Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. We'll start this Public Safety Committee Hearing. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We have quorum here. We have two bills this morning. First up is Mr. Jones-Sawyer. AB 852 and number one. Welcome back. I think it's your last time.

Yeah, well, I thought that the last time. So, Mister Chair and Members, I present AB 852, a cleanup bill that clarifies the intent of AB 89.

In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 89, which increased the age requirement for peace officers in a state from 18 to 21 years of age, following data that older officers are better equipped for the job.

That bill also required the California community colleges to make recommendations on associates degree in modern policing in order to increase the education requirement from a GED to an associate degree in modern policing or a bachelor's degree.

This year, the CCC's have crafted a model curriculum for a modern policing degree, which will serve as the minimum educational level for peace officers. AB 852 clarifies the intent of AB 89 to provide a choice between the associate's degree and a bachelor degree.

This bill will also extend the deadline for new recruits that have to meet new requirements in line with community college degree timelines and addressing law enforcement recruitment concerns. Lastly, AB 852 gives new recruits up to 36 months after the beginning of their employment to meet the degree requirement.

This cleanup bill was developed in collaboration with law enforcement stakeholders and community colleges alike, and enjoys bipartisan support. Thankfully, I respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Thank you. You have a witness. I don't know if he wants to come.

Okay.

You want to sit down? Yeah. Anywhere else to go? I just want to get a picture of this for the final. Final. I'm going to put this in the archives.

There we go. Politics brings people together, you know? It's a good thing. Chair and Members. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, sponsors of the original bill, thank the author for work on this issue and cleaning up this legislation so we can make sure that we have enough time to implement the standard moving forward. Ask your aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Others in support, please come forward. Opposition? Any opposition to this bill hearing? None. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Yes. Yes. Okay. Yeah, go ahead. Mister Zbur.

I support the bill. Great to sort of see the broad perspective. I'm just curious what your assessment is going to be in terms of impact on recruitment of. You know, I think. I think it's good that we actually have the additional standard, the additional education, all of that.

I'm just curious how you think that's going to affect recruitment.

I think now that we've, we've had a standard that everyone in the community will believe that we now have raised a level of not only proficiency, but having better officers to understand community and other things, I think other people will then say, that might be something I want to do. Because it is. It is.

Now we're training people, not in the old way of doing things, because there were some patterns that were taught, especially when you become a new recruit, you get in and you get taught some bad habits. This will set the stage to over maybe 10 years from now.

We look back on this day when you voted on this, that the reason people now respect law enforcement, people in our community, especially in the minority community, are now embracing. They want to be police officers because we have standards that now is not only good for the community, but I think good for the profession as a whole.

And we will be the standard bearer and I think others will follow. Yes, Mister Feldman.

Yeah, just really quickly too. I mean, that was our thinking as well. You know, advanced the education standard. It actually might attract more candidates. And then also, if you look at the numbers from post, for years we did have a deficit between those officers that are retiring or separating from their agencies.

And then the new recruits coming in. Finally in, I think 2023, we saw that flip. And we actually have more recruits coming in than actual separation. So the trend is going in the right direction and something that we've got to keep our eye on as this moves forward and gets implemented.

But I think we're all heading in the right direction and see this actually as an opportunity to reach out to those that we haven't talked to, maybe about joining the ranks. Miss Reyes, I just want to take.

A little exception to the comment that we'll get better police officers because I think we've had some very good ones, including my sister, who did not have a degree. So I think it will provide a basis for a new profession. And I appreciate that also. Thank you. Okay.

Yeah. Thank you, Mister Jones. Sawyer. I'll let you close in a second, but I think this is a great idea.

Yeah. You want a final statement for farewell to your Vice Chair? Right here. From the Vice Chair to the former Chair.

Don't start nothing.

I know you proposed this a couple years ago, but you changed the bill out. And I know from being on ride alongs here at our local SAC PD, I asked one of my college friends who just retired from SAC PD about this years ago, decision making. And he said before the bill was introduced, absolutely.

He saw a correlation from experience in age and decision making and all the things we try to do and better decisions and De escalation. All those tactics sometimes come with age and training and experience. This is a good idea and you have bipartisan support and law enforcement with you.

So thank you for working on this and congratulations on one final bill in the Legislature making California a better state. Mister Jones Sawyer.

Thank you. End with and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, excellent. Please call the roll. On AB 852 by Assembly Member Joan Sawyer. The motion is for the Senate amendments to be concurred in. [Roll Call]

Thank you. Measure passes. We will wait for final bill.

