Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

We have 6 Bills on today's agenda, and one of those are on proposed consent. Announcement. Assembly Bill 1947, Luz Rivas was pulled by the Committee, and Assembly Bill 1974, Connolly was pulled by the author. So we will not have those today. Okay, so we have two Members here today.

We will begin as a Subcommitee, and we will be moving in file order. We have one Bill on the proposed calendar. Consent calendar. We will hear that once we establish our quorum. Until then, we will hear from our first author. Hello, Assemblymember Blanca Rubio. We will have you present item number one, Assembly Bill 866.

And we will have you come forward to the podium, and then if you have any witnesses with you here today, we will have them find a seat here.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, AB-866 is a continuation of our efforts to further protect our foster youth, especially in the face of the ongoing opioid crisis. Just last year, the state revised restrictions on federally approved opioid use disorder treatment, which can be administered outside of a clinical setting.

This allowed youth 16 years of age or older to seek treatment without the stigma of fear often associated with seeking said support. In case of opioid addiction, receiving timely and accessible treatment is, without exaggeration, a matter of life or death.

Since the passage of AB-816 last year, our colleagues representing foster youth in the legal system have found that there is uncertainty in the application of the law, leaving foster youth without the same treatment certainty as those outside of the foster care system.

These same youth often have trauma histories that have arisen from both within and outside of the system, resulting in especially dangerous addiction circumstances. Additionally, many of these youths have genetic and environmental risk factors that increase their chance of said addiction and overdose.

While it's tragic we even need legislation such as this, or its predecessor for that matter, the reality is that by ensuring foster youth have access to these treatments, lives would be saved.

By clarifying the role of court oversight in these cases, this measure provides certainty for foster youth who could benefit from and proactively seek medical assisted treatment just as others outside of the system.

I want to reiterate, this measure simply ensures that foster youth can receive the same treatment as youth outside of the foster care system as already allowed by current law.

This measure has a coalition of foster youth advocates in support and has no opposition. With me today, on behalf of our sponsor, is Ann Kirk, a Policy Attorney with Children's Law center of California. Thank you.

Thank you. Before we go to your witness, Assemblymember, I'm going to establish a quorum so we can move forward, Okay. All right. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the roll one more time.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. So we now have a quorum, and we will continue. Thank you so much, and thank you for that brief interruption. We'll move forward with your first witness, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you. Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm Ann Quirk, Policy Attorney with Children's Law Center. We're the largest children's legal services organization in the nation, advocating for over 25,000 youth in the dependency system in Los Angeles, Placer, and Sacramento Counties.

We're proud to sponsor AB-866 and are grateful for Assemblymember Rubio's partnership in ensuring older foster youth suffering from opioid addiction receive the care and treatment they need. It's heartbreaking to lose a teenage client. We've lost far too many to overdose and to the danger and violence that often accompanies opioid addiction.

Anyone who has up close experience with addiction, either their own or loved ones, knows how short that window can be. When someone is willing to take and accept help. The court process does not move quickly. A doctor is required to submit paperwork. Social worker is required to submit paperwork.

Proper notice must be given to the family, the tribe, everyone involved in the case. Due process must be insured. It can take weeks, even months, and we don't have that kind of time. This Bill will clarify for older foster youth can get the treatment they need right away.

The consequence of not getting timely access to this treatment can be devastating. The drug abuse continues. It just means the treatment isn't there. In addition to the risk of overdose, opioid addiction is expensive. Predators take advantage of these young people with desperation, and they exploit them in exchange for providing drugs. Getting help is intimidating.

This Bill will clarify that the young person can seek help from their social worker, their CASA, their attorney, an adult they trust without requiring that their struggle with addiction become a part of their permanent court file.

They can also be open with their doctor and let them know that they are in foster care, and so they can ensure that their treatment plan is tailored to actually meet their needs. I want to thank Assemblymember Rubio once again for authoring this important authorization and her ongoing commitment to foster youth.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Do we have any members of the public wishing to show support? We ask that you come forward to the microphone with your name, affiliation, and your position only, please.

Good afternoon. Kristin Power, with the Alliance for Children's Rights. In support.

Thank you.

With the California Alliance of Child and Family Services. In support.

Thank you.

Susanna Kniffen, with Children Now. In support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Cootsona here, on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the California State Association of Psychiatrists. In support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Josh Gauger, on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. In support.

