Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

The Senate Human Services Committee will come to order now. Good afternoon. We are holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building, and I ask that all Members of our Committee come forward to be present in room 2200 so that we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing.

We have 22 bills on today's agenda, and eight of those will be on the proposed consent calendar. Absent of a quorum, we will move forward as a Subcommitee, and I do have a few bills that we will be heard out of file order. Otherwise, we will be in file order after our first two presenters.

Our first author today, welcome, Assemblymember Lee. Thank you for being here. And we will be hearing Assembly Bill 3229 as a Subcommitee as we wait for our quorum. Do you have any witnesses with you here today? We'll ask that they come forward to the conference table, please, at the conference table, would be great.

And we'll just have you remain there until we address any questions or concerns. Great. All right. Thank you so much, Assembly Member Lee. When you're ready.

Sure. Well, thank you so much, Madam Chair. I appreciate making accommodation as well. First, I'd like to thank the Committee staff for working with my office on this Bill, and I accept the amendments to move the reporting date to July 1, 2025.

I understand that these amendments will need to be taken at the next step in the process, and I commit to doing so. Assembly Bill 3229 would combine reporting deadlines for two legislative reports on the California Fruit and Vegetable EBT pilot program.

Specifically, this Bill requires the results of the evaluation, originally due September 1, 2025 and the scoping plan to transition the pilot project into a permanent program, originally due March 1, 2026 to be submitted no later than July 1, 2025 when the amends are adopted.

As we know now, California is the fifth largest economy in the world, yet about 8 million Californians struggles with food insecurity. That's 20% of the state's population that go hungry every day, including children. Part of the reason for this increased cost of living that make it hard to access affordable, nutritious food.

To address this issue, the California Fruit and Vegetable EBT pilot project was established in 2018, aimed at boosting the purchase and consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables to CalFresh beneficiaries. The pilot program provided up to $60 in nutritional incentives a month. For every $1 of CalFresh EBT spent on any fruit and vegetable. A recipient got back $1 to spend on any CalFresh eligible food.

As of February 2024, the pilot operated at 87 grocery stores and numerous farmers markets across the state, providing $1.9 million in rebates for fruits and vegetables to 75,000 individuals across 44 counties.

Despite its success, though, the pilot ended in April 2024 due to the money running out. Even though the sunset of the pilot was originally January 1, 2027. Research shows that similar programs reduce hunger, improve health, and increase revenue for agricultural communities.

To ensure families continue to benefit from the EBT pilot in the coming years, AB 3229 aims to advance the reporting deadlines for both the evaluation report and the scoping plan. With me in support of AB 3239 is Jared Call on behalf of Nourish California. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Lee. Thank you, chair and Members. As you said, Jared Call with Nourish California. We're proud co sponsors of.

Before you start, quickly, I just want to let you know you'll have two minutes to present. Got it? Okay. Thank you so much.

We're proud co sponsors of AB 3229 along with full well, and we actually helped design, you know, the project from the ground up beginning back in 2018. So again, want to thank Assembly Lee, Assemblymember Lee for his leadership on the issue.

As he said, we have a very effective, efficient program right now at the Department of Social Services that relies on the normal channels of commerce and our very efficient electronic benefit transfer system to get extra food onto people's tables in the form of, primarily, fresh California grown fruits and vegetables, up to $60 in rebates each month.

Again, as the Assemblymember highlighted, we've got very troubling levels of food insecurity in the state, and this is an extremely successful program that, again, has very little overhead, 95% to 97% of the funding is benefits. That is food on the table, again, because it relies on the normal channels of commerce.

There's no county Administration, there's no applications. People go, they shop, they get the food they want, and they get a little break on the price. At its peak, in March 2024, the program was serving 55,000 CalFresh households and redeeming over $2.5 million in fruits and vegetable supplements alone.

We have hundreds and hundreds of testimonials from very satisfied and happy shoppers who want to see this program continue, return, and expand. So, as the Assemblymember explained, and as the Committee is aware, the program did run out of funding and was paused in April of this year.

But we need these reports and this information to the Legislature so we can plan to turn that very successful program back on as soon as possible.

So again, we're also happy to work with the Committee and the Department to accept those amendments, but we do want to see those reports produced as soon as possible so we can get this back on track. Thank you. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Do we have any Members of the public wishing to express their support? Please come forward to the microphone with your name, affiliation, and your position only, please.

Yeah. Martin Radosevich, on behalf of FullWell, proud co sponsors of the Bill, thank you.

Erin Evans, on behalf of Santa Clara County and support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. All right. Do we have any witnesses in opposition to this Bill? We will hear you now. Okay. Seeing none. Any Members of the public wishing to express their opposition? Okay, we'll bring the conversation back to the Committee.

Now, as you see, my colleagues are either presenting in other committees or working their way over here. But Assemblymember Lee, I just wanted you to address the issue around the reports. I know that the timing is critical. We want those reports to come in. One of the questions that, that we engaged in was around;

"What is the consequence if CDSs does not submit these reports on time?", as your Bill suggests? How can we ensure that there is follow up and adherence to what you're asking the Department to do?

Well, I'll turn over to my sponsor in a second, but I do think that especially as we're the counterpart chairs for human services, it's very important to make sure that, of course, we have our will implemented through the litzation pass, but also to exercise oversight ability if possible.

This is a wildly successful program that's very frictionless for the consumer, and I want to make sure that we get the data to back it up, that we continue forward. I don't know if, Jared, you have anything to add to that?

Sure. Thank you, Assemblymember Lee. Jared Call again from Nourish California. I would just add that in our conversations with the Department and in testifying at budget committees, you know, this spring, the Department likes the program. That's not the issue. It really is just this funding issue. And we know there's a lot going on at the Department.

Sunbucks is rolling out a lot of other very exciting programs, but given that this one has been around since 2018 and is so phenomenally successful, has very little, again, administrative burden at all, we're very hopeful and confident that the Department will respond to this legislation and fulfill that need.

Thank you. Thank you so much. And anything that I can do to help support you on our end as well. Thank you so much. Chairman Lee, we are going to absent of a quorum. We're going to address this Bill when we're able to do that. Okay?

Thank you so much.

Would you like to close before we move on to the next Bill?

I will ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Brian's on his way. All right. We are going to be moving in file order, so I ask that all of our authors start to move their way down to room 2200 so that we can continue down today's docket. I do see Assemblymember Win here.

Thank you for being here. So, we will go to item number five. No, we want to go to item number six, Assembly Bill 2317. Assembly Member Nguyen, when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here to proudly present AB 2317 also known as Elijah's Law, which protects California's children who attend childcare from this life threatening but treatable condition. Anaphylaxis is a severe allergic reaction that require immediate medical attention and can lead to death.

Many of us who are parents, or many of us nowadays, also have allergic reaction to several different things. I've got a kiddo who's allergic to seafood, to dairy, to egg, to trees, to grass, to air, basically. And luckily, she's grown out of it.

But, you know, as you send your kiddo off to daycare right now, there isn't a plan in place. AB 230017 requires childcare providers to have a comprehensive anaphylaxis plan in place by 2028.

And here as a witness to testify in support is Gary Riddle of Kaleo, who is in partners with Elijah's Valea Law Foundation across the nation. I'm going to turn it over for him to say a few words.

Thank you. We'll give you about two minutes to present.

Thank you.

Got it.

Appreciate it. Madam Chair, distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is Gary Riddle of Kaleo, and I'm here to speak on behalf of Thomas Silvera. He's the co-founder of the Elijah-Alavi Foundation, sponsor of AB 20317 who could not be here today since he resides in the State of New York.

Kaleo has partnered with the Elijah-Alavi Foundation to help pass bills like AB 2317 across the nation. Mister Silvera is the father of Elijah Alavi, and unfortunately knows firsthand the urgent need for comprehensive anaphylaxis preparedness in childcare settings.

On November 3rd, 2017, Thomas's life was forever changed when his son Elijah tragically passed away due to an anaphylactic reaction at a childcare center. Despite explicit instructions regarding a severe dairy allergy, Elijah was given a grilled cheese sandwich, what lead to a fatal allergic reaction.

The childcare providers were ill-equipped to recognize and respond to the signs of the anaphylaxis, and the necessary life-saving measures were not administered in time. This devastating loss has highlighted critical gaps in allergy management and emergency preparedness within childcare settings across the U.S.

In the wake of this tragedy, Elijah-Alavi Foundation was established to honor Elijah's memory and to help prevent such heartbreaking incidents from happening to other families. The foundation is dedicated to raising awareness about food allergies and anaphylaxis, advocating for policy changes such as AB 2317, and providing education resources to parents, caregivers, caregivers, and childcare providers.

The importance of AB 2317 cannot be overstated. Anaphylaxis, a severe and potentially fatal allergic reaction, is on the rise, with a staggering 316% increase in anaphylaxis-related healthcare claims in the past 12 years.

Young children where the largest preponderance of anaphylaxis is happening to occur, particularly those aged zero to four, are especially vulnerable, as they may not be able to communicate their symptoms.

