much for taking the time to hear such an important piece of legislation today. My name is Christine Fallabel, and I am the California Director of State Government Affairs and Advocacy with the American Diabetes Association. As a co-sponsor of AB 1967, we urge you to vote yes.

The American Diabetes Association works every day to prevent diabetes and to improve the lives of all people living with diabetes, including the over 3 million Californians who live with diabetes. Foundational to a healthy life with diabetes is access to reliable and healthy food. The delicate balancing of medications, food and physical activity can be the difference between a long life with diabetes versus a shorter life full of diabetes complications, including heart disease, blindness, lower limb amputations, stroke, kidney failure, and premature death.

And unfortunately, as many as one in five people who live with diabetes also struggle with food insecurity. When people with diabetes lack access to food, their blood sugar levels struggle, which can land them in the emergency room or the hospital. This Bill would create a food insecurity officer tasked with coordinating and addressing food insecurity throughout the state, including improving access to and enrollment of SNAP, of which California is lagging many other states.

California can no longer afford to leave our most vulnerable communities behind, including those living with chronic conditions like diabetes, especially when we're combating food insecurity. For these reasons, we support AB 1967, and we ask for your yes vote. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Do we have any additional public support in the room?

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Marin County Board of Supervisors, as well as on behalf of the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, London Breed, both in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Andrea Devoe, on behalf of Instacart in support.

Good afternoon. Josh Gauger, on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California in support.

Good afternoon. Ruth Sosa Martinez, Engagement Coordinator for Young Invincibles, a co-sponsor of the Bill and in strong support.

Good afternoon. Daniela Rodriguez with the California Student Aid Commission in support.

Francisco Morales, here on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition also in support. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Do we have any primary opposition to this Bill? Seeing none. Any public opposition to this Bill? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee for questions. Mister Saleen.

Yeah. I don't oppose the concept, but why do we have to create a new position? I mean, aren't there enough people at CalFresh that someone there could take this on, as like a responsibility?

I think what we've seen is that there's not a coordinated approach. There's not even a master plan on how to make sure that people are able to get the food that they need. And so this is really an opportunity. And of course, through negotiations, we may be able to hopefully get the Administration to say, well, this person with this title could take that role in a way, but there's clearly a need.

For instance, last year I saw, I read a horrible report on the very high percentage of seniors who qualify for CalFresh. However, they're not enrolled. So then the question becomes, who's going to coordinate that plan to help other seniors get enrolled?

So you're saying this could be an existing person already?

It possibly could be, yeah, it possibly could be.

And then I think insecurity is important. But what about like food quality? Because I think a lot of times, you know, people who don't have, you know, a lot of money for food, they end up having like fast food and stuff. And so maybe this person can look into how to increase the quality of food people are getting.

Possibly also, and I would more than happy to work on language because we do know we have some food deserts in terms of quality food as well. And so I think that's a good idea in terms of not only saying is food available, but the quality of food. And then if there are food deserts, what plans can we develop in those specific communities to be able to make sure that we increase access or providers of higher quality and fresh food?

So very good idea. And we'll look back at the language to see if that's something that, how we can incorporate that. All right. Thank you.

Assemblymember Gipson?

Thank you very much. And I'm happy to move the Bill, which I, we already did. I want to thank the author because as we see, certainly in my district where we have the benefit of providing food, still, long after the pandemic. Right? And as we celebrate people's lives being elevated back before the pandemic, we realize everybody can't celebrate because everybody is still dealing with food insecurities all across California. And to have these spaces and these conversations are really germane and important.

So that one, that we make sure that people have food and have quality food. And that's why I support farmers markets and things of that nature. I don't know what it means to be hungry. My mother always said, it may not be what you want in the refrigerator, but it's food. Some people don't even have that.

And we need to do everything we can as government to provide and make sure that there are spaces and needs are being met because there's direct correlation with the unhoused as well. So thank you very much for your leadership in this space. And we'd love to be considered as a co-author of the Bill.

Absolutely.

Would you like to close?

This is a critical issue. We are seeing multiple data points that we're headed in the wrong direction when it comes to food insecurity. When you talk to food banks, they're running out of supplies. We've got to turn this ship around or we're really going to be in trouble. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Mister Gipson and a second from myself. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

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

That Bill gets out, we'll leave the roll open.