Thank you so much. Any lead witnesses present today in opposition of this Bill? Seeing none, we'll bring the discussion back to the Members, Committee. I will make an announcement before we go into this. We have four Members of the Committee present. We do have a hard stop here in the next hour or so.

If our fifth Committee Member does not make it to Committee and a Bill fails, we will grant reconsideration. So we just want to make sure all of our authors know that. All right, back to the Committee. Questions? Comments? Thank you. Thank you. I just want to make a comment here.

We have really been struggling, wrestling with this notion of age, and I noticed that your Bill allows 16 years of age or older that can consent to receive these medications.

I often go on the record saying, you know, rural communities are very different than urban centers, and I would be a hypocrite if I didn't bring that same notion up here. But the difference is that there are different needs in urban settings and rural settings, and particularly in the area that I represent.

Parents are very protective of that ability, me as one, of their children, as defined by law under 18, being able to, to make decisions that a legal adult would. So I am going to lay off this Bill, but free from prejudice.

And thank you for looking at ways to address the mental health needs of our foster youth, because it's so complex and California is such a diverse and complex ecosystem. But unfortunately for me, I will lay off, okay. Thank you so much. Okay, so we have a motion by Senator Blakespear. Would you like to close before we take our vote?

Thank you. Yes. I just want to also thank you for your honesty. I just want to reiterate that right now, and I don't want to call them regular kids, but kids that are not in the foster care system have that ability already to do that.

And so what this is doing is trying to align the 16 year old foster kids that don't have parents, or at least they, you know, some of these folks are in and out of the, you know, one family to another.

And so what I was thinking, or what we were thinking, is to make sure that they have the ability to make that choice and carry it with them because they don't have a stable home. And, of course, not everybody is in that situation, but we're trying to look after those kids that don't have stable parents.

And I appreciate your honesty, but with that, I ask for your aye vote.

And thank you. Thank you for championing legislation policy for foster kids. All right, so we will. Assistant, please call the roll.

File Item One, AB-866. Motion is Do-Pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, so we have ayes 2, noes 1, we will place this Bill on call.

Thank you.

Okay, so moving on in File Order, Item Number Two. Assembly Bill 922. Assemblymember Wicks, ask that you bring forward any witnesses that you have with you. Please join us here at the front, two witness seats.

Okay. And when you're ready to present, we'll hear your Bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. The goal of AB-922 is to combat hunger and food insecurity in California's unhoused communities.

The Bill would codify a restaurant meal delivery pilot program serving unhoused communities that has been successfully operated in Alameda County, which is where I live and represent. This pilot program was born during the pandemic, which amplifies the significant need to feed the unhoused and to keep local restaurants open and their employees working.

Alameda County wants to share and build out this model program that successfully delivered nutritious food while investing in local communities.

Madam Chair, I share your desire to spread this program beyond Alameda County, and we have spoken with Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, and San Bernardino Counties, and we commit to amending the Bill to allow other counties to access this model and any potential funding upon appropriation.

In Alameda County, 47% of participating restaurants were owned by Black, Indigenous, and other people of color and or women. In today's economy, small restaurant owners are still struggling with the rising costs in a tight labor market that chip away at already low profit margins.

By passing AB-922, you will simultaneously feed those in need, support economic stability, and continue a model program with a proof of concept. With me here to testify today is Cathy Senderling-McDonald, on behalf of Alameda County and Maria Alderete with Community Kitchens, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Wonderful. We'll, go to our witnesses in support. You'll each get two minutes to share. Please state your name, affiliation, and your position in detail. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll kick off. Cathy Senderling-McDonald, representing the County of Alameda. We're very proud to sponsor the legislation. As you know, the homeless residents in California, which number more than 170,000 at any given point in time, do face unsanitary conditions and numerous health risks from where they live.

They're often on the outskirts of our communities, and they're pushed into food deserts, where it can be very difficult to get any food, let alone nutritious, healthy food or prepared meals. There is a critical gap in services for our unhoused adults who really make up the primary homeless demographic.

And for those meal options that do exist, they often are focused on fast food, not on prepared meals. And one of the things that we found through research as well is that homeless residents face a significant burden in which they walk at sometimes 10 to 15 miles a day to get to the services that are offered.

So this could include a food pantry, a soup kitchen, type of congregate meal.