AB 2317 helps to ensure every childcare provider in California is equipped with the necessary tools and knowledge to prevent, identify, and respond to the anaphylactic reactions swiftly and effectively, including guidelines for and allowing potential use of appropriate weight-based dose of epinephrine. This policy will save precious lives and provide peace of mind to caregivers.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify on AB 2317. And please, at the appropriate time, we wish for an aye vote on this bill.

Thank you so much. We'll now give the opportunity to members of the public wishing to express their support for Assembly Bill 2317. Please come forward with your name, your affiliation, and your position only.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jennifer Tannehill with Aaron Read and Associates, on behalf of the California Society for Respiratory Care in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, do we have any witnesses? Lead witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward now. Okay. Seeing none, any members of the public wishing to express their opposition, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll bring the conversation back to the Committee. Any Members of the Committee wishing to ask questions? Comments? Senator Menjivar?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Assembly Member, as someone who has carried an EpiPen almost her whole life, I've been intubated. I've gone into a full, I think, twice already due to fruit and nuts.

I understand this near and dear to my heart, but I also have been very engaged with what we're doing in the childcare space and really excited about the movement forward and some steps backwards. I know the burden that is placed.

Can you confirm with me that your bill is kind of like an opt-in if the childcare provider has the ability to do the training and then administer the EpiPen?

Yeah. And I'm going to put this to the sponsor because I know we're working through some of those. There's been some questions, amendments being asked to be taken, and I'm going to let the sponsor kind of go into details about that.

Thank you.

Absolutely. No, an opt-in approach is definitely something that is well understood.

Is that in the bill right now? Because I was just trying to get clarity because some words say may participate. So, I just wanted to hear it straight from the source.

I believe that certainly we're continuing to work with the parties at hand that are weighing in on this bill, such as CDSS and CDE, et cetera, and that is the direction that we're pursuing as an opt-in approach.

Currently in print right now it's a requirement for everyone to take the training. Okay.

It's a may right now according to the bill language.

Okay.

So, it's still, it's still voluntarily.

Yes.

That's correct.

I think you were looking for the actual details of it saying that it's an opt-in, right? Yes. And so, I know that they've reached out and we're trying to have the appropriate language as what you had mentioned to make sure it works with what they're trying to. And, you know, I understand daycare providers.

There's a lot of requirements. There are a lot of things that they have to put in place. And we definitely don't want to put this as a burden on a lot of these childcare providers. But for those. Right?

That have kiddos that do have allergic reaction, we want to make sure that they are also fully equipped and they have a plan in place just in case it is needed.

Thank you, Assembly Member.

Thank you for the question.

I have a question for clarification. Are these plans that are going to be made independently for each site, or are you looking for some type of standard of care that the childcare centers can adopt?

I think we're still working through those details. I'll certainly let the sponsor answer that in details, if.

Sure. Absolutely. I mean, the best approach always would be some sort of statewide guidelines that are then, you know, basically developed between the parties.

Right, right.

And in your bill, you do have a group of parties that will be consulted, including some of our labor partners. How do you see the timeline in this bill developing so that all members at the table are aligned on what the implementation looks like?

Absolutely.

Sure. I think one of the things we're trying to do is get this out of Committee first and pass and then pull everybody together to figure out how does this look like? As you mentioned, there are a lot of parties involved with this. There is no one-size-fits-all.

And I think we just want to make sure that there's a plan in place. Right? There's an actual plan that's in place in case it is needed.

But we are aware that there are a lot of individuals that want to be at the table, a lot of entities, a lot of groups, a lot of organizations that really care about this. And we want to make sure that it works all across. And so that is definitely a conversation that is ongoing.

We just want to make sure that there is a plan in place. Right now, there isn't a plan in place. And so, the first step is to let's make sure that there is something to say that there is a plan in place in case this happens. I think that is the first step.

After that, it's let's pull everybody together to figure out what is the plan. How does this work? There is, once again, no one-size-fits-all, but there are going to be certain centers that may need more than others as well.

And maybe certain centers will say that they aren't able and equipped to be able to take in kiddos that have allergic reaction or whatnot. We want to be able to say that that's okay. Right?

But we want to make sure that there is a plan in place for those that come across such a situation to avoid any tragedies.

Right. Thank you. Thank you so much. We don't have a quorum just yet, but would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your vote when the time is appropriate.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Assembly Member Nguyen. Thank you for being here. Okay, so looking for authors. Going back into file order, Assembly Member Jackson, we'll invite you to come and present Assembly Bill, item number two, Assembly Bill 772 when you're ready. If you have any witnesses with you here today, we'll have them come up front.

Sure. AB 772 is a bill to clarify and make it easier for those who are in need of childcare to be able to access it. AB 775, first of all, I accept the Committee's amendments, by the way.

Just in case you're wondering. Now clarifies upon admission of a child into a drop in child care center. If a medical assessment is not available for a child as required by the Department Regulations, then the licensee shall obtain a written health assessment completed by the child's authorized representative.

This bill would also require the child's authorized representative to sign acknowledgement forms. They understand that verification of immunizations and tuberculosis testing is not required for any child accepted into a drop in child care center. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Any lead witnesses with you here today?

Nope.

Okay. We'll give opportunity to the members of the public to come forward and share their position, name and affiliation, and position only, please.

Good afternoon. Mackenzie Richardson with thriving families California in support. Thank you so much.

Any lead? Witnesses in opposition that would like to be heard today? See none. Members of the public that would like to be heard in opposition. Okay, we'll bring the conversation back to the Committee. Questions? Comments? All right, looks like this is going to be quick for you.

That's how I roll.

All right, would you like to close? And then we will address the vote when we get a full quorum?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. You have another bill in front of us today. I do. All right.

AB 1967, if I may, Madam Chair.

Item number four.

Item number four. I do have backup for this one. AB 1967 seeks to create a food and security officer within the California Department of Social Services, tasked with coordinating and addressing food insecurity throughout the state government operations.

We also know that too many, for too many Californians, we are still facing too many of our population with food insecurity. And usually the thing that gives us the red flag first is usually when we begin to see our food banks begin to deplete. But that should not be the only thing that causes us to react.

We need a more coordinated plan with someone in the state that is responsible for ensuring that people who are eligible for SNAP and any other assistance, that there's a plan to help them get enrolled, let them get, because there's too many millions of dollars going unutilized from the Federal Government when people are eligible for access for this food support.

We have Marchon Tatmon to speak on behalf of the San Francisco Food Bank.

Thank you for being here. We have two minutes to present.

Absolutely. Good afternoon, 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 level, my family and I once struggled with food insecurity growing up. So this issue is near and dear to my heart.

I'm here today to testify as a co sponsor in support of AB 1967, which would create a captain 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, the wealth is not transferring to the many struggling because California food insecurity rate is estimated at one in four Californians. Yet 34% of Californians are not receiving calfresh. We are falling and failing to meet the potential of this critical anti poverty benefit, leaving 2.7 billion on the table in federal benefits.

CalFresh, formerly known as food stamps, provide vital assistance to low income individuals and family and nutrition, food or food at their choice. But the rising costs necessities are forcing difficult trade offs. On average, more than one out of four Californians faces uncertainty or inconsistent access to food. And yet the number doesn't tell the full story.

We usually see this happening in black and brown communities, BIPOC communities. We have a powerful anti hunger tool at our disposal in the CalFresh program that help provide vital food, but we're not using it to the best of its ability.

Yet California is six to last in all states in Calfrest participation, with only 66%, compared to the national average of 77%. New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Oregon all have 100% CalFresh participation rates. And there's seven more states that also have 100%. So it can get done. Now, why can't progress be made?

Among other things, and respectfully, political will, silos, and efforts that's not aligned between the state departments. In addition to CalFresh, there are a myriad of programs designed to increase nutrition and health and to reduce hunger across a growing number of state departments and agencies. I think it's around seven of them.

However, we don't have an accountable leader for the results we desire and a lack of alignment and coordination. Like I said, folks been doing incredible work, but California is still facing a lot of food insecurity. One in four Californians. A new approach is needed.

The creation of a cabinet level position will ensure policy alignment, implementation, optimization, outcome resources between diverse departments. We need to invest in solutions that reduce barriers to assess these programs and solutions to increase collaboration and alignment between the different departments within the state.

This approach is proven in states like Maine and New Jersey, which each created a cabinet level leader position to address food insecurity. We know poverty is the root cause of hunger and we cannot afford to ignore a solution that can profoundly change it. Thank you and we appreciate an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you so much. Any Members of the public wishing to express their support, please come forward through name, organization and your position.

Cher Gonzalez. On behalf of my client, the American Diabetes Association, we are a proud co sponsor of the bill and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Jonathan Muñoz, on behalf of First 5 California in strong support. And we thank Doctor Jackson for his leadership on this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you. Dylan Elliott. On behalf of San Francisco Mayor London Breed, as well as the County of Marin, both in support. Thank you.

Kelly Brooks. On behalf of the County Health Executives Association Of California, here in support. Thank you.

Johnny Vue with the California Student Aid Commission and support. Thank you.

Thank you.