If we have any authors that have bills before the Human Services Committee, please make your way to the Committee room. We're going to do the Consent Calendar. Madam Secretary, when you're ready.

Thank you, Assemblymember Calderon, for filling in. We're about to move to the consent calendar. Can I get a motion a second on the consent calendar? All right. The consent calendars are properly moved and seconded, madam secretary, please call the roll

Bills on the consent calendar. [Second Reading] Committee on Human Services, on the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Five to zero. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Now. We'll move on to file item 23 for Assembly Calderon's bill, AB 2752. Whenever you're ready, Assemblymember.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, I would like to start by thanking the committee for working with my staff on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. Assembly Bill 2752 would require the juvenile court to set the frequency and duration of family visitation at the initial petition hearing when a child is first placed in the California welfare services system.

At subsequent hearings, the bill requires a court to order unsupervised family visits unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation will harm the physical or emotional health of a child. Requiring supervised visitation without considering the circumstances of the separation increases the mental and emotional trauma created by the separation of a child from their family. With me in support of AB 2752 is Christina Curtis on behalf of the Los Angeles Dependency lawyers and Dave Shuster, a mentor program manager.

All right, thank you very much. Two minutes each, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Christina Curtis and I'm a supervising attorney with the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers and have advocated for families for 17 years. I'm here today to discuss with you the importance of AB 2752. There are many times where a child needs to be removed from a home, not because a parent poses a risk to the child, but because the home setting is unsafe.

Yet the welfare and institutions code is currently silent on what family time should look like and what factors should be considered when ordering those visits be supervised. This has caused courts to arbitrarily order that family time be monitored while leaving frequency and setting of the visits at the discretion of the social worker. Unfortunately, supervised visits are incredibly difficult to schedule and often leave children with no contact with their parents for weeks while the social worker scrambles to find a suitable monitor for the visitor.

When the family time is finally scheduled, many of our parents are then forced to spend their visitation in places not conducive to family time. It's important to remember that family separation is the most devastating thing that a family can go through. Family time provides a crucial opportunity for young children in foster care and their parents to have meaningful interactions that could form and repair positive, healthy relationships.

The goal of family time is to permit the child and parent to keep the other a living presence in their lives, to support the attachment relationship, and to improve the parent's responsiveness to the child's needs. Yet this is a hard goal to achieve when family time is scheduled one time a week in a social worker's office.

In 2020, the US Department of Health and Human Services Administration on Children, youth and families published official guidance stating that it should be presumed that family time should be unsupervised, absent and identified present danger of harm. And this is why AB 2752 is so important. With the proposed changes to the Welfare and Institutions Code, courts will finally have guidance on what visitation orders they need to make that act that they need to make that actually encourage family reunification. For these reasons, I urge you to vote yes on AB 2752 today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, honorable chair and committee members. My name is Dave Shuster and I am a former parent in the dependency system and currently employed as DACs mentor parent program manager. I would like to discuss my personal experience with visitation and its impact on my family, which underscores why voting aye on AB 2752 is so important. We were told visits would be monitored for a time to assess the safety for my daughter. This was completely unwarranted and the trauma from this experience still haunts her.

Our visits were done in an old office building with broken toys and books with pages missing. We felt we couldn't complain. We were finally able to hug our child and we didn't want to risk this in any way. Some of the offices had windows. Not sure if this was a good thing, because it was a constant reminder of what we used to do as a family and feared we would never do again.

I would visit my seven-year-old daughter two times a week for 2 hours and the mother visited the same on the same day. Keeping a very active seven-year-old child occupied for 4 hours of visit was an unfair and ridiculous test of parenting, especially with limited space and activities. Not to mention whatever we brought was thoroughly inspected and scrutinized. My daughter was most uncomfortable with the monitors of the visits.

They would sit in the doorway with the computer typing every word that was said between us. This made my daughter very uncomfortable and helped her to withdraw. She would whisper to me just to be told. You can't whisper. You need to speak up. I have never felt so powerless and shameful and riddled with guilt since we were there because of our actions and our addiction. Unfortunately, my child paid the price for this and still continues today.

Despite testing clean and complying with our case plan, supervised visits continued for seven months. At any point, my parents, whom my daughter was placed with, could have supervised her visits in their home or in a nearby park. These suggestions were always disregarded and told by the Department. It's not yet time. Let's change that. Vote aye on AB 2752 and protect the child's right to family time.