And so for them to travel all of this distance to receive these meals, Alameda County's model, and the model that we're hoping this Bill can help to propagate statewide, ideally over time, is to be able to bring the food to the homeless encampments that they started to try to fill this gap during the pandemic.

The Prepared Meals Program, which AB-922 would create, would allow a partnership between restaurants, which, as you'll hear from my colleague, ours continuing to struggle post pandemic.

And it really builds on the Great Plates Program that was a statewide program 40 counties participated in, as well as Alameda County Specific Emergency Food Vendor Program, which targeted homeless, shut in seniors, and COVID patients during the pandemic. They were able to work with 130 local restaurants and deliver 5 million meals to residents in 18 months through that partnership

The economic ripple effect of this program would also be significant. Every dollar spent in California's restaurants contributes $2.09 to the state economy.

And so the passage of AB-922, and we agree with the comments regarding ensuring that other counties are able to participate, we can continue to feed those in need and support struggling small restaurant owners at the same time and really create an overall positive impact.

You have reached your two minutes, so I'll just ask that you wrap up.

I was just going to ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Perfect timing. We'll move to second witness.

All right. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Maria Alderete, and I'm the Executive Director of Community Kitchens. During the pandemic, we and other vendors partnered with Alameda County to provide these 5 million meals.

The program provided much needed funding for feeding our unhoused, and after the pandemic ended, it really brought to light that this was a significant gap in the current food security work in our county and within our public benefit system.

Through AB922, we want to continue to support our unhoused and drive dollars to more than the 130 restaurants that provided meals during this time, but also to really support the health and wellbeing of our unhoused.

Being unhoused can take up to 30 years off of someone's life, and so we feel these meals are really critical to get out. But what we've been able to do in Alameda County is build a meal plus program. So we're not just providing a nutritious meal to help support their health and well being.

We're pairing that with other services, whether it's CalFresh enrollment. And in this case, we would want to work with other housing community groups to help get people off the street. So in passing AB-922, you will sign simultaneously feed those in need and support these businesses for even a wider economic stability. It's really triple benefits.

You're feeding the unhoused. You're supporting independent restaurants, which are in turn supporting local jobs. Thank you very much for your time, and I urge you to pass AB-922.

Thank you so much. At this time, we'll hear from members of the public that are in support of AB-922 that would like to share their position, name, and affiliation, please.

Josh Gauger, on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association. In support.

Thank you. Do we have any members of the public or lead witnesses in opposition of this Bill? Like to be heard? Seeing none. Any members of the public that would like to share their opposition? Seeing none. I will bring the conversation back to our Committee Members. Questions or comments? We have a motion by Senator Menjivar.

Assemblywoman, we haven't had you here in our Committee before, and I just want to say I'm a big fan of your work and the history that you have done here in California. It's been tremendous.

And before finding myself here as kind of like a young political activist organizer, I very much saw the work that you are doing nationwide and here in California and say that you've had an influence on how my worldview and my ideologies. This Bill, as I read through it, really raised some questions for me.

So I'm hoping that you can address them in your closing. One, this is a very specific county Bill. So of our 52 counties, it only impacts one county, which I think well met. Alameda County has a very large population as well as an unhoused population.

But I really struggle with why to have a statewide legislative action for just one county where the county has a full board and board of supervisors, and the cities have their individual governments as well. It's like, why we would need to take a legislative action. The second thing that comes up for me is this notion of catering.

Catering food, bringing food to a place where not even our working poor get that service right. You know, I remember, you know, as a young mother raising my kids and knowing that, you know, Fridays was Little Caesars pizza day.

And then if I could just, you know, put $10 aside, you know, I could go and pick that pizza up and bring it. But if I got delivery, I would have to come up for about 15-20 bucks in those times, right? So there is a luxury in getting food delivered to your domicile.

And this Bill is not about whether or not people have access to transportation or not. But I do know that urban settings, particularly Alameda County, has a plethora of nonprofits and churches and community members that provide meals and have a compassionate, empathetic interaction with the unhoused. So I'm perplexed on this Bill because of that as well.

It's like, why would we want California taxpayers to provide a catering service to the unhoused in Alameda when, you know, it's such a luxury to have that door service, right?

And then last but not least, and please, we could either address it in your closing or we can have a brief conversation, is I also noticed that you don't represent Alameda County.