On behalf of the California Immigrant Policy center, in support.

Thank you.

Corey Smith. On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, food, shelter, water, the basics in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Justin Bowers. CleanEarth4Kids.org comma strongly supports. In addition, the North County Equity and Justice, FACTS, Eco-Sustainability Peeps, and NCCCA also support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right, any lead witnesses in opposition of Assembly Bill 1967 please come forward. Okay. See none. Any Members of the public wishing to express their opposition like to be heard. Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring the conversation back to the Committee. Questions? Comments? Big smiles on this side.

Doctor Jackson, I just, I have to point out, so we're going to give the Governor appointment power to yet another high level position.

How are we going to make sure that we as legislators, hold this person accountable or the Executive Branch accountable for these goals that must be met, like, we can't let any cracks in this cement happen.

Well, I think the best, the only thing that I can think of is to making sure that in this appointment, that the Senate can exercise their rights in terms of, or their purview, to be able to make sure that you have a part of that appointment process like you do other positions as well.

And so we'd love to continue to work on language, if that you believe that's gonna be another check and balance so that we can do this. I mean, the idea is this, is that this can't just be a box to check off. This can't just be. Yeah, we did something again.

We have got to move the needle. The status quo is not acceptable. And I'm more than happy to work with you to making sure that that's that level of accountability that you seek.

And I know you and I were co chairs in year one, and you've moved now into some of the funding areas, but continue to be a champion in human services as a leader.

I think this also gives us an opportunity to really recruit strong candidates for this appointment and ensure that this is a person that represents the BIPOC community, that understands food insecurity and is not simply checking the box as you said. I look forward to being that force and that partner with you as this bill moves forward.

Absolutely. And I'll have my staff reach out to yours to make sure that we have everything covered.

Great. Thank you. Thank you so much. Would you like to close?

I'll respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay.

We're going to go back to file order here, and I see Assembly Member Santiago ready. We're going to go with file number one, Assembly Bill 31. One. If you have witnesses here with you today, we'll ask that they come forward to the conference table.

And we'll be brief if the chair prefers that. And thank you, Madam Chair Members. We're here to present AB 311, and it's a very straightforward and simple request that we're having in this bill, and that's that all folks, regardless of documentation status, are eligible for food programs or the CalWORKS programs that currently exist.

This is something we had fought for and we will continue to fight for. And with us, we have one witness who will present. I'm not being brief to be disrespectful to the Committee, but in the interest of your time, I appreciate it.

Thank you. Well, we have two minutes to present. Okay.

Thank you. All right. Good afternoon, chair and Members. My name is Jackie Mendelson, and I am a policy advocate with nourish California. We are a statewide organization that collaborates with community partners to bring equity to our state's future food safety net through policy advocacy and a proud co sponsor of AB 311.

64%, or close to two in three undocumented Californians of all ages are living in or near poverty, and this is almost double the statewide average. And xenophobic exclusions in our safety net mean that the loss of a job or an emergency can quickly do harm and pull families below the poverty line.

And in a state that strives to be a leader in immigrant inclusion and equity, we cannot let immigration status be the reason that Californians fall through the gaps in the safety net.

A new study by the Urban Institute found that low income Americans often pull from their savings or go into debt to afford the rising cost of food. Eduardo is a community health worker and undocumented community Member in San Fernando, living this reality he shared with us.

Due to inflation, my salary from two jobs is not enough to cover the basic expenses of my household. I feel discriminated against because I am not eligible due to my age for the new expansion of the calfresh program. Since my age does not reduce the great need to have access to decent food for myself and my family.

The state budget passed by the Legislature last week proposes a harmful delay to the expansion of the California Food Assistance Program to undocumented Californians ages 55 and older and older. Californians that thought they would receive relief through food benefits starting in 2025 may now need to wait another two years or more for this critical support.

While it's written as a delay, undocumented Californians are experiencing it as a cut. Hunger is hunger, no matter where you were born. And this is why AB 311 is now more important than ever.

I urge you to vote aye on this bill so that all California, regardless of their age or immigration status, can access the food they need. No exceptions, no exclusions, no delays. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your presentation. Members of the public wishing to express their support for Assembly Bill 311, please come forward with your name, affiliation, and your position.

Good afternoon again. Andrea Maviska. On behalf of the California Immigrant Policy center, proud co sponsor of the Bill and support.

Thank you, Chair and Members Kathy Mossberg, with both the Public Health Institute and California Association of Food Banks, both in support.

Thank you.

Craig Pulsipher. On behalf of Equality California in support.

Thank you. Kelly Brooks. On behalf of the Urban Counties of California and the County Health Executives Association of California, in support.

Thank you. Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Good afternoon. Alejandro Solis, on behalf of the Mexican. American Opportunity foundation and support. Thank you.

Rebecca Gonzalez, Western center on Law and Poverty and support. Thank you.

Justin Bowers, clean earth for kids, strongly support. And the NCCCA North County equity injustice, facts and the ecosustainability peeps also strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. Not seeing any Members of the public wishing to express their opposition. We'll hear you at the microphone. Seeing none, we'll bring the conversation back to Committee questions, concerns. Okay. All right, would you like to close?

Yes. Madam Chair, respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. We'll take it up once we get a quorum. All right. Thank you so much for being here. I do want to acknowledge Assembly Member Carrillo has been waiting patiently. I'm going to go out of line, and then we're going to have Assemblymember Bryan. Okay. All right, so item number 21.

Assembly Bill 2929. Are you ready, Assemblymember, or would you like to give your spot to? All right, any witnesses with you here today?

Yes, I do have a witness with me today. I believe she is here.

Come forward to the table when they're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Assemblymembers, for letting me go first. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2929. I would like to begin with accepting the Committee's technical amendments. I do accept the Committee amendments.

What this bill does is this bill seeks to advance family funding efforts for youth in foster care by requiring social workers to include already existing documentation for these efforts in court reports for reviewing hearings. Many children in the foster care system have been removed from their homes due to abuse, neglect, or other reasons beyond their control.

In California, it is estimated that there are nearly 45,000 children in foster care and nearly 55% of them are Latino. Research has shown that children who maintain positive relationships with their family members when in foster care have better long term outcomes related to housing, mental and physical health, and education.

By connecting children with their families, we can provide them with the support and stable relationships they need to thrive. This bill would help make a positive impact on the lives of our most vulnerable children. Joining me today to answer any question is Julie McCormick with the Children's Law Center.

Thank you. Ms. McCormick, before you present, we're going to establish a quorum. Okay? All right, Assistant, please call the roll so we can establish our quorum.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We now have a quorum, so we will be moving forward. Thank you so much. All right, we'll give you two minutes to present. Please start when you're ready.

Thank you. I don't believe we'll need all that time. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. I am Julie McCormick. I'm a senior policy attorney at the Children's Law Center of California. We're the largest children's legal services organization in the country. We represent over 25,000 children and youth in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Placer counties, and we are proud to be a sponsor of AB 2929.

Documentation of family finding efforts are essential so that all parties involved in the child welfare system, attorneys, judicial officers, will have the information necessary to facilitate meaningful and ongoing familial connections for foster youth. Social workers are already required by law and policy to conduct extensive family finding efforts.

All AB 2929 does is ensure that the efforts already being conducted are provided to the court and council. Additionally, if courts and attorneys are provided with the information upfront in court reports, they won't need to set additional hearings to obtain that information, which will increase court efficiency.

To address fiscal concerns raised by the governor last year, this bill was tailored to only required documentation to be provided at review hearings and only when those children are not already placed with a relative. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank Assemblymember Carrillo for his leadership in promoting familial connections for our most vulnerable children. I'm also happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much. We will allow members of the public to come forward and share their support for this bill. Members of the public, any witnesses in opposition that would like to be heard? Any members of the public wishing to express their opposition, please come forward. All right. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee.

Committee Members, any questions around Assembly Bill 2929 for our author? Okay. Moved by Senator Blakespear. Okay, we'll have you. So we have a motion by Senator. Oh, actually, I would like to give the author an opportunity to close.

I just want to ask for your vote. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Okay, so motion made by Senator Blakespear.

Motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary. [Roll Call] The vote is three ayes and no nos, and we'll put that on call.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

I'll read this part. I'll read this. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you so much, Assembly Member Bryan. Thank you for being here. We are going to hear your Bill, item number 17. Assembly Bill 3217. And then we'll go back to file order for our authors that are here waiting. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairing a committee myself in the other building. So running back and forth.

Yes, yes.

Thank you for having me. And it's good to see you, Senator Blakespear. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm here to present AB 3217, a simple bill that will ensure that county welfare agencies are consistently using best practices for family finding while considering placement options for foster youth in their care.

I want to start by accepting the committee amendments and thanking their exceptional detail and their work with my staff to making sure that we get this right over and over again.

Research has shown that when a child enters foster care, placing them with a relative or other loved one who they are familiar with has led to far better outcomes for that child and everybody else involved. Children placed with their kin have fewer placement disruptions, school changes, and are less likely to run away from home.