Thank you very much. Now, are there any members of the public who wish to sign support of the bill please come forward to the microphone.

Yes. Kevin Aslanian Coalition for California Welfare Rights Organizations. Strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Julia Hanagan, Dependency Legal Services proud co sponsor and strong support.

Julie Mccormick, Children's Law Center of California in support.

Thank you very much. Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition. Please come forward. Okay. Yeah.

Good afternoon. Amanda Kirchner on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association, we are currently in an opposed position on the bill, but that does not reflect the current amendments that the author has agreed to take. Our legislative committee is still going to be reviewing those. I will note that while most of our county offices do try and make a very family-friendly visiting, we always try and do better. And I think our work on this bill is showing that we're trying to get to a good place with the author and so we'll just continue those conversations.

Very good. Thank you. Now, are there any members of the public who wish to add their opposition to this bill please come forward. Seeing none, bring it back to the committee. The bill has been properly moved and seconded. Any questions or comments if I share? Sally? Sure.

Just to ask the opposition question. So how do you guys determine when to do supervised visitation?

So it's based on a number of factors, including why the child was removed and also any other sorts of things that might be going on, including whether or not the parent has residence where the child is placed. Sort of a holistic look.

So it's like a case by case basis?

Yes.

And would you say your agency's goal is to avoid supervised visits, if possible? Or do you guys, you guys, like, try to make everything supervised?

Yeah. So a number of our counties, including Los Angeles, do try and start from a place of unsupervised visits and then mitigate based on any other issues that are going on in the home and with the family that's happening. I know that's not the case in every county and that we can't always do better about that, but I would like to note that supervised visitation isn't necessarily like a punishment.

Oftentimes we use it as a tool in order to see how the child and the family are interacting between the parents and to see, like, how the parents are doing if they're being able to put towards the child some of their parenting skills that they're learning in their services and things like that. So we can judge interactions.

I'm not aware. What were the amendments that were taken?

May I first just respond?

Of course.

If I could. Thank you again. I've been working in this field for about 16-17 years at this point. Unfortunately, my experience has been completely different. In most cases, whenever a child is removed from a parent, almost always the recommendation will be supervised visits. The problem that we have, though, is sometimes we have parents that can't have a child in their care because simply they're homeless or their house poses a risk.

Nonetheless, the recommendation will still be supervised without looking at the specific circumstances that that family is going through. So the experience that I've seen and the reason why we think this bill is important is because we are not seeing the Department of child Protective services actually using their discretion or requesting unsupervised visits on a regular basis.

Which county do you interface with?

Los Angeles.

Los Angeles. They're not necessarily the best.

I mean, it's the biggest child regulation system in California.

Yeah. I mean, there's a poor boy who was murdered under their watch, so. Yes.

Okay. So the first amendment removes the notion of substantial danger to unsupervised visitation. Would pose a risk, and the rationale was substantial danger would require a type of evidence that may be extremely difficult to generate. The court in this case would have to decide what is moderate danger compared to substantial danger. And this amendment was taken to avoid any extremities while keeping the interests of the child in mind.

And then the second amendment removes language stating that a determination that a guardian was non-custodial or the child doesn't have an established relationship with their guardian cannot be the only reason unsupervised visits are denied. And the rationale is that this amendment was taken as it creates an opportunity for ambiguous situations. For example, this would allow a child who has only known their guardian briefly or on an on-and-off basis to have unsupervised visits. This amendment and that mistaken while keeping the best interests of the child at heart.

Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.

You're welcome.

All right. Thank you so much for bringing the bill forward. It's an important step in ensuring that families involved in the child welfare system are given an adequate access to family time. I'm recommending an aye vote. Would you like to close someone?

Yes. I just want to say again, thank the committee staff for working with my staff on the amendments, and I look forward to continuing to work with opposition on this bill.

Fantastic.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. The bill has been properly moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on AB 2752.

The motion is do pass as amended, to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That bill will leave on call. Next, we will move on to file item 21, Assembly Zbur. If you are ready whenever you are, please come up to the desk.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair and members. I'm proud today to present AB 2704. This bill will help streamline entry into the in-home supportive services workforce, otherwise known as IHSS. There are numerous barriers to enter into the IHS workforce, one of which is the fees associated with fingerprinting and criminal background check processes for prospective IHSS providers.