I do.

Berkeley and Piedmont.

And parts of Oakland.

Parts of Oakland. Okay.

I wanted that clarification because I was a little confused, because I know you represent the heart of Contra Costa County, and I can see, like, Richmond really like, wanting to get behind this Bill and support you. So that was the other piece of confusion for me.

So I'd love to kind of hear your perspective and kind of see where my mind goes with this.

Sure. Absolutely. And I appreciate the questions, and the opening comments were very kind. We're both daughters of the Sierras, so I'm very familiar with your district because I come from Placer County. But, you know, in terms of the questions that you asked, you know, one, we did this in Alameda County and it worked, right?

And so I think the goal here, the goal would be to go statewide, but to start with a pilot program to make sure that what we're doing is actually working, that the state has the ability to actually do this type of work, put in statue and rapids, arms around a pilot program.

You know, as I've sort of undertaken my legislative career, I'm now sort of six years in. I'm like legislatively middle aged. You know, it's taken me a minute to understand all the things since I've gotten here. But one thing that I've noticed in my time in the Legislature is really the value of pilot programs.

So that we're not going, especially in the current economic times, so big that, you know, we either make mistakes, we rush things, we go too fast.

The pilot programs really allow us to learn from our experience, to modify, to make better so that when, if we do decide to go, you know, truly statewide and serve all 58 counties, we have a real proof of concept on how to do that. And how to do that effectively so that we get it.

Our taxpayers get a good ROI on the investments that we're doing. And I think, and I look at the same thing with housing and a lot of other things we work on. We have to give our taxpayers a strong ROI. You know, they're the ones funding this work.

And so ensuring there's accountability measures, that there's proof of concept that we understand what's working. You know, we chose Alameda County in part because we did this essentially in the pandemic. I live in Alameda County. I represent parts of Alameda County and parts of Contra Costa County.

So I have both counties in my district, but we're certainly open to other counties. I, you know, in an ideal world, we'd have 58 counties in this program. And again, I think that would be the goal down the road. We're definitely willing to add other counties as well.

I think it's always, and I say, this is the appropriations chair now. Figuring out what we can actually afford to do is the question, and that's the real struggle in the current environment. But we have need across the state.

We have low-income folks in our urban areas, in our rural communities, you know, in our ex-urban areas or suburban communities. In terms of the actual program itself, I think what we've realized during the pandemic, doing this program, and I think what our witnesses testified to is, it's feeling a need.

I mean, we have food insecurity with our unhoused population at such a high rate. You do have folks that are walking 10, 15 miles per day to get to food. These are folks that don't have resources, anything we can do.

And the dual partnership of helping our restaurants, our small businesses is a nice added benefit because many of them are struggling as well. But really, the goal here is to provide a solution.

I'm all about solutions and what works and working with different types of people to do that and bringing forth, you know, we should all be measured on the outcomes. We, as elected should be measured on the outcomes, and we've seen a positive outcome with a program like this. We want to continue that at the state level.

Start with Alameda and other counties and see if we can, in better economic times, expand it statewide. But again, with proof of concept, knowing what works best and respectfully asks for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Senator Blakespear.

I was, I'm planning to support this Bill, and, but the thing that runs through my mind again and again that I just wanted to bring up is just my overall concern about waste and trash. And so, you know, a lot of delivered food can create a lot of waste.

And there's, you know, what exactly would we do about that and how sustainable is the packaging around it and just thinking through exactly what it means to have that happen.

Yeah, I think that's an excellent point. I don't know if you all want to opine on that with any of the experiences in the program in Alameda County.

Yeah, I will say that we just got a grant from StopWaste where we are looking to pilot reusable containers. We have the ability when we drop off food to also pick up.

So that's definitely an area that is of concern of ours that we want to embed in the program.

And also just say, and I should have, I think, said this as well to your questions. Hopefully this program never has to exist. You know, I mean, we should be building the housing we need to and providing the services we need and the workforce training and all the other things that we need to do so that we don't have to do this work.

But in the end of the day, right now, it is a need that we're trying to fill, even though there's concerns around some of these issues. But, you know, I think with thoughtful partnership.

I think that's also why, to your question, Senator, why a pilot program, I think is important because if you can infuse that into the pilot program of specific protocol around waste, that's something that then again, we could take statewide so that we're again doing proof of concept.