They are more likely to report that they feel loved and supported during their time in foster care, according to data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project. However, there are counties in California that are falling behind compared to their peers when it comes to placing a foster child with their kin.

For example, one major county has a 22% placement rate, which is drastically lower than the state average of 34%. And the national average of 35.5 AB 3217 is a straightforward Bill that puts forth two requirements to ensure that counties are meeting family placement expectations.

First, it will require counties that fall below the statewide average to consult with the Statewide Center for Excellence and Family finding engagement and support. The center was established in 2022 as $150 million investment to support family finding efforts across the state, but not all counties are utilizing this resource.

This needs to change, particularly for counties that need the support the most. The second is it will require those same counties to simply agendize the topic at a County Board of Supervisors hearing. This will provide the accountability and transparency into what efforts county welfare agencies are making to improve their family placement rates.

This bill ensures that we are doing everything we can to place foster youth with loved ones rather than strangers in times of great instability and distress.

We have been working with CWDA to address their concerns as evidenced by todays committee amendments and im committed to continuing to doing that work with them as the bill moves forward to address any remaining issues.

Joining me today to provide statements and support are Ed Howard with the Childrens Advocacy Institute and Sade Ajayi, a local organizer, leader and former student of mine and I taught at UCLA.

Wonderful. Thank you. You'll each have two minutes to present.

Thank you Madam Chair and members. My name is Sade Ajayi, former foster youth raised here in Sacramento county justice to jobs organizer in the essence of black girl hood, project director and an incoming first year law student at Howard University School of Law. Thank you for allowing me to speak in support of the vitality of this bill.

I was five years old when my sisters and I were removed from our home. We were moved to four different strangers homes within one year. It was total was because there were no homes for us. Living with strangers made me feel like I did not belong.

If we did not fit into their family structures, cultures and traditions, we were removed from the home. I lived in a constant State of hyperviligence from abuse, instability and racial microaggressions. Eventually, I felt relief after finally being placed with my aunt in a home where it felt like mine.

It was a relief because I could relax for the remaining five years of foster care. Living with my aunt, I could let my guard down, which helped me begin healing from my own trauma and allowed me to focus on being a kid. Whether I was school, friends or cultural connection.

The familiarity made me feel safe, seen and empowered. Bringing around family helped me develop a sense of hope and being closer.

Reunited with my mother as a young black woman and now professional, I know firsthand the longing and disempowerment foster children face, particularly children of color, and what trajectories and exploitation foster youth experienced have become a constant in their traumatized life.

All this bill does to ensure that foster children and their needs to be placed with families is not forgotten, but instead a topic of ongoing conversation at the highest level, respectfully on behalf of the foster children, who are literally children of the state, is not too much to ask. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members. Good morning, Ed Howard. Or good afternoon, excuse me. Ed Howard, Senior Counsel of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law, pleased to sponsor this bill.

To the litany of great outcomes that come from placing our foster children with families, let me add that new research suggests that kinship care can improve academic outcomes and long term success for children who are our foster children. And I'm so pleased to have such a great example of those data sitting proudly to my left.

By the way, before I say anything, your amendments, Madam Chair, have made this a better bill, and I thank you very much. And I thank your staff for your hard and thoughtful work in making it a better bill.

As the analysis correctly points out on page five, not only are there states who are performing below the average of about 35%, which is not a great average all by itself, some of them are performing far, far lower, meaning that sometimes almost 80% of the time, we're not placing our abused and neglected children with their family members.

But the good news is that some counties are doing far better, as the assembly member mentioned.

So given the importance of this to our foster children, maybe the most important thing we can do for them, other than returning them to their safely to their families, given that we know we can do better, given the importance of this to our families in California of color, simply having a conversation once a year at the highest and most accountable level about how we can do better is really not too much to ask for these children, who, after all, are our children.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. I'm going to give the members of the public an opportunity to share their support. Please come forward with your name, affiliation and your position, please.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Stephanie Roberson, authorized to speak on behalf of the Black Youth Leadership Project, the NAACP chapter in Merced, and also the black women organized for political action in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Justin Bowers with cleananthforkids.org strongly supports the North County Equity and Justice, Ecosustainability Peeps and the NCCCA also support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition of this bill? Please come forward and we will hear your testimony.

Welcome. Two minutes. We'll hear.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Amanda Kirchner on behalf of CWDA; we very much appreciate the author taking the amendments as outlined in the analysis. Unfortunately, they don't completely remove our opposition. We absolutely agree on the importance of placing our foster youth with families whenever possible.

But we do want to keep in mind a couple of things. In some of our smaller counties, we don't always have family as options. And so that is why sometimes we do see lower performances in family finding in those counties because there simply aren't relatives around that we can place them with.

Or to do so would mean placing them across county lines. And so sometimes you have to balance between keeping them in the community that they know versus placing them with a family member. So those are some of the things that we keep in mind when we are trying to figure out best practices.

We think focusing this on the Center for Excellence is a great step forward. What we'd like to see is making sure that it's CDSS who's in charge of determining who sort of falls below the 50% mark based on data.

We don't think our county should be the ones just trying to individually, independently figure out if they are above or below where everyone's at.

We'd also like to see that if it's going to be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors, it's done in an already existing manner through our system improvement processes or some of our other sort of case plan, the self-improvement plan. Thank you.

So, importantly, because we don't want it to become a second track through the board of supervisors, what we don't want to see happen is things get brought up at board of supervisors meetings that either we can incorporate or would be something that's sort of outside the already existing DSS regulations for how we're supposed to be meeting those goals.

And so, we're going to continue to work with the author's office. I think we're very close in that we can get to middle ground, but just not there yet.

Thank you. All right, any members of the public that would like to share their opposition for the bill, please come forward to the microphone. Okay.

Seeing none, we'll bring the conversation back to the committee. Okay. Senator Blakespear.

Thank you. I want to thank the author for this bill. I think it's really important for every reason that makes intuitive sense that placements within kinship relationships would be more successful, especially in smaller or rural communities.

And I haven't seen any data that indicates that county lines somehow staying within county lines is somehow leads to more successful outcomes. So, I know that county board of supervisors are organized around county lines, and so it can seem more administratively difficult to suggest a kinship placement over a county boundary.

But I think the point of this bill, this really important and good bill, is that kinship placements are just more successful. So, we shouldn't be limiting ourselves around these artificial boundaries of what the government entity happens to be.

So, I appreciate the commentary from the opposition, but I also just hope that we can drive up the percentage even above a third so that there's really a commitment to try to get every single possible kinship placement, no matter which county they happen to live in. Thank you. All right.

Thank you so much.

And when it comes time, I'll move the bill.

All right, thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh: question, comment?

Hi. So, I just want to make sure. Bill number - I just want to make sure I'm at the right one.

Item number 17, Assembly Bill 3217.

It's a great bill.

So, I did not hear the commenters, and I apologize. I was presenting a bill across the street, but was there any discussion about the age for sharing a room? I know - is this a bill? This is a different bill? Okay, then in that case, I'm good in this one. All right.

Unless you would like to answer that question.

No, I'll save it for my close.

I have to give a lot of accolades for Assemblymember Bryan because him and I have seen each other in this committee now two years, and I would say over and over again, you're one of the strongest advocates for youth. And as I get to see your work more, you have built quite a fan base with me.

And senior bills come to our committee; not only have you been open to amendments and working on those connections, but you're letting, you know, a Senator that represents rural communities come out and say, "Hey, I love your bill, but it's not going to work in my small communities." And really being open to that.

So, thank you for caring for foster youth and youth all over California, not only in your district, but my district and all over the state. So, thank you so much. All right, so we have a motion. Would you like to close before we move through?

Yeah. You know, my assembly colleagues know this, but my parents had foster care for 26 years. I was one of nine adopted children. There were no family placements for me. For many children across the state, though, those kinship placements are key to success. I think the opposition has brought up great points.

They're the kind of points that I would like to see county board of supervisor's agenda and talk about every single year, about the success, or lack thereof, in that success. Thank you for the amendments that have made this a stronger bill.

Ultimately, what we're all trying to do is what's best for the kids across our state who need us and who are counting on us. And I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you so much. We have a motion by Senator Blakespear. Assistant, will you call the roll?

Motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay, we have three ayes.

I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't have that one down here. I'm sorry. That is do pass to Appropriations as amended and so I'm -

Going to recall the vote just to make sure. Yes.

Okay, sorry. [Roll Call]

The vote is three ayes and no no's. We're gonna leave that on call for the rest of our committee members. Thank you so much. Thank you to your witnesses as well. Looking into the audience for authors, I see Assemblymember Reyes has been patient.

Assemblywoman, you're also going to be presenting for Item Number 13 for Wendy Carrillo's bill, is that correct? Okay. So we'll have you start with Item Number Nine: Assembly Bill 1911. When you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Today I present AB 1911, which will improve residential care facilities for the elderly, specifically with regard to complaint investigations performed by the California Department of Social Services. Currently, the experience for individuals who file complaints against an RCFE is inadequate and discourages them from filing.