Some workforces, such as nonprofit human resource agencies and nonprofit youth organizations, are able to waive the costs of background checks for prospective workers, while others may have billing accounts set up as a way for applicants to complete the background check and fingerprinting process at a live scan site. Current law requires prospective IHS providers not already on a registry to complete fingerprinting and a criminal background check as part of the provider enrollment process.

The fees associated with fingerprinting and background checks are currently borne by the applicant rather than the employer or the county. While fingerprinting and background check fees vary, prospective IHS providers find themselves paying upwards of $40 to $90 or more out of pocket to apply for an IHSS position.

It is an unjust practice and a barrier to providing needed care to unfairly burden workers who will be making just over minimum wage with the cost of these background checks, especially when it is common practice that the fees are borne by employers in private-sector employment relationships. AB 2704 alleviates the financial burden on prospective IHSS providers by shifting the responsibility of covering the California Department $32 cost associated with criminal background checks from the prospective IHSS provider to the DOJ.

This does not affect the fees charged by independent live scan locations to process background checks. The IHSS program is a vital lifeline for over 740,000 Californians. Providing essential domestic long-term care services which equip low-income Californians to remain safely in their homes, ensures that they receive life-saving care and empowers them to live with dignity. By 2030, there will be over 1 million individuals who will need long-term services and supports, primarily including IHSS.

Removing barriers to entry into this workforce should be a priority for the state, and this bill furthers that goal by streamlining this process. I appreciate the committee's analysis of the bill and agree to accept the committee amendments as it relates to clarifying intent.

Language I ask for your vote at the appropriate time, and with me today are Malik Bynum, assistant Legislative Director of UDW ASPE Local 3930, and Janice O'Malley, legislative advocate for ASPE California, the sponsor and co-sponsor of the bill, to provide additional information and assist with questions.

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

Thank you assembly members of Zbur thank you Mr. Chair for the hearing this afternoon. My name is Malik Bynum, assistant Legislative Director for United Domestic Workers, ASPE Local 3930, representing over 171,000 home care and childcare providers across the state.

Proud to be here co sponsoring AB 2704 with our AFSCME family, a bill that aims at bolstering the IHSS workforce by removing the DO or the DOJ background check fee for home care providers. It's no secret that the IHS workforce has long been overworked, underserved and understaffed since its inception. Research rooted in low-income communities of color to care for over 760,000 aged and disabled recipients. The IHSS program currently has nearly 100,000 less home care workers to provide this life-saving care.

This number is only going to grow larger and faster by 2030, and current efforts to recruit and retain IHSS workers is insufficient. Now one of the biggest challenges is the nature of this work. It's difficult work. It isn't pretty by any means, but it is a life saving resource that hundreds of thousands of families rely on to care for their loved ones.

In addition to the demanding and sensitive nature of providing IHSS, this is a low income workforce that in many cases, workers are being paid just over minimum wage. Therefore, the background check fee itself presents a serious financial challenge to these individuals looking to enter the workforce, which is primarily women and women of color.

As the author stated, there are other workforces who have DOJ background check fee waivers in place, such as certain nonprofits and those who work for youth organizations. In addition, workers in California State Civil Service do not have to pay for for their background checks. IHS workers have no such luxury. They simply eat this cost as a prerequisite for employment consideration when they otherwise could have used that money for other essential expenses.

This unjust practice is historically in line with California's lack of acknowledgment of the IHS workforce as one of our most essential and critical frontline workforces. Furthermore, in the 2020 state audit of the IHS program, over half of the county IHS program directors stated that a caregiver's inability to get their background checked was a reason why their county had a shortage of caregivers even prior to the pandemic.

This is a real issue amongst a number of other reasons why we're struggling to recruit IHS workers into the program. And California has an innate duty to our most vulnerable populations to ensure that they are being cared for the way they need to in order to live comfortably. In order to do so, we need the proper provider workforce.

We see the removal of the DOJ background check fee as a major first step, improving provider recruitment efforts when we're seeing a vast amount of recipient growth within the program. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Hello chair and members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME, California. Just happy co-sponsors on the bill and can take any technical questions that you might have.