Thank you. Any questions? Comments? All right, so I think I did hear you say that we've attempted this program before and it worked. Was that a reference during the pandemic? Right.

So I think for me that that is enough for me to stay off the Bill being that I realized during the pandemic we had to have creative solutions because you couldn't go into a store and get food. And I think there was a critical need for us to support our restaurants and small businesses.

And, you know, we were making things happen with federal dollars. Right? We were showered with federal dollars, and now we're in a state, a critical financial state here in California. I do recognize that there's an appropriation attached to this upon appropriation. And we're not a fiscal body, we're a policy body.

For me, it's just, it's difficult to make the correlation that if it worked during COVID or during the pandemic, it would also work during more fruitful times. But I do want to.

I do want to see where this Bill goes, because pilot programs, for me are very exciting to see how do they work in urban centers and how we can duplicate them in rural areas. So I will lay off the Bill again, free of prejudice.

We all make our own decisions in this Committee, and if the Bill should not pass, we will put it on call and grant reconsideration if we need to close the roll, okay.

Thank you. Yeah. I appreciate that. And respectfully ask for an aye vote from everyone else.

Thank you. Thank you so much. So I think we have a motion. Senator Menjivar, moved the Bill. Assistant, please call the roll.

File Item Two, AB-922. Motion is Do-Passed to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

And the ayes are 2, noes are 1. We will put this Bill on call.

Thank you.

Okay. All right. Okay. We will now move to Item Number Three. I'm sorry. To Item Number Five. Assembly Bill 1948, Rendon. And I believe we have. Assemblymember Ramos, will you be presenting on behalf of Assemblymember Rendon?

Okay, we'll ask you to come to the podium, and if you have. Do you have any witnesses with you here today? Alright, we'll have them come here to the table, get situated, and Assemblymember Zbur, I see you. And you're next. Okay. We will hear Assembly Bill 1948 when you're ready.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. AB-1948 removes the January 1, 2025 Sunset Date on AB-728 of 2019 by Assemblymember Santiago. This Bill allows multidisciplinary personnel teams, or MDTs, and agencies connected to MDTs in select counties to exchange the personal information of individuals identified as being at imminent risk of becoming unhoused.

This information sharing facilitates early intervention with county services and prevents new and recurring incidences of homelessness. AB-1948 will indefinitely extend the availability of critical intervention and assistance and allow these counties to stop homelessness before it can occur, taking a proactive approach. Here to speak in support of the Bill is Martha Guerrero, on behalf of the County of Los Angeles.

Thank you so much, Miss Guerrero, for being here. We'll give you two minutes to present on this Bill, and please proceed when you're ready.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and I thank Speaker Maria Deserendon and Assemblymember Santiago for being champions on addressing homelessness in Los Angeles County. This measure would allow us to continue a data sharing agreement that enhances coordination and facility no wrong door approach for clients who are at risk of homelessness.

In Los Angeles County. It's the Department of Healthcare Services Homeless Prevention Unit that utilizes these data sharing agreements, connecting people with resources for their housing needs, and it has demonstrated success for 86% of the participants identified successfully securing the housing upon exit from the program.

LA County's point in time count has identified 75,000 people who are homeless on any given night, a 9% increase from the prior count. Research has shown in Los Angeles County that for every 207 Angelenos who exit homelessness every day, another 227 fall into it.

Prevention stemming the flow of people into homeless must be a component of any effective homelessness strategy. AB-1948 provides an innovative resource to navigate the complicated housing and homelessness service system. For these reasons, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Any members of the public wishing to express their support, please come to the microphone. Name, affiliation, and your position.

Good afternoon. Josh Gauger, on behalf of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and Ventura County Board of Supervisors. Both in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jared Moss, on behalf of the City of Long Beach. In support.

Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of San Bernardino County and the Orange County Board of Supervisors. In support.

Thank you so much. Any other members of the public in support of Assembly Bill 1948? Alright, we will now move to opposition. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition of the Bill that would like to be heard? Seeing none. Any members of the public that would like to express their opposition to the Bill, please come forward?

Seeing none, we'll move the discussion back to the Committee. Questions or comments? All right, do we have a motion? All right, Senator Blakespear moves the Bill. Assemblymember Ramos, would you like to close?

Well, thank you so much for your interest in this Bill and your support, and I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Assistant will call the roll now.