Okay. Good morning Mr. Jackson. We have item number two, Assembly Bill 1799. Begin when you're ready.

Thank you so very much Mr. Chair and Members, I thought it was still very important to have this discussion because obviously it's a very sensitive issue.

And as a trained social worker myself, and someone who's worked directly with children and actually has had to call CPS a few times and have children removed from their homes, I know how sensitive this issue is.

But we also have to know that this law is way overdue from being amended because this current law is actually doing a lot of damage as well. And so that's why the California Child Welfare Council has made this recommendation.

And by the way, the Child Welfare Council is chaired by a justice of our state court and Secretary Galley. And it's made up of many court judges and many professionals on our state's child welfare council. And it was resounding approved in these recommendations.

This law is very technical, which is why I encourage you to ask every single question that you need. This is important because sometimes we can get unnerved because of the technicalities, but we may not know that there's parts of the law that we're not even touching, so please ask as many questions as possible.

We know that mandated reporting is the legal requirement for certain professionals to report any suspected cause cases of child abuse or neglect to the appropriate authorities. Per the federal Child Abuse Prevention Treatment Act, all 50 states have some form of mandated reporting laws.

California has one of the most extensive networks of mandated reporters, with over 49 categories of professionals required to report suspected child abuse or neglect. California's expanding mandated reporting laws and categories have produced a decade-long pattern of high levels of allegations. 400,000 to 500,000 children in California were reported to child protective services annually.

However, after review and investigation, nearly 90% of all allegations are not substantiated, meaning there is not a need for CPS involvement for the child to safely remain with their family.

This is a societal crisis, a system that unnecessarily over-survils and overreports children and families, especially black and Native American, inflicting trauma instead of finding new ways to support them to safely stay togethe.

Even after controlling for poverty, data shows that black and Native American children are more likely to be identified by and remain within the child welfare system. The harmful impact on children and families creates a ripple effect throughout communities. Families that are reported and investigated often develop a multigenerational fear of public agencies and become alienated from their natural support networks.

And of course, there's a number of factors but the idea is this. There's the category of general neglect, which is a catch-all, and then there is severe neglect. We are only talking about the category of general neglect. You have some indication that there might be something wrong. You're just not sure what it is.

So the state says, well, you gotta call. And right now we only give them one option of who they should call, and that is CPS.

All we're saying is that if you are a mandated reporter, which means you work for an organization, and you have a professional who is mandated to report, then you can actually use your judgment and collaborate as a team to find out who's the best people to call.

The law will still say you have to call somebody to get them the help that they need. You still have the opportunity to call CPS if you choose to. And so overall, what we're saying is there is a huge backlog. Our systems are being overrun with calls in which 90% of them are not even substantiated.

And so I know there's also a number of questions in regards to CBOs and how all that stuff is going to work.

I actually just got off the phone with Kim Johnson, our director, and she says that if this law is passed, and she's a member of the Child Welfare Council, by the way, as well, that she will be issuing that that department will issue guidance and tell them what's the appropriate calls.

If you get this kind of call, this is the appropriate people you should call. Right? So we are working very closely with the department to making sure that this is done very methodically and very, very, very seriously understanding the seriousness of this issue.

And then lastly, I would just say that, as you know, this was just one of a series of recommendations. Many of the other recommendations have budgetary impacts, which means that it needs to be done through the budget process, in which I will be working with the Administration to make sure that we do that.

You would find it hard to believe that there actually is no universal, right now, there is no universal training that everyone follows. And so we will be putting that in place next year, including the department creating that universal online training for everyone to follow.

Right now, each agency has to do their training according to what the law says. And with that, meaning where I was, my whole staff was mandated reporters, and so we had a protocol to follow, and we know what agencies or CBOs in our communities would be able to best handle this and which ones we shouldn't.

We don't think they have the capability to handle it appropriately. Right. In which then, if we couldn't find anyone, then of course that means we have to call CPS because that would be the next best option. These are professionals within agencies.

These are not just everyday people who may not know the assets that reside in their own communities. And so with that, I look forward to any questions and every question that you may have in order to make sure we're all on the same page. Thank you so much.

Thank you. You have some witnesses here.

Yes. Thank you Mr. Chair and Members, Dawn Koepke on behalf of the Child Abuse Prevention Center and California Family Resource Association, we sincerely appreciate Assemblymember Jackson's work in this area, not only on this Bill in particular, but also his work generally and more broadly in support of children and families through his leadership on the Budget Subcommittee.

The CAP Center is pleased to support AB 1799 as the first step in moving from a focus on primarily mandated reporting to community supporting.