Great. Thank you so much. Do we have any additional members of the public who wish to add their support to the bill? Please come up to the microphone.

Tiffany Whiten, SEIU, California in support thank you.

Kim Rothschild, California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS and support as long as it retains no cost to the county.

Amanda Kirchner with CWDA we are listed in opposition, but our legislative committee met on Friday and remove that opposition, so we'll be updating our letter.

Thank you. Now, do we have any, any witnesses in opposition to bill? Please come forward. Any members of the public who wish to oppose the bill seeing that, I'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions, comments, Mister Gipson.

Thank you.

I want to thank the author for bringing this before us. We just had a similar bill with Assemblymember Ting dealing with some barriers. That is it workers are going through around background checks and things of that nature, and I was unaware that other entities have waivers. So thank you very much for bringing that out before us.

And I do think that one is unfair because as you may mention, they're not making a lot of money, but we appreciate them because they do work that some family members don't want to do or don't have the time to do for their loved ones and certainly want to remove a barrier, especially as minute the costs may be. It still makes a difference in terms of paying a bill, putting gasoline in a car or whatever.

And so we should do that, especially because these are trusted care workers and they tend to be certainly women of color. And certainly I support it and would love to be considered as a joint, not a code, but a joint. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? Comments? Seeing I'll invite the author to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much for bringing the bill forward. We know that there are shortage there is a shortage of IHSS providers. Reducing barriers to becoming an IHSS provider is key to encouraging more providers. I'm recommending an I as amended vote and I really want to thank you and your staff for working with the committee on the Committee Bill as well. So we have. The bill has been moved by Assembly Gipson and seconded by Assemblymember Calderon. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended, to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Four to zero and that bill is out and we'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Now we shall move on to Assemblymember Bryan's Bill. File item 31, AB 3145.

Good afternoon. Afternoon Mister Chair and colleagues. I want to first thank the Committee staff for all of their incredible work on this Bill. I know that it has been a journey as it is when we're trying to do good things. AB 3145 brings accountability and oversight to court ordered services for parents in the child welfare system.

In most cases, when a child is removed from a parent's care, a court orders the parent into a variety of services to assist in rehabilitation before the child can be returned to their care. A parent's progress in completion of these services influences the social workers recommendation about a parent's ability to safely reunify with their child. Judges also heavily rely on this information when deciding to either permanently terminate a parent's right to their child or to reunify the child.

These services can cost thousands of dollars per course, making them a financial burden for parents in LA County and for taxpayers in other counties with already stretched foster care budgets. Despite the heavy emphasis placed on these services and their costly nature, counties do not track the outcomes and merits of the service providers. An LA Times article earlier this year called out that lack of information on the efficacy of services and service providers.

This was in response to the death of two children involved with the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services. Our current system failed those children and their families by failing to provide the parents with meaningful quality help to address the causes and traumas that led to their involvement with child welfare system in the first place. AB 3145 will require counties to track their service providers rates of success, bypassing or reducing out of home placements, and to report those rates to the Department of Social Services.

It also requires the Department to make this information publicly available. This oversight ensures a responsible use of taxpayer dollars.

It also ensures that when a judge makes a life altering, permanent decision about a parent's ability to reunite with their child, they are doing so with the assurance that the parent has received quality and effective services, not just a packet of worksheets to complete here to testify and support is Stephanie Roberson on behalf of Myles Cooley, a former foster youth, and Ed Howard with the Children's Advocacy Institute is also here for technical assistance.

Thank you Mister Chair and Members. Stephanie Roberson with Stephanie Roberson strategies representing Children's Advocacy Institute and proud sponsors of AB 3145 by Assemblymember Bryan here to read the statement and the principal witness who unfortunately couldn't be here today. So Mister Chair and Members, I apologize, I cannot appear in person. My name is Myles Cooley. I'm an attorney, a partner at Freedman Taitelman Cooley LLP and a former foster child. I lived at the Sacramento Children's Home here in Sacramento.

I served on the board of several foster care organizations, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, and I'm a pro-Bono counsel with Peace for Kids, a foster youth NGO working in Watts, Willowbrook and south-central Los Angeles. In the past, I have worked to secure foster care reform, including working to enact AB 12 and most recently pushed to secure funding for lawyers for foster children. To say that I am one of the lucky ones is an understatement. My parents were both teenagers.