File Item Five. AB-1948. Motion is Do-Pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, so we have 4 ayes. That Bill is out. We're not doing on call anymore. No. That Bill is out. Congratulations.

Thank you so much.

All right, Assemblymember Zbur, we are ready for you. We're going to be hearing item number six. Assembly Bill 2477. We'll invite your witnesses to come forward. Thank you. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. AB 2477 will uplift our youth by allowing them to transition from foster care into adulthood with the chance to grow the best financial safety net possible.

Existing law states that youth in foster care can only save up to $10,000. Should their savings surpass that amount, youth may undergo a redetermination assessment and potentially lose their benefits due to income or resource ineligibility. While many foster youth never accumulate that much in savings, some do.

And having a financial safety net is something that we should want these kids to have and we should want them to build.

To help with this problem new guidelines issued by the Department of Social Services have changed how the counties should look at existing law by allowing foster youth to save more than 10,000 without worrying about losing their support in foster care.

However, because this important policy clarification has not been codified in statute, busy caseworkers who are unaware of the nuance of the policy change still cite the $10,000 savings cap as a trigger for redetermination of their eligibility for benefits.

AB 2477 clarifies ambiguities by aligning state law with recent departmental guidance, removing any suggestion that youth cannot accumulate cash assets while they're in foster care. LGBTQ youth and children of color are overrepresented in the foster care system due to greater rates of family rejection and systemic inequalities.

So this is a bill about increasing financial security and equity for all our youth in foster care and about the Legislature's duty to support marginalized populations under our care.

With me today are Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth, and Kristin Power with the alliance for Children's Rights, both sponsors of the bill, to provide additional information and to assist with questions.

Thank you both for being here. We'll give you each two minutes to present when you're ready, your name, your affiliation, and we'd love to hear from you.

Thank you, Madam Chair Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth, pleased to co-sponsor this bill. And one of our strategies is around preventing the number of young people who are entering homelessness, and this B]bill allows us to do so.

A recent Cal use study cited that 25% of young people exiting foster care had experienced homelessness upon leaving care, and we know that financial capability is important for all of our young people transitioning to adulthood.

But it's also very critical for young people exiting foster care who have already faced many numerous other challenges and are expected to immediately manage their finances and become self sufficient.

Youth who have experienced these foster care also have greater economic hardships, like not having the ability to have money for housing deposits, being able to pay their rent, or to even buy a car so they can get to school or to work.

In many families, young adults have parents, siblings, or some other family member who can help them when they need assistance. And a strong and secure safety net can be the difference between a crisis being resolved or turning into a chronic stressor.

So really, a strong financial safety net really improves the financial resilience of our youth to take on life with more confidence and less stress.

And AB 2477 is a simple but effective measure to help our young people thrive as they exit foster care and doesn't hinder their ability to save for their future and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Kristen Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights and Assemblymembers Zbur did a terrific job of explaining the bill. So I just want to put a face on what we're talking about with this issue. I would just like to share a story about one of our clients. Her name is Alyssa.

She's a single mother of two. She just recently exited the foster care system at the age of 21. She has struggled to maintain stable housing, childcare and employment. And she was not able to save up to that, reached the ability to have that financial safety net while she was in care to help support her through this transition.

So as you're listening to Assemblymember Zbur be thinking about Alyssa and how this could affect her and her successful transition, I also wanted to just mention a call I got recently from a small rural county. It was a county caseworker seeking guidance as the county was working with a young person who had received a tribal settlement.

And that tribal settlement meant that they had exceeded that $10,000 cap and they were moving to exit the youth from care. I was able to cite the guidance that Assemblymember Zbur mentioned, but of course, it would strengthen our overall ability to make this notation in state law. And that's why we're asking for your aye vote today.

Thank you so much to both of you for being here. Any members of the public wishing to express their support of the bill, please move forward with your name, affiliation and your position only. Please.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you.

Purva Bhattacharjee with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Ann Quirk, Law Center of California, in support.

Thank you.

Susanna Kniffen with Children Now in support.

Thank you so much. We now give an opportunity to lead witnesses in opposition to come forward and be heard. Seeing none, any members of the public in opposition of Assembly Bill 2477 please come forward. Seeing none. We'll bring the conversation back to the Committee. Questions or concerns. Senator Ochoa-Bogh.