AB 1799 is not the end of this work, but just the beginning and initiates the shift from engaging community-based resources and supports in situations of concern regarding general neglect to help address the challenges and stressors that often lead to these reports to begin with and to help meet those needs head-on.

Importantly, AB 1799 as recently amended strikes a balance between engaging community supports and resources while not outright eliminating reporting obligations across the board.

The Child Abuse Prevention Center and California Family Resource Association, in conjunction with the Family Resource Center network across the state who are based in the communities, trusted by their communities to provide such resources and support, but also as the entities that also provide mandated reporting training in conjunction with the Department of Social Services.

The CAP Center looks forward to ongoing engagement in this work to ensure the goals and objectives of the mandated reporting to community supporting task force are fully realized for the benefit of children and families across the state who would benefit from greater resources, community support, and help to address these stressors that often lead to these reports to begin with. Happy to answer any questions and urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Others in support please come forward. Seeing none, do we have opposition to this Bill? Please come forward. Is there another chair? Is this one? So you have five minutes for your position side.

Okay. I will not take that long. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Eileen Cubanski. I'm with the County Welfare Directors Association and it is with regret that CWDA continues to take an opposed, unless amended position on AB 1799. The Bill was recently amended, but the changes did not address our primary concerns with the Bill.

CWDA is represented and we do support the Child Welfare Council's mandated reporting to community support task force, which developed a comprehensive set of recommendations intended to work together to reform the state's mandated reporting system, including further changes to the reporting of general neglect.

Without implementation of the task force recommendation, of other task force recommendations, the changes proposed by this Bill will not have the intended effect of reducing calls to Child Welfare Services and connecting children and families to needed services, and could actually threaten child safety.

California law was recently amended to narrow the definition of general neglect both to eliminate poverty as a factor and also to require that the child must be at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness as a result of negligent failure by their caregivers.

The recent amendments to AB 1799 would give mandated reporters a choice of contacting a community-based organization or service provider in addition to or instead of the Child Welfare Agency, and our concern is that the services in the community outside of the Child Welfare Agency are not necessarily widely available and there's no follow up to ensure the right services to address the family's underlying needs are available or provided, even though the risk is high to the child.

Mandated reporters rely on the expertise of specially trained social workers to do this very complex work. We need to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place, such as updated and consistent training to mandated reporters and an adequate community-based service array in all counties to ensure there is no unintended harm to children.

Therefore, we continue to ask that AB 1799 be amended minimally to delay implementation to July 1, 2026 to enable more of the systemic changes as recommended by the task force to be put in place. And we also have significantly more work to do as a state to build up community-based prevention services statewide.

We want to see the changes intended by this Bill and all the task force recommendations succeed, but we don't think it's best achieved in a piecemeal fashion. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, Tiffany Whiten with SCIU California representing over 750,000 workers. But this morning, in particular to our workers that work within the child welfare system, both social workers and eligibility workers. We have no doubt that the author in this Bill is well-intended.

We agree that there needs to be changes to the mandated reporting requirements. However, AB 1799 is missing important policy considerations related to training for both mandated reporters and CBOs, privacy and confidentiality, as well as funding to implement these changes properly.

Our workers have checks and balances, protocol to follow and training to ensure we are doing it right, and so we just want to ensure that the CBOs have the same. All of our goal is to protect and serve our children and youth and believe the details can't wait to be worked out next year.

There needs to be a holistic conversation where we think about all of the implications, the unintended consequences to ensure that we are protecting the children and the youth that we are trying to serve.

Our workers, also within the child welfare system, have the capability to connect the children and their families to proper services, housing, food, whatever the case may be, we have the ability to do that.

So we just want to ensure that we are doing it right, that we are protecting our children, and that we have a thoughtful conversation on how we get to the goal that we all have here today. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Others in opposition, please come forward.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair and members. Danielle Sanchez, on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California, in opposition today.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Angela Blanchard, on behalf of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists as well as the California Association of Licensed Professional Clinical Counselors, respectfully in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Back to the Committee. Questions or comments from committee members. Mr. Zbur?

So, I see the floor alert from CWDA and they talk about the fact that there is a task force that is looking at sort of comprehensive reforms and that there will be a set of recommendations coming out soon. And I think the thrust of the letter is that they're worried that this sort of thwarts sort of a more comprehensive approach.

So I guess the question I have is why is this necessary now at the end of session and in advance of what this task force is doing? Do you have concerns about what the task force is doing and what's the urgency about doing this at the end of session?