When I was five, I found my mother dead from a drug overdose. I entered foster care at age six. Like far too many of our foster children, I am African American. Chair Members AB 3145 illustrated by Assemblymember Bryan is one of the most important foster care-related bills you will ever consider, and I'll tell you why. Spend any time in a dependency courtroom and you will hear the word services quite a lot.

That's because such services arguably play the most important role in determining whether or not a child involved in the child welfare system will be reunited with their parents or have their relationship with their parents forever severed and be placed into foster care. Parents are offered services to fix whatever the problem was that caused that child to get into the welfare system in the first place. So if it's drug addiction, parents are offered drug counseling. If it's domestic violence, you get anger management, neglect, parenting classes.

But this spending is heavily weighed on our tax dollars to try to keep families intact. And here's the critical piece. If the service provider says a parent has successfully completed the services, a judge usually rules that it's safe to return that child to their parents. But if a service provider says the opposite, then the parents rights will usually be terminated and the child will enter into foster care. Families live and literally die based on these services.

So it came as a complete shock to me to read the following in the LA Times, and here's a quick excerpt the state does not, does not ensure that parent education programs meet any sort of standards, allows parents facing abuse allegations to take classes that experts have deemed low quality. And the LA Times goes on. Lack of scrutiny can put some Californians most vulnerable, children at risk of more abuse.

But Chair and Members, if no one's tracking the quality of services, this also means that families may forever be torn apart without a sound basis for doing so. This Bill before you, simply requires counties to do the due diligence we would do in choosing, say, a contractor for some home improvement services. We have to look at outcomes. So in light of this times investigation, it establishes, establishes, excuse me, a more probing measure to detect system wide problems.

I respectfully urge you to do right by our parents, children and taxpayers and vote aye on this measure. The welfare of California's foster kids depend on it. And if I may, I'm also here authorized to speak on behalf of the Black Youth Leadership Project and Black Women Organized for Political Action, also known as BWOPA, who couldn't be here today. They are in full support. Thank you, Chair and Members.

Thank you very much.

Ed Howard, Senior Counsel of Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of School, University of San Diego School of Law, proud to sponsor the Bill and respectfully ask your aye vote, and happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. Now, do we have any members of the public who wish to add their support to this Bill? Please come forward now. All right, see, none. Any opposition to this Bill? Please come forward.

Good afternoon again. Amanda Kirschner, on behalf of the CWDA, we are in constant conversation with Mister Bryan's office and have been working on this Bill with his staff, which I just want to give a very big shout out to. You have excellent staff. Our concern right now with the newest amendment is checking with our behavioral health departments because they do quite a lot of the contracting for the services that we do refer out to.

And so we want to make sure that they both have the ability to contract within the means of the bills providing, but also to make sure that some of our non contracted services that we also refer out to, a number of the substance use programs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous or NA, would also be available to be used because a number of our parents also use those to supplement any of the other substance use work they're doing.

And so we're just going to be continuing to work with the author's office on this important issue. And until that's resolved, we will say an opposition, but I think we'll find a path forward.

Thank you very much. Now, do we have any Members of the public who wish to add opposition to the Bill? Seeing none, I'm going to bring it back to the Committee for questions. Comments? Seeing none, I'll invite the author to close and ask for a motion. A second. Oh, we do have a motion in a second. All right. Yes, I'll invite the author to close.

Thank you. And I want to thank the opposition. We are in constant contact. We do a lot of good work together in the interest of our, of our children, some of the most vulnerable in California. This Bill started out incredibly ambitious because what we know is that a lot of these services that are being court ordered are failing. The families who need them the most, in the most extreme examples of their failure, has resulted in the loss of life, the loss of young people.

And I think this is going to be a multi year effort to figure out how to holistically reimagine this system and build in the kind of care and accountability mechanisms that our families deserve. But one thing that we can for sure do and absolutely need to do is to track the outcomes. The fact that we don't know whether a particular service provider is resulting in success rates, bypass rates, placement rates or failure rates, we have no understanding of that. The court has no understanding of that.