Thank you, Member Zbur, for bringing this measure forward. I'm actually really grateful for this bill. I'm a huge advocate for financial literacy, as well as savings.

I think culturally, it's very hard in California to be able to save any money, and I hear it from even our seniors who don't qualify for many services because they own a home, but that is all they have.

So when I see this forward and knowing that many of our kids don't have that support system around them, or kids, I should say young adults, too, which, by the way, I do have a question. What is the exit age for foster youth?

Alliance for Children's Rights. The age to exit is either 18 or 21. So 18 is the age at which many young people exit foster care. If you're in foster care at the age of 18, you're eligible for extended foster care, and that allows you to stay in for that additional three years up to the age of 21.

21. $10,000 is not a lot of money in the State of California, quite frankly. And it's one of the concerns why, on many fronts, I've actually been an advocate to either have people be able to work, for instance, while you're incarcerated, so that when you leave, you're able to have some sort of nest egg in order to go into our communities.

But I think in this perspective, I'm actually a huge, huge proponent of what you're trying to do, and I'm grateful that we actually have you that are willing to work and have the discipline to actually save, and we should do everything we can to commend them and to help them as they exit the system.

So thank you for bringing this measure forward.

Thank you.

Is that a motion, Senator Ochoa Bogh?

Absolutely.

All right, we have a motion. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much. So we have a motion on Assembly Bill 2477. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item six, AB 2477. Motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Aye's are four, no's zero. And I've been told we will put this on call and happy pride day.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. Right, we'll now move to our next item, item number seven, Assembly Bill 2620 by Assembly Member Bains. And I see she's ready and present. And Assemblymember will ask you just to invite your guests, your witnesses, to come to the table. I did make an announcement earlier. We have four Committee Members here today.

We are missing one. In the event that we are not, you do not get the votes in the majority, we will put the measure on call. But being that your bill is for the last of our file order today, we will probably wrap up around five. We will grant reconsideration on all bills if they fail. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Assemblymember, when you're ready.

Awesome. Good afternoon, Members. AB 2620 reduces the number on the California Commission on aging from 25 to 18 and requires commissioners to have professional, lived or academic expertise related to aging. It also defines the Commission as an advisory body relating to the Bagley Keene Open Meeting act and allows the Commission to engage in federal advocacy efforts.

The Commission has had a statutory composition of 25 members since its inception. During its existence, it has never had all Commission seats appointed. However, quorum is dictated by the number of those comprised to serve, including vacancies, making it difficult to conduct business.

By reducing the number of serving commissioners allows the Commission to more effectively establish a quorum and conduct business and requiring expertise related to aging for all future appointees allows for more meaningful advocacy moving forward.

Redefining the Commission as an advisory body allows for flexibility in the ways in which Commissioners may participate in meetings and will likely allow for more geographic diversity on the Commission. With me today is Rita Saenz, former Commissioner of the California Commission on Aging and the sponsor of AB 2620.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Rita Saenz. I'm here in strong support of AB 2620. As was said, I am a former member of the Commission, having served three terms. I've run three departments for the state and was the appointment secretary in the First Administration, Jeff Jerry Browns.

So I think the description of what this bill does is very clear. The only other thing that I would add to it is that it eliminates language for obsolete duties that the Commission formerly operated under. It was called, it's been so long. It was called the statewide legislative advocates that was under the Commission.

They're a completely separate organization now known as California Senior Legislature, and we are here asking for an aye vote.

Well, thank you. You know, I say just because we give you two minutes doesn't mean you need to use them if we can, you know. Very good. Any members of the public wishing to show their support, please come forward with your name, affiliation and your position?

Gabhart with the Alzheimer's Association in support.

Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. We'll now give time to anyone in opposition as a lead witness that would like to be heard. Seeing none. Any members of the public that would like to express their opposition? All right. We will bring the conversation back to the Committee. Senator Blake Spear.

Thank you. This seems like a great bill, and it's so rare when there's subtraction instead of definition. And so, so I applaud you for thinking of that. And I hope that it does lead to more of a quorum, I mean, more frequent quorums and also the ability for more people to participate.

So I think it's a great bill and I'm happy to support it and move when appropriate.

All right. We have a motion by Senator Blakespear. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Yes. So thank you for this bill. And I echo the comments from Senator Blakespear, quite true on that end. But also I also wanted to take the opportunity since we have Ms. Director Saenz here.