Oftentimes, CDSS determinations on complaints are not communicated to complainants, leaving them without the information they need to follow up on complaints and unaware of whether their complaints will be investigated. This bill ensures that complainants receive a written notice regarding critical information, including if an investigation is warranted, extensions in the investigatory process, and basic information for following up regarding the case.

The bill also imposes a deadline of 90 days for completing complaint investigations and requires expedited investigations if they involve a threat of imminent danger or death or serious harm. Finally, the bill provides an appeals process for complainants who are dissatisfied with the results of CDSS's investigation and enforcement action.

AB 1911 will improve the complaint process by improving CDSS's communication with complainants and by imposing clear deadlines on complaint investigations. Here to testify in support of the bill are Jaclyn Flores, a consumer and policy advocate with the California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, and Blanca Castro, with the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.

Thank you so much. Thank you both for being here. You'll each have two minutes to present, okay?

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

Under current law, the Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, or CCLD, is not required to send written notices to complainants on whether their complaint will be investigated, information on what to expect throughout the investigation process, no deadlines on when complaints should be completed, and there is no appeals process.

Licensees are given four levels of appeal when they are unhappy with the complaint investigation, while complainants get none. Recently, I filed a complaint for a resident about an unlawful eviction. My complaint cited laws and regulations that were clearly violated, but I never received a response from CCLD about who would be investigating, when I could expect the complaint to be investigated, or if my complaint would even be investigated.

After contacting the regional office, I was informed CCLD would not be investigating my complaint because the resident filed one herself previously and CCLD determined it unsubstantiated. My complaint was never considered and CCLD never communicated with me about the resident's unsubstantiated complaint and how it related to my own.

After many emails with an assistant program administrator and a regional manager, my complaint was reevaluated, investigated, and ultimately substantiated. Basic communication, deadlines, and options to appeal the outcome of an investigation about an RCFE should be the default.

AB 1911 seeks to implement guidelines that are already implemented in nursing homes and would provide complainants greater assurance their complaint will be taken seriously. On behalf of CANHR and advocates across California, we respectfully request your aye vote on AB 1911 to improve regulatory compliance and the delivery of care for a vulnerable population. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Alvarado-Gil and Members of the Senate Human Services Committee. Blanca Castro, and I am the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. We have about 200,000 people in long-term care facilities that are also known as assisted living. That does not include skilled nursing facilities. The ombudsman are resident advocates.

This last year, we had about 10,340 verified complaints and the top five complaints in assisted living are physical abuse, gross neglect, financial exploitation, discharge, evictions, and psychological abuse. Now, this bill will actually require the Department of Age, Department of Social Services, to collaborate more quickly, not only with the Long-Term Care Ombudsman, but also with the complainants, because anybody can file a complaint, whether you work there, whether you're a family member, any mandated reporter.

And it does currently have--we have no way of knowing when they're going to investigate what happened when they investigated, and whether or not they're going to take any enforcement action, because the Ombudsman is not the enforcer. We do not issue penalties, civil penalties, et cetera. So we're asking for your aye support today.

This is one bill that is going to strengthen the rights of older adults and older adults with disabilities. And I just want to close with this: just recently, we had a gentleman who reached out to the Department of Aging, and they referred the call to me. He has the inability to--because he has Parkinson's.

He was in an assisted living facility, or so he thought, and he contacted us and was going to go to the food pantry, and he needed transportation. First of all, he shouldn't go to a food pantry. When we went out and checked on him, it was an unlicensed facility. There were seven other people in this facility.

We were able to communicate and cross-complain to not only Adult Protective Services, but the Community Care Licensing Division of CDSS. However, we have not heard what the outcome was of our complaint. This is just one example. We need to know what steps were taken and how we prevent this from happening again. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. Any members of the public wishing to express their support, please come forward with your name, affiliation, and your position.

Good afternoon. Danita Stromgren, volunteer with California AARP, on behalf of our 3.2 million members in California, in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any lead witnesses in opposition, please come forward to be heard. And we'll have you join us here at the table. Thank you for being here. You each have two minutes to present.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Selena Coppi Hornback with the California Assisted Living Association. We remain opposed unless amended to this bill. We have strong concerns that this bill would add additional requirements to the Department of Social Services without adding adequate funding.

This multi-step process will cause further delays in existing functions, such as current appeals that are unresolved, going back to 2022, processing administrator certificates, which currently take seven months, and maintaining timely background checks, in addition to meeting the requirements to conduct annual inspections of all RCFEs. Thank you.

Thank you. Amber King, with Leading Age California, representing nonprofit providers of care services and housing for older adults, similar to the Assisted Living Association, where are concerned with the capacity of DSS to carry out the appeals process in the bill without the additional funding or resources that they might need.

The Department is already facing a backlog of many of the programs that we've already heard about, and we're just concerned that this will add an additional layer on top of that. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any members of the public that would like to express their opposition, please come forward. You can stay here. We might have some questions for you. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Roxanne Gould, representing Six Beds. It's an association of small residential care facilities for the elderly. Six beds or fewer. We consider the Assemblywoman a rock star and an ally in supporting the most vulnerable among us. We share the concerns in terms of cost and workforce availability.

You're in opposition?

And we are in opposition.

Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, we will bring the conversation back to the Committee. Questions? Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. And, Chair, do you mind if I ask a question of one of the lead witnesses? Is that okay?

That's okay.

Could you just repeat the numbers you said about the number of people in California who live in skilled nursing and then live in assisted living?

Yes, absolutely. So in California in the assisted living, we have 200,000 beds and approximately 8,000 licensed residential care facilities for the elderly, also known as assisted living. Another 1,200 skilled nursing facilities and about 100,000 beds there.

And the number of complaints you said that was received?

Verified complaints, in 2023, just with the assisted living facilities or in assisted living facilities, 10,340.

Okay, thank you. Well, I just, I want to express my strong support for this bill. So in some ways, I think that these, the requirements that we are now imposing are their common sense things like acknowledging that a complaint was received.

I think some of these things, we just assume that they're already happening and that as an institution, we would be providing the basic respect of saying we have received this and we will be investigating it, and then to have some type of a process that can be relied upon.

So I think keeping in mind how vulnerable these populations are, both of them, the skilled nursing population, which does have a particular complaint process, and then this other assisted living population, which is sometimes very close in terms of the people who are living in these facilities, they move from one to the next.

And to me, it makes every sense that we would not have a system where there could be the institutional betrayal, essentially, of trying to deal with an agency after feeling like you've been wronged and then not getting any response.

So, you know, I think keeping the best interest of patients in mind, we, of course, need things to be properly resourced and capacity to be there. And this might be a step two. I mean, if there's a recognition that we don't have what's needed. But to me, this seems like a baseline that we should already be doing.

And I want to make sure that we, when somebody feels they've been wrong, that we're not compounding that. And sometimes that secondary trauma can be more than the first, when people go through this long process and they're unable to get any type of a resolution or even know that they're cared about.

So I think this is really important, and I'm grateful that you brought it forward. And, of course, we need to also make sure it's properly resourced. And with that, I'll move it when appropriate.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you. And I'm not sure which, who would probably be the best to answer the following, but historically, the issues, and I'm really concerned with the fact that we have the backlog that we do have currently that goes back to 2022, the seven month backlog with the timely checks on the complaints that we have currently.

So I am really concerned about how do we pass another ordinance where we are not currently enforcing what we already have? And that's one of the biggest eye opening comments that I make since I've been here. This is my fourth year in the Legislature, but many of our departments are severely underfunded.

Even when we had our surplus, we still were underfunded on many of these, on many of these agencies. And the concern that I have is adding another layer of it when we can't even fulfill what we currently have with the backlog back to 2022. That's ridiculous.

And I'm just kind of curious. When we've had budget conversations in the past, as I said, I'm not sure if any of you would have the capacity to answer these questions. What has been the advocacy to increase the funding in these particular departments as we move forward?

And the second part of it is, do we have a budget request to allow extra funding for, and I know this is for a different Committee, but I'm just kind of curious. In order to support this, I want to make sure that we're having the conversations about the funding in order to implement another requirement.

Senator, is your question for the author?

Anyone. It's open because I'm not sure. We don't have the actual Department here to answer for them. So I'm not sure if anybody would have the ability to answer the question.

If I may begin. And then I'd love for the witnesses to add. When we're talking about opposition that we have received, these concerns are largely focused on the Department of Social Services's capacity to establish and maintain multi step appeals process without creating further backlog.

Although I absolutely do appreciate the concern and believe we should do everything we can to fund these investigations, we must demand more of the Department. Even with the current resources. Based on anecdotes brought forward by organizations like Kanner, it's clear that the status quo is not working.

I appreciate in the analysis provided by the Committee at the very end, under comments, I think it says it all, that here we have a Department that doesn't even acknowledge, as the Senators has said, doesn't even acknowledge they received a complaint. So the family or the very resident is wondering, have they received it?

Should I be expecting an answer? They received nothing. And then also on the appeals process, they aren't even told that they have the ability to appeal and what the process would be.

I think that by demanding more of the Department, and the Department, absolutely, during our budget hearings, as we know, can come forward and say we need additional funding, but to leave the status quo as it is, I think is a serious problem.