The parents who are being ordered to go through these classes and through these kinds of programs have no understanding of that. And that is something we can, should, and have to do better. That's exactly what AB 3145 is looking to do. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much for bringing this Bill forward. And we're for working with this Committee to make sure that no Committee is left behind. I do agree with you. Parenting classes, it's critical for them to be effective, but we also have to have accountability and transparency in the measure. And so I thank you in your office, working with the Committee staff on this, I am recommending an aye vote on this Bill. It has been moved by Assemblymember Gipson, seconded by Assemblymember Ortega. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Five to zero. That bill's out. So we still have two more bills and are waiting for some authors, but we're going to do add ons now for absent Members. For bills. So, Madam Secretary, if you would call the bills for absent Members to add on, we still have two more bills. Someone rejects it not over yet.

On the consent calendar. The current vote is five to zero. Ortega Ortega aye. Final vote, six to zero, file item one. We did as a Subcommitee. I need a motion and a second.

File item one has been properly moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Five to zero, that Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

Yes, thank you. I'm presenting AB 2476 on behalf of Assembly Urban, who's chairing another Committee at this moment. California currently administers six different voucher based childcare programs, collectively referred as Alternative Payment Programs. These programs provide vouchers for families to use at licensed childcare centers, licensed family childcare homes, or for licensed exempt childcare, and allow families to choose the type of care their child receives. Many of these programs receive funding from the federal Child Care Development Fund, part of the Child Care Development block grant.

On April 18, 2023 President Biden issued an Executive order to advance policies that reduce childcare costs for families and improve provider payment policies. Child care providers require private payers to pay for services upfront before the care is provided to cover their monthly expenses like payroll and rent. These providers often use the cost for each child care spot to forecast revenues and expenditures and financially planned for the future.

There is therefore a financial incentive for child care providers to accept subsidized vouchers as payment will not be received up until 21 days after the care that's been received. AB 2476 would close the gap between subsidized childcare and the private pay market by enabling childcare providers receiving state vouchers paid upfront prior to providing care. I will now turn it over to Denyne Micheletti Colburn from thriving families California and Fred Foroten, owner of Angel Arms Preschool in Carmichael, California, to speak more about this important issue.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. Two minutes each, please.

Perfect. Thank you. Chair and Members of the Committee, Denyne Colburn, representing Thriving Families California. AB 2476 will create an inequity in the subsidized childcare system that has existed for over 45 years, wherein providers are paid up to are paid after the care is provided. Our child care workforce is crumbling. Our child care workforce is one of the lowest paid in California.

To expect family child care businesses and centers to front load the state in order to take care of subsidized children is just wrong. These businesses have an amount that they must receive in order to keep their doors open. AB 2476 recognizes these critical businesses and aligns the pay upfront with that that exists in the private sector.

Further, the new federal Child Care Development Fund regulations that go into effect April 30 are rules that improve the payments to providers, and payment upfront is one of those rules here to answer any questions that you may have.

Good afternoon, chair and the Committee Members. My name is Fred Foroutan. My center, Angel Arms Learning Center, is located in Carmichael. I'm here on behalf of the centers and other family childcare programs. I guess it's safe to say most of you have experienced had children or you had relatives that had children, had to deal with childcare providers.

And I'm assuming that most of you used private care, not subsidy care, and you had the experience that you have to pay the provider first because they have to provide 30 days until they get paid again with whatever the need of the child is. It could be diaper, food, milk. With that in mind, most of the childcare providers that accept subsidy payments and care about the Low income and less fortunate children suffer the most financially and always have to deal with major cash flow issues.

Private market pays for the childcare at the time of enrollment of the child because they understand the services needs to be provided for the children is essential, and it's going to be there regardless. And we are obligated as provider to provide those services. Today, on an average household of four, spends $300 on the groceries, and you know, the price of the groceries going up.

A provider, in my case, for 30 kids, we usually end up eating at home once a day because of lack of time spent at home. At the center, the children have breakfast, lunch, snacks in between, nap in between the playtime, and then some of them, I would say about 50%, have their dinner before they go home because there is no dinner at home. That's a fact. And this particular group of Low income kids, they're pretty damaged. But what I witness every day is very heartbreaking.

You know, it's not easy. They come with trauma from birth, so forth. So it is a huge responsibility on childcare provider part to understand the children. The amount of anger they come in with and the food and providing them the service is the minimum we can do. My Senator spends $8,000 a month on groceries, and since January of 2023, I have been spending that money out of my pocket.