My colleagues may or may not know that Director Saenz actually was the Director of EDD for a year right after the pandemic, during the pandemic.

We are amongst royalty.

And I want to just publicly thank her for stepping up for that immense duty that it was very, very difficult, I'm sure, during that time.

And all my colleagues are new. We're not at the,

You're so lucky.

But I just wanted to thank you for that work and the comments and why it takes so much value in what you say is that she was very tough when she came in.

And I remember your statements and your comments when you first came into that Department. So I know that when you're coming and you're looking at this, you're studying it from a very critical and analytical perspective as to what needs to be done in this Commission.

So thank you for your continued service and work and your advocacy, and thank you to the author for bringing this measure forward.

Thank you for your acknowledgement. As the Assembly woman said, this Commission has never had 25 members, so we're just trying to be much more efficient and much more cost effective.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Bains, I just want to say, as Chair, we often are able to look at bills and put them on the consent calendar and you don't get that opportunity to explain good policy.

This was an opportunity that, since you were on consent in the Assembly, I really felt it was important to hear this matter because there's not oftentimes, as Senator Blakespear mentioned, that we right size government bureaucracy.

And so thank you for coming forward with this bill and presenting on this, because I think we have a duty to our constituents to also share the good news. So thank you so much for being here and just such an honor, Commissioner Saenz, right. So we have a motion. Would you like to close, please?

I'm honored to be the chair of aging long term care, and I'm honored to be able to help with this and let's get back to work and get things done. So respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. We have a motion by Senator Blakespear. Please call the roll file.

Item seven, AB 2620. [Roll Call]

All right, we have aye's four, zero no's. We will put that on call. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

So I will make an announcement. It is now 4:45. We will hold the call open out of respect of our Members that are here present, ready to go. I will move us to the consent calendar.

We have one bill on the proposed consent calendar file item eight, Assembly Bill 2948. Do any Members wish to remove any bills from the consent calendar? Hearing none. We will now take up these bills. Do we have a motion? Moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item eight, AB 2948 consent calendar motion is do passed to judiciary with a recommendation to consent. [Roll Call]

Ayes are four, no, zero. We'll put that, put the consent calendar on call as well. So we're gonna do one run through, lift the call and do one run through, and then we will do a second run through at 05:00 clock to allow for any other Members of the Committee to be present. So assistant, please lift the call.

File item one, AB 866, [Roll Call]

Just for clarity, we're gonna go through the roll one more time. Just lift. We're going to lift the call on Assembly Bill 866, item number one.

Okay, so that was Hurtado. AB 922. Hurtado. File, item six, AB 2477. Hurtado. File item seven, AB 2620. Hurtado. Consent calendar file item eight. AB 2948. Hurtado.

Thank you. Thank you for the Members of the Committee for joining us today. We will keep the call open until 05:00. At that time, we'll lift the call and we will gavel out. So thank you so much for being here.

The Human Services Committee will now resume in room 2200. This is their final call. We have four bills on call. If any Members are in the building that would like to participate and vote, please return to the hearing room immediately so we can finish lifting our calls without delay.

Upon review of the bills that are in front of us today, we do have one that is double referred. And I would like to, as Chair, take the opportunity to vote on Assembly Bill item number one. Assembly Bill 866 Rubio, when appropriate. Okay. All right. We will lift the call. Assistant, please call the roll of absent Members.

Hurtado. File item one. AB 866. Hurtado. [Roll Call]

That is four ayes and zero no's. That bill is out. I'm sorry? Three ayes and one no. That bill is out. Can you say where the do passes so that we know where it's going? All right.

File item one. AB 866. Due pass to Judiciary Committee.

Right, with three ayes and one no. That bill is out.

File item two. AB 922. [Roll Call]

That Bill has two ayes and one no. That bill fails and we will allow reconsideration. That bill is out.

File item seven, AB 2620. Hurtato.

Right, we have. I can't see. We have four ayes. Zero no's. That bill is out.

Consent calendar file item eight. Hurtado.

All right. We have four ayes. That bill, consent calendar passes, and that is out.

File item six, AB 2477. Hurtado.

Okay, there's four ayes, zero no's. That bill passes, and that bill is out. All right. I want to thank you to the Committee staff and thank you for being here today. The Committee on Senate Human Services is now adjourned.