Yeah, I actually, this Bill was a place order because I knew the recommendations were going to come out. And so once that, they asked me to wait until they officially make the recommendation so that I wouldn't get ahead of their announcement that they made. And so that's why it was done that way.

So, but I guess what I'm reading, and maybe this is not right, is that it sounds like there's a series of recommendations. Is this one of them? Is this just one of them?

Yes, this is just one of them. They also recommend that a uniform training be done to be conducted so that everyone in the state who's a mandated reporter will be able to have received the same training. And by the way, doesn't exist for even the current law, by the way, right?

And so, and then also making sure that there is encouraging the LAO to continue to do their work, to continue to find ways and investigate as the law continues to do. There's a series of legislative recommendations as well as agency recommendations that are being done. So this is just one of, I think, three or four legislative recommendations.

Of course, the other part is, as you know, to be able to create a website and all that kind of stuff, we know how long that's going to take and that is more appropriately done through the budget process and which is why I'm committed to doing as well.

And if we need to do any cleanup in terms of a delay or anything like that, I'm more than happy to do that. I'm not opposed to that. I think it's just a difference of how we want to roll it out, really. But if you look at all the organizations that are also supporting it as well, you will see that it is very widely supported also.

So I'm not seeing support. So it's not, at least not in the member portfolio. I'm just sort of seeing the three.

Support for the Bill or for the recommend for the Bill?

Are the 603 2024? Because it said it was a gut and amend. So I didn't look at any of this. Are all those folks still supporting this version of the Bill?

Oh no, for the Bill? Yeah.

For the Bill.

No, we're talking about the more, the more, the most latest supporters.

Okay.

Because it was, it was even amended before it even went to Committee. So it actually did go through Public Safety Committee before it went to the floor. So it wasn't amended on the floor.

Okay. Two other questions. I'm sure people have others. So does the Bill do anything? I appreciate sort of, you know, some of the concerns that are raised about mandated reporting in terms of the impacts that has on over reporting conditions of families that, you know, frankly, if the, you know, you didn't have sort of vulnerable communities, it's stuff that wouldn't be reported because people, you know, our mandated reporters are sort of over-reporting and then really triggering oversight into people's lives that is not necessarily different yardsticks are being used.

Right. So I've always had problems with mandated reporting. Does this Bill, or do the recommendations that are coming out of the task force, do they make recommendations on the standards for mandated reporters?

And that's where the guidance, like I mentioned, the Department of Social Services will issue guidance based upon the amendment of the law to be able to help to very much clarify. And then, of course, the training after which, and of course, we don't know how long that training, how much, how long it will take to complete that training.

But I have been assured, as of before I walked in here, that the Department will issue guidance that the governor signs the Bill.

And so the, I know one of the issues that was raised was whether, was sort of the standards by which the entities to which either would be alternate reporting, whether they were subject to sort of adequate standards. Is that what would be happening in the guidelines? Or is there sort of, or do standards need to be developed for the alternate reporting entities?

Yeah. Because that amendment that was made to it was actually a request from the Administration in which they will actually offer guidance on that too. But as someone who, if you work for an agency who has professionals who are mandated reporters by law, right, there's a whole host of resources, and you know who your agencies are and you know what you don't have either.

And so, which is why we are saying that you have to use your professional judgment on this one. Right now, the current law doesn't allow you to use your professional judgment.

And then I guess the last question I had which came up, I think, on the California Association of Licensed Professional Clinical Counselors, they were raising issues about, it looked like, well, the first one I just didn't understand. The first one was increases the number of abuse and neglect that fall through the child welfare system cracks. Do you know what that, what the basis of that was? It seemed like a pretty broad assertion.

Well, I mean, that, which is why I'm asking everyone to ask as many questions as possible, because when you look at the definition of general neglect, we're not talking about seeing a bruise. We're not talking about the type of things that would raise red flags in terms of your safety, as in a child's safety is in jeopardy, right?

And so I don't know if they just didn't understand that it's only one of the categories, the most basic category, right, or whether, I mean, I can't say what their intent is, but to just simply do a blanket statement like that is just simply not true.

Now, I guess the last question, and then I'll turn it over, is the one that they raised which was around legal protections and immunity for mandated reporters that choose to report to the alternate agency, obviously. Can you just sort of address that?

Would that be something that would have been part of the broader set of reforms that come out of the agency, or is that not part of the more comprehensive set of recommendations?

The idea that you want to remove the liability portion of whether they, when they call a social service agency?