So your hope with this particular bill would be that by passing this bill that they will basically reformat the process moving forward, how to file the complaints and how to address the complaints as they move forward. It's basically updating their process.

And as was mentioned, each of those residents deserves to be treated with dignity. If a complaint has been received, that complaint should be acknowledged. And that's the very first step.

The fact that, and it's hard to believe, and when I read about the issue, to know that you can complain about something and there's crickets. Nobody is acknowledging that they have received your complaint. You don't know if they're working on it. We did include specific information about critical or if death, possibility of death.

Those have to be worked on immediately. They can't be put, we can't be told there's such a backlog, we can't even take care of those. No, those have to go to the very top. They have to be acknowledged. Those have to be worked on immediately.

And one final comment, Chair, if I may. This would be a perfect example of how we could actually use AI to generate those automatic responses when something is received and have note on there if it's a critical life and death and so forth. I think this would be a great example of where we could actually utilize new resources addressing with AI.

And we would imagine that because it's available that that would be done. Unfortunately, it isn't.

But I do want to add, Senators, that currently the Department of Public Health that oversees skilled nursing facilities does employ a notification. When we do submit any complainant immediately, 10 days or sooner, there's a notice, it's a letter saying here we're going to investigate.

This is the name of the analyst who's investigating your complaint, and we will respond back with our findings. That's all we're asking. And in this bill, it says that on or after July 1, 2025 the Department will do this. So we're not saying go back to all of the complaints that you have as a backlog. We're saying starting from 2025, July 1, let's implement this process.

I would also like to add, we did also include a graduated timeline to give the Department of Social Services more time to investigate these complaints as well. And also, this bill is only asking the Department to just do what they're supposed to be doing already, which is investigating the complaints and having a backlog.

So far, some people actually pass away before their complaints even get investigated. And once again, it's really important to highlight that providers get four levels of appeal and complainants don't have any. And as Blanca also added that in skilled nursing facilities, they do also have an appeals process.

And this bill is modeled after the complaint investigations in skilled nursing facilities. And within skilled nursing facilities, there's only about 24 informal conferences per year. So the appeals process is not utilized as much as we anticipate it to be, at least in nursing homes. And this information was given by the Public Records Act Request as well.

Thank you. Answers to your question, Senator?

Yes, thank you.

All right. So really, for me, this is a bill about accountability, something that our State Department should already be doing, as you said, the minimum acknowledging receipt. And I just, I cannot fathom somebody waiting years to even know that their complaint has been acknowledged.

And so I'm saddened that we have to have a legislative act in order to hold accountable state agencies. So we have to do better. And if it means that we need to continue as legislators to put pressure on our state agencies to do better, we will continue to do that. But we should not have to. Right.

So thank you so much for bringing this forward. I think we have a motion, I heard a motion from Senator Blakespear. So would you like to close before we do the roll call?

I do want to thank everyone sitting at the table. These are our champions. They are the ones who are taking care of those who are in need. There may be objection to language of the bill, but I know that the work that needs to be done, I know is something that we all get to work on together. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Right, so I have a motion from Senator Blakespear. Please call the roll.

Motion is passed to appropriations. [Roll Call]

So ayes are four, Noes, zero. We will leave that on call. Thank you so much. Thank you for being here. Assemblymember, are you ready to present on item number 13, or do you need time?

I am. No, I am.

Okay. All right, witness is coming up. All right, so we. Hello.

So we'll move to item number 13, Assembly Bill 2383 to welcome Assembly Member Frazier. Thank you for joining us here today.

Thank you. Good to see you.

Good to see you, too. All right, when you're ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, on behalf of Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, I am proud to present AB 2383 which will ensure that middle income families with children with developmental disabilities are informed about available programs that they likely would qualify for and to allow their child to receive MediCal without their parents income taken into consideration.

Children with developmental disabilities are children with an acute or chronic health condition that require things like therapeutic intervention and skilled nursing care during all or part of the day. Among these conditions are severe lung diseases requiring oxygen or a ventilator Spina Bifida, heart disease, neuromuscular disease, cystic fibrosis and seizure disorders.

Support for medically fragile children and their families is critical to maximizing quality of life and allowing families to be whole. Families may have a limited amount of time with their child or may struggle to ensure their child can participate at school and in age appropriate activities.

Due to financial strains and the complexities of navigating care, it can be difficult for middle income families that are over the threshold to receive MediCal to navigate it.

All state waiver programs allow families that normally wouldn't qualify for MediCal to receive it for their child, helping to cover the cost of care and offer care coordination support. This gives families more time to be with their child, but there is an information gap that leaves these waiver programs that could dramatically improve a family situation underutilized.

This bill would create a training for hospital and Regional Center staff to ensure they have up to date information about what waiver programs are offered so they can share that information with families that would likely qualify.

This training would be created with the work of the Department of Social Services, Social Services and Department of Health Care Services, as well as with stakeholder input. Here to talk more about the need for this Bill and answer questions is Assemblymember Jim Frazier, Director of Public Policy at the Arc of California.

Welcome. You know the drill. We'll give you two minutes and we might have some questions for you afterwards.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Jim Frazier with the Arc of California and United Cerebral Palsy California just wanted to thank you and the staff for making a wonderful bill analysis and actually doing the research and finding some information for myself. Also how to work through that process.

With staff turnovers throughout the industry, in the birthing centers and the Regional Centers, there's no process in place to be able to make sure that there's institutional knowledge or a protocol to be able to offer these waivers.

Darby's legacy as mentioned in the bill analysis, unfortunately, Cindy Ann couldn't be here today, Darby's mother, to share with you the arduous process that she went through to try to get services.

This bill will create the training necessary to be able to opt in to these waiver programs to create all of the compassionate care that these families deserve with the medically fragile, the developmentally disabled, and what they would call medically incapable.

And so I just am here and thank you for the opportunity to be able to testify in front of you. And I want to thank my good friend Assemblymember Reyes and Assemblymember Carillo and her team for helping us bring this forward to you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote, thank you.

Thank you so much. Any Members of the public that want to express their support for Assembly Bill 2383. Please come forward.

Hi, Justin Bowers. Cleanearthforkids.org strongly supports. In addition, the North County or North County equity injustice, ecosustainability, peeps and the NCCCA also strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition that would like to be heard today? Seeing none. Any Members of the public that would like to express their opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring the conversation back to Committee questions. Committee Members? I don't see any. All right. Would you like to close?

Well, on behalf of Assemblymember Carillo, she would like to thank the Committee staff for working with her office as well as the sponsor of the Arc of California. With that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much. Do we have a motion moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh, assistant, please call the roll.

Motion is do pass to Health Committee. [Roll Call]

All right. Ayes are 4, 0 no's. We will leave that belong call. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you. Right, all right, take a little bit of a stretch break. Right now. Let's see where we at. Right. I see Member Alanis is here. Item number seven, are you ready for Assembly Bill 1817 to be presented? Wonderful.

Okay. And then we'll move to item number 11. Assembly Member Rivas, any witnesses with you here today?

No, chair.

No worries.

Keeping it simple,

I have to give instruction for people to put their chairs back in order.

Yeah, I thought maybe they'd run back in.

Right. Right. Okay, great.

All right. Well, good afternoon, Chair and Colleagues. First and foremost, I want to thank the Chair, staff and Committee staff for analyzing and working on this crucial Bill. So thank you guys very much. AB 1817 would create two new goals to end and prevent youth homelessness under the Homeless Youth Act of 2018.

Under this act, the Legislature established four goals to track and prevent homelessness among those ages 12 to 24. And the current goals are; one, decrease the number of homeless youth. Two, decrease homelessness caused by separation from family or a legal guardian. Three, decrease the duration and frequency of homeless experiences.

And number four, expedite access to social services, welfare services, Regional Centers, and mental health care. AB 1817 would add two additional goals to this list. One, decrease the number of homeless youth experiencing food insecurity and two, increased access to employment opportunities and economic stability.

This Bill would create a more comprehensive list of goals for battling this ongoing housing crisis. Between 2020 and 2022, the percentage of adults ages 18 to 24 experiencing food insecurity rose from 36.7% to 47.7%. Homelessness can increase the likelihood of chronic health conditions, mental health issues, substance abuse and more.

Senators, this legislation will help the Commission view homelessness with a broader, more exclusive lens, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any Members of the public wishing to express their support, please come to the microphone.

Welcome.

Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth, one of the co sponsors of SB 918 and support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Justin Bowers with CleanEarth4Kids.org strongly supports. In addition, North County Equity & Justice Coalition, Eco-Sustainability Peeps and the NCCCA also strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition of today's Bill? Seeing none. And Members of the public wishing to express their opposition. All right, we'll bring the conversation back to Committee. Questions? Comments? All right, seeing none. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? So, moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh? Assistant, please call the roll.

Motion is passed to housing Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, we have ayes are four, no, zero. We will leave that Bill on call.

Thank you, chair. Thank you, Senators.

Thank you. All right. Assemblymember Rivas, while you are getting situated, I'm gonna move us to the consent calendar. We have eight bills on the proposed consent calendar. File item number three. Assembly Bill 1876.