We didn't have the luxury of applying for any food program at the time, and we never turned each other away for lack of funds. But please understand this cash flow issue. It has put me in a situation that I had to borrow on merchant cash advance loans. I don't know if you're aware of those illegal loans. They should be illegal. 275% interest rate, daily payment coming out of your account automatically.

And for $10,000, you pay $17,000 in two months just to make my payroll for the teachers. I have to provide the payroll for the teachers, the food for the kids. It's a must. It's essential for me to provide what I'm promising to the parent. It's crucial for providers, how many seconds, providers to get paid upfront before services are provided. That's the only way the child care providers can survive. In January 2023, I had a fire inspection that I was built by Metro fire. $210. Last February.

That was a couple months ago, I had the same inspection. I was built, $600. That's a fire Department, local fire Department, inflation in their building. Imagine everything else from the teachers, students that learn music or Gymnastics and etcetera. I know there's not enough time for me to finish. I'll let it be. I appreciate it. God bless you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional support in the room?

Kimberly Rosenberger with CCPU an SEIU and UDW collaboration with the author's commitment to include consultation of CCPU. We're proud to come on in support.

Hi, Heidi Keiser with Child Action, co sponsor of this Bill and strong support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the Early Care and Education consortium, also in support. Thank you.

Rickelioffe. On behalf of Thriving Families, California co sponsors and in strong support. Thank you.

Do we have any primary opposition in the room? Seeing none. Do we have any public opposition in the room? Okay, I'm going to bring back to the Committee. Do we have any questions for the author? Okay, would you like to close

On behalf of Assemblymember Bonta, I respectfully ask for an aye vote thank you.

We have a motion by Assemblyman Jackson and a second by Assemblywoman Ortega. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. [Roll Call] It's five to zero and we'll leave the roll open.

So for file item 20, Assembly Member Jackson will be presenting for Assembly Shiavo. That is Assembly Bill 2674 and the bills are moved and seconded already. Whenever you're ready, Assemblymember Jackson.

Okay, thank you very much, Mister chair. AB 2674 supports development of housing for foster youth and the many in need of affordable housing by adding three additional financial tools to Cal HFA's toolbox. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

That was good.

Poor vivada charge with the California alliance of Child and Family Services and strong support. Suzanna Niffen with Children Now in support.

Best for last. I'm Daniel Hempel. I will just say this, given that. You guys are, at the end of. The day, what we're trying to do here is apply a wildly successful federal policy that allowed this country to build bridges, roads and dams with private dollars. Largely, this hasn't been applied to affordable housing before. We're trying to do that here for youth in and exiting foster care and Low income families.

The reason being that, you know, we are in the midst of a homelessness crisis and we can deal with the outflow taking people off of the streets, but we also have to be dealing with the inflow.

And this is a cost effective way to allow Cal HFA to do what it does best, issue loan guarantees, loans and lines of credit to allow service providers and affordable housing developers to be in ownership positions so they're not renting on the open market and struggling to find homes for young people and low income families. I want to say special thanks to Jessica for all your help in terms of the amendments here. And I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And on the topic of amendments, Assemblymember Jackson, are you accepting on behalf of Senator Schiavo for the amendments?Thank you very much. Now do we have any witnesses in support of the Bill or in the public please come forward.

Jackie Rutheiser with the California Alliance of Caregivers and we support the Bill.

Martin Radosevich with Power California Action in support.

Christopher Hernandez with California Youth Connection in support.

Julie McCormick, Children's Law Center of California in support.

Thank you so much. Now do we have any witnesses in opposition? Any Members of the public who wish to oppose the Bill? See now we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? I'll invite the author to close.

Seeing so much support. I wish this was my Bill. I asked for an I vote can be. I like to add myself as a co author.

I think that's a new one, but we will note that down. The Assembly Jackson would like to be a co author on this Bill and I want to thank Assemblyman Jackson for wisely accepting the amendments that we have proposed. I was pleased to support this Bill and housing Committee and I'm pleased to support it again today and I do think it is a smart solution during our housing crisis. The Bill was moved by Assembly Gipson, seconded by Assembler Calderon. I'm recommended I as amended. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I appreciate all three comments doing that business before the Assembly human service Committee is complete. The hearing is now adjourned.