I think what they're saying is that they had concerns that the issue of, for the mandated reporters, that there hadn't been changes in illegal protections or immunity that would give them the ability without feeling that they're under risk of actually reporting to one of the alternative agencies. That's the way I was reading it.

And just wondering if that, if those, if those issues of liability for the mandated reporters, if that's part of the comprehensive set of reforms that's coming out or not.

Yes. That is part of the recommendation. Yes.

And is that part of this Bill?

It is. Only for part of it. And what I mean by that is there's two sets of liability, but it does provide remove liability on one of them.

Thank you very much. Really appreciate it.

Thank you. We have all of some questions, but first, Assembly Member Reyes, Assembly Member Wilson, and Mr. Lackey.

Thank you. Well, I want to begin first by saying that for most of us we recognize that we have very few social workers and we're losing one next year or this year. And your voice is a very important voice when it comes to protecting the children and providing guidance as we move through some of this very difficult and technical legislation.

In the report that you talk about, I know they're going to take a vote on September 4th, according to the state. These are the recommendations and I see that there are five. Eliminate disproportionality in mandated reporting. Increase precision in reporting abuse and neglect. Remove incentives that lead to over-reporting. Focus on connections that support families. Invest in ongoing reform of mandated reporting.

As I was going through this, I mean, initially it was, it's Dr. Jackson, we're good. But my concern is that we need to have that safety net for the children. We need that safety net for the parents when we're over-reporting and we're removing the children. I recognize that now. You're right. It's the trauma for the children.

And if it's the African American children, native children that are being removed, that are being reported more often, being investigated more often, we know that's a serious thing that needs to be addressed. And I absolutely agree with it. But my biggest concern, I have a few concerns, is, and you talked about the training for the CBOs.

So you have a mandated reporter who, rather than going to child protective services or police, now goes to a CBO. I'm sure it's one that they know takes care of children, one that they know is committed to them, but they don't have the same training, and that is a concern for me.

That if we let, we already know that there are so many different ways that children fall through the cracks and we send them to a CBO and we have some great CBOs and we all know that, but we send the child to a CBO and somehow they begin to provide treatment or try to do something with that child.

Nothing is being done for the family or for the parents. Allowing any child to fall through the cracks is something that none of us want to happen. As I was reading this, I was asking what is the problem? What is the issue we're trying to solve? And I know that we do have, and I thank you for providing this to my team also.

And today, the problem that we're trying to solve, and I think that's part of it, once a mandated reporter has, it's not that they saw something, but they suspect any neglect or abuse. They are then mandated to report if they suspect it. Is that correct?

Correct. If they suspect it. But remember, the definition of general neglect is very broad. Correct. Which means that it could, there's parts of general neglect. As a professional, your professional judgment would say it's probably best to call CPOs instead of, right? This is not a food issue. This is not a clothing issue, right?

Which is part of the problem with the definition of general neglect. But again, you don't want to leave anything out as well, as if a child is in need of something, which is why it's so complex, right?

And so the idea is that, again, the problem is right now the current law says that it doesn't give you your ability to use your professional judgment, right. And if I am, say, if I just got hired and now I'm a mandated reporter, right? Right now, if I'm, and maybe I have some questions, well, that's what our team meetings are for.

That's what our multidisciplinary teams are for, to be able to say, hey, what should we do in this case? What is the best thing for this person? Right? And in regards to the CBOs, again, because I brought up this question as well to Department of Social Services when they asked for this language to be put in there, and they assured me that they are going to provide the guidance to say what kind of CBOs are appropriate, right?

What CBOs do they need? Because in many cases, you might have to provide training to these CBOs before you. This shouldn't just be, oh, I need an organization, let me just find someone and call the number, right?

There's a process that will need to be done, and the Department is committed to making sure that they are providing the guidance to help people get through that type of process to ensure that it's the appropriate organization.

My issue is that's not included here, and so we're providing, implementing a new procedure and we don't have the proper training, we don't have the proper guidelines for that next step.

And for those who are mandated reporters who then refer over to a CBO, they may be the best CBO, but their reporting and their license or lack of license is very different from that mandated reporter who is legally responsible if something happens to that child.

Does it go back to the mandated reporter who in their good judgment selected that particular CBO, or is it the CBO? I don't see how there can be immunity for that mandated reporter who made that decision, because that was a professional, thought out decision to refer them to a CBO rather than CPS rather than the police department.

And I think those protections also for our mandated reporters, I think is extremely important. So it's protections for our children, first of all. For the parents to make sure that as the parents are involved in the system. We've got to find ways to help the parents to become better parents, because