File item five. Assembly Bill 1808. File item eight. Assembly Bill 2866. File item 10. Assembly Bill 2207. File item 12. Assembly Bill 2343. File item 15. Assembly Bill 2664. File item 16. Assembly Bill 2906. And file item 20. Assembly Bill 2830. Do any Members wish to remove bills from consent? See none.

Do I have a motion moved by Senator Menjivar. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Aye is four, no's zero. We will leave the consent on call. All right. Thank you so much for being here. Looking forward to item number 11. Assembly Bill 1947.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start by thanking you and your team for working with me and my staff on the most recent amendments to this bill, AB 1947, would expand the number of staff training days for California State preschool programs and allocate one of those days for dual language learner training.

In 2020, the Governor released the master plan intended to transform the state's approach to early childhood education. The master plan provides a roadmap to address racial and economic inequities and calls for legislation to require developmental assessments both in English and in children's home languages, among other things.

In 2021, California signed into law AB 1363, which took the first step of implementing the master plan by requiring the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop a standardized process for California State preschool program providers to identify DLL's AB 1947 builds on the progress made in AB 1363 in achieving the goals of the master plan to support our DLL's by helping our educators cater to the learning needs of our children.

Today, I have with me to provide testimony Carolyn Crolla, Director of dual language learner programs at early Edge California, and Christina Salazar, legislative advocate for Californians, together, thank you both for being here.

You'll each have two minutes to present.

Thank you and good afternoon, esteemed chair and Members of the Committee. First, we'd like to thank the Assembly Member for her incredible leadership in the space of supporting dual language learners. As she mentioned, taking the first step with AB 1363 to create this first in the nation supports for dual language learners process for identification and data collection.

And also thank you to the staff for their incredible analysis on the Bill, which really points to the need and the clear articulation as to why we need this Bill, which is that consistently, research shows that multilingualism reaps numerous benefits not only for the children, but also for larger society and for the state, and then also that staff who teach and support our young DLL's really need access to training about how to best support their cultural and linguistic needs, as well as how to effectively engage families to support their children's learning at home.

And so we simply cannot ignore the needle for our state, which is the largest, the state with the largest percentage of dual language learners in the nation to effectively support their needs. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you.

Thank you. Christina Salazar with Californians Together. We're a proud co sponsor. I would second everything that our early edge partners stated and just want to add that AB 1947 would not only benefit educators, but ultimately creates a more supportive and well rounded learning environment for all children.

By empowering our early childhood educators with the necessary skills and knowledge, AB 1947 effectively supports them with educational and developmental needs for all children, including dual language learners. Lastly, as a mom of a three year old and an almost two year old, I appreciate the latest amendments on the 30 day notice.

So thank you and would appreciate your support.

Thank you so much. All right, any Members of the public wishing to express their support, please come forward. Thank you.

Nicole Wortleman. On behalf of the children's partnership and support, thank you.

Hi, Carol Gonzalez. On behalf of his finance, organized for political equality and support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. And we're in strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon to Barry Sanders with catalyst California, strong support. Thank you.

Mckenzie Richardson, Thriving Families California, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Carlos Rojas, representing the Kern County Superintendent of school's office and support.

Thank you. Anna Ioakimedes, on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Thank you so much. Any lead witnesses in opposition here today? Members of the public that would like to express their opposition, please come forward. Okay, seeing none, we will move the conversation back to Committee. Questions or comments? Okay, we have a motion from Senator Blakespear. Would you like to close today? Thank you.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much. We have a motion from Senator Blakespear. Assistant, please call the roll.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]. We have four ayes and zero no's.

We will leave that Bill on call. Thanks for being here. All right, I saw Assemblymember Wallace come in. We're gonna move to file number 14 Assembly Bill 2410. Assemblymember, do you have any witnesses with you today?

I do not.

Okay, we will move forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I am here today to present Assembly Bill 2410 which addresses senior nutrition. The California Department of Aging currently has two meal programs for seniors who face food insecurity, the Congregate Meals program and the Home-delivered Nutrition program. During COVID many cities provided meals to go rather than congregate to protect seniors.

With this change, they reported serving significantly more seniors. It's important that we take lessons from the pandemic to improve our government services.

This bill will continue to provide the to-go option for seniors who are food and secure as an option within the Congregate Meals program, many seniors are required to take prescriptions during mealtimes and these schedules can be different from congregate meal schedules. Thank you to the Committee staff for the Bill analysis.

I'd like to address the fiscal impact referenced in the analysis. When my Bill first went to Assembly Appropriations Committee, cost estimates were based on creating an entirely new food program and was tagged with a substantial General Fund price tag.

It was never our intent to create a new program, but rather our goal is simply to provide flexibility within the Congregate Meals program. The Bill in front of you does just that and should add no additional cost to the Congregate Meals program. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for that clarification. Any Members of the public wishing to express their support, please come forward to the microphone.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Caroline Grinder on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Darby Kernan on behalf of Leading Age California in support.

Thank you. Any lead witnesses in opposition that would like to be heard today? Members of the public that would like to express their opposition, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll move the conversation back to Committee. Questions? Senator Blakespear.

Yes. Thank you. I plan to support this Bill, but I just wanted to express my concern about if we are. If we see an effort to eliminate the in-person eating completely, because I think we learned many lessons from the pandemic. One of them was loneliness is an epidemic, and it's getting worse, especially among seniors.

So, having. I visited some of these meal options where people are eating together, they're breaking bread, they're sharing their stories of their lives, they're creating community. And so there are a lot of ancillary benefits of providing meals together.

And also, some seniors don't have the ability to reheat food, and they might not have ovens or microwaves in their places. So, I just want to.

I support this because more options is better, but I want to also just make sure to state on the record that I hope that there isn't an effort to move toward only a pickup or a delivery option and not a congregate eating. Thank you.

Thank you for your note. Questions or concerns? All right, would you like to close?

Just respectfully request, and aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? All right. Moved by Senator Menjivar. Assistant, please call the roll.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

We have. The ayes are four, zero noes. We'll leave that bill on call. Thank you so much. All right, we have two more bills that are going to be heard today. Item number 18. Assembly Member Grayson, I see that you're here. Thank you. We will hear now Assembly Bill 2774 when you're ready. And we'll invite your witnesses to come forward and take a seat.

Thank you so very, very much. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. AB 2774 establishes the Child Care for Working Families Task Force and requires that the task force submit a report that recommends future comprehensive strategies aimed at addressing challenges faced by working families in accessing flexible, affordable, and quality childcare options.

Affordable child care is unfortunately out of reach for many Californians. Too many families continue to fall through the care gaps. And with just about 14% of the state's eligible infants and toddlers having access to subsidized childcare, there are really significant portions of families that fall victim to what is called the care cliff.

The lack of affordable childcare disproportionately burdens working mothers, who often take on caregiving responsibilities when families cannot find or even afford care.

However, I do believe that there is a great need to change the narrative that child care is not only a social or womens issue, but is an economic imperative for the growth of the State of California.

Childcare is a policy issue that cuts across many of the areas such as public interest, including workforce participation, economic mobility, public health, and even energy and infrastructure. That is why we have to explore. We must explore the need for renewed investments in childcare and solutions aimed at tackling the child care crisis head on.

There has been plenty of incredible, and I do want to note, incredible and critical work that our state has already done and continues to do. Namely, if I could, it would be the Blue Ribbon Commission and the Governor's master plan on early care and education.

But things have really drastically changed since Covid-19 pandemic, and there hasn't yet been a thorough review on the economic impact on working families.

So given the budgetary changes and the potential for more next year as we're facing it, we need a post Covid review and stakeholder convening that revisits the current potential policies under the new reality of our state deficit and the changing economics for California families.

And addressing childcare affordability helps build a competitive economy, and new ways of approaching the care crisis is both beneficial for families, vital for business, and critical to the recovery of California economy as the state goes or moves through this multi-year budget deficit, I do want to acknowledge that I am currently working to strengthen the language of AB 2774 to clarify that the intent of the Bill clarify the intent of the Bill, but also to ensure that the Bill is complementary to existing work and not duplicative.

So with me, and through the Chair, we do have a witness here today. Denyne Colburn, Chief Executive Officer of Thriving Families California.

Welcome. And you'll have two minutes to present.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Denyne Colburn, CEO of Thriving Families California. For over 20 years, I have been involved in the implementation evaluation, strengthening erosion of California's childcare, and now the rebuilding of California's childcare.

Kudos to your staff who did an amazing job laying out the history as well as past work that has been done in this area.

As your analysis notes, there have been numerous work groups, master plans, the 2019 Blue Ribbon Commission, and more attesting to the value of accessible childcare to the lives of families, as well as the long-term outcome that quality childcare has on the lives of kids.

However, California has not done enough to build on the connection of a strong, viable family child care provider business and center workforce and the economic impact it directly has on businesses, job growth, and thriving economy. Studies have noted that for every dollar that is invested in childcare, $7 to $13 goes back into the economy.

AB 2774 connects the dots and aspires to create a framework that builds upon, not duplicates, previous work. It is further our belief that this bill will put a magnifier on the crucial need to support childcare accessible by families in California's 24-hour, seven-day-a-week economy.

Families need this, as do employers, to support job growth, economic development and a healthy economy. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We're going to give the members of the public an opportunity to share their support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, excuse me. And Senators, Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties in support.

Thank you.

Justin Bowers with Clean Earth 4 Kids.org strongly supports. In addition, North County Equity and Justice, Eco Sustainability Peeps and the NCCCA also strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any lead witnesses in opposition that would like to be heard today? Members of the public that would like to express their opposition, please come forward. See none will bring the conversation back to the Committee. Have Senator Blakespear thank you.

Yes, this is a great bill. I think to change the narrative on childcare, we do need to have employers involved and we need to center it in an economic space instead of just a family space. So I very much appreciate you focusing on GO-Biz and not suggesting moving it to another Department.

I think that that's really the right call and important for us to have new ideas so that we can really figure this out. So thank you again for the bill and I'm happy to move it.

Great. Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? Okay.

Assemblymember, I wanted to just kind of unpack the strategy behind housing this and GO-Biz. So help me understand kind of where that goal is.

Thank you very much for that question. And as was already stated by your colleague on the Committee here, and also from the fact that I come from a lens of being very passionate about early childhood education, having over two decades of personal experience in early childhood education, and I saw the effects of our early childhood education crisis move us, and trying to address it through the singular or siloed lens of a social lens, and not taking into consideration the input of business and work, and then to see the Commission and all of the good work that the Blue Ribbon Commission came out with and the strategy of the Governor, and that was all a really great effort.

And then the pandemic hit. I lived through that pandemic with this experience of seeing early childhood education being impacted in a huge way. We're still recovering. We are still in huge recovery mode in the early childhood education sphere. So with that, it is good.

And if I may reference what actions and statements based on the federal level, decision makers such as Secretary Gina Raimondo of the US Department of Commerce insisted that the country needs to change the narrative.

And so this is kind of the impetus of where it all came from, that childcare is only a social or wins issue, but is an economic imperative for the growth of the country. So by parking this into GO-Biz, it brings business and the economy into the conversation. So that.

Not that we needed anything more to legitimize the conversation, but this sure does make it more substantive and it brings people into the conversation. Should have been in way earlier. And with that, I believe GO-Biz would be a great partner.

It doesn't preclude the fact that they can't go out and involve other state agencies as well as, you know, other contractors that can do a thorough report.

Okay, great. All right. Thank you for that. Right. Would you like to close?

That was my close.

That was your close. Okay. All right. Do I have a motion?

I'll move.

Okay. Senator Blakespear, we have a motion. Senator Blakespear. Assistant, please call the roll.

Assistant, please call the roll. Motion is do pass to business, professions and economic development Committee. [Roll Call]

Aye's are five zeros. No's. That bill is out. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

We have one more bill to be heard today, item number 17, Assembly Bill 2802. Assemblymember Maienschein. Welcome. Any witnesses with you here today? Thank you. Welcome. We'll have you go ahead and join us here at the table and begin when you are ready.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair and members here very pleased to present AB 2802, which seeks to create more gender inclusive options for housing arrangements within transitional housing placement programs, or THP programs.

THP programs serve as a lifeline for current and former foster youth over the age of 18 suffering from homelessness, offering them temporary relief and crucial support services tailored to their needs. However, when implementing these programs, providers often encounter challenges in placing youth stemming from exclusionary and discriminatory practices present in certain counties.

These challenges arise from rigid, binary, gender-based rules for housing arrangements. We must acknowledge the harsh realities faced by many transgender, gender, nonconforming, non-binary and intersex individuals in the state.

Currently, the designation of housing vacancies as male and female creates barriers for individuals, siblings and co-parenting youth who wish to live together but who do not share the same gender identity.

AB 2802 aims to rectify these disparities by allowing foster youth in transitional housing to share rooms with roommates, siblings or co parents who do not share the same gender identity with the approval of the provider on a case-by-case basis.

By enabling siblings and co-parenting youth to room together, we strengthen family bonds and provide a more supportive environment for those who need it most. In doing so, this bill promotes flexibility in gender identification for room assignments, accommodating the diverse needs of all California residents irrespective of their gender identity or expression.

This bill is about upholding the value of compassion, inclusivity and equity. By supporting this bill, we take a significant step towards creating a more just society where every individual, regardless of their gender identity, feels valued and supported. And I respectfully request, and aye vote.

Thank you so much, and you'll have two minutes to present.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Purva Bhattacharjee with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services.

We represent 165 different community-based organizations throughout the state, some of which run transitional housing placement programs for current and former foster youth, typically over the age of 18, to help them thrive into adulthood by providing necessary life skills training and housing.

The California Alliance is proud to sponsor AB 2802, which allows for gender flexibility in these THPs. These programs serve a diverse population of youth, including LGBTQ youth, as well as pregnant and co-parenting youth. According to the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, about 30% of foster youth identify as LGBTQ.

According to the National Foster Youth Institute, almost 60% of girls in foster care become pregnant by the age of 19. Despite the unique needs of this population, some counties require participants to be of the same gender when sharing a unit together.

This poses difficulties for gender expansive youth, co-parents who wish to raise a child together and siblings who are of different genders. This bill was inspired by Levi Nunez, a trans male and former foster youth, and in a THP who had to identify as female his gender assigned at birth to avoid homelessness.

By continuing to allow this discriminatory practice of not allowing providers to place participants together regardless of gender, siblings and co-parenting partners will also continue to be forced to separate and not allowed to live together simply because they are not the same gender.

Thus, by implementing a policy statewide that allows for providers and participants to jointly decide on the best placement and roommate options for the youth on a case-by-case basis, regardless of gender, we will be able to better accommodate the needs for all youth in these programs.

For these reasons, the California Alliance urges an aye vote on AB 2802.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Any members of the public that would like to express their support please come forward.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kelly Mac Millan with Political Solutions on behalf of California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists.

Kim Lewis on behalf of the California Coalition for Youth and Aspiranet in support.

Thank you.

Kristin Power, Alliance for Children's Rights, and in support.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any lead witnesses in opposition that would like to be heard? Seeing none. Any members of the public that would like to express their opposition? Okay, we'll move the conversation back to committee. Questions for our author? Senator Ochoa Bogh with a question.

And I heard a motion from Senator Blakespear.

I have a question based on what I understood as the bill is intended. Are there any parameters of safety or - I probably should start with what are the current safety standards that we currently have to ensure that we don't have older youth, with younger youth?

Let me just be frank, I'm really concerned about having older youth with very young youth in the same room, just based on examples or stories that I've heard of almost; I can't think of anything other than incestuous relations and ensuring that we're protecting the minors from older from older.

I'll let my witness answer that if she'd like. But what I would say is that that's not what this, this doesn't change what you're expressing. What this would allow is one a further option. It'd still be a case-by-case basis.

It doesn't change anything in existing law that would make sure that what I get at individuals that you're concerned need protection would be protected.

So, what do we currently have in law? What is current law?

So currently we have two different kinds of programs. The THP-NMD program, which is non minor dependent. So, it's a completely separate program from the minors. And so those NMDs typically have a staff either on site 24/7 or staff definitely checking in very often. It's also regulated by CDSS and so making sure that safety is a priority.

There's definitely a lot of already oversight in those programs as well, by having the staff on site as well. And then separately, the THP Minor program, very small program, typically for 16 and 17-year-olds who are on track to emancipate themselves.

And so usually providers pair up 16-year-olds with other 16-year-olds, and there's a staff required to be on site 24/7. And in practice, usually the youth has a room to themselves in those programs because the idea is to help prepare them for adulthood.

And so, in order to have their own space, they definitely prioritize that as well.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions, comments from committee? All right, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, and I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you so much. We have a motion from Senator Blakespear. Assistant, please call the roll.

Motion is do pass to Governmental Organization Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay, so we have four ayes, zero no's. That bill is out. Thank you so much. We're now going to lift the call. We will go through the items once before we close up the hearing for today. Okay, can we start with the consent calendar and then go down the line?

Consent calendar. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye.

Ayes 5, 0 no's. That Bill is out or consent calendar is out.

[Roll Call]

So I don't think anyone was here for...

We have several bills.

Let's call for a motion. If there was a motion moved by Senator Hurtado. Item number one.

[Roll Call]

Okay, Aye's three no, zero. That Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 5. No, zero. That goes out.

[Roll Call]

Do we have a motion for reconsideration on file number 17, Assembly Bill 3217? Okay. Moved by Senator Blakesfield Blakespear. This vote is on the reconsideration, not on the Bill. So call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Now call the Bill.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Okay.

[Roll Call]

Ayes four, no zero. That bills out.

[Roll Call]

I need a motion. Motion called by Senator Menjivar. Thank you. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

I's are five, no's are zeros. That Bill is out. Thank you so much to our staff, and thank you, Members. We are now going to adjourn the Senate Committee on Human Services and have a great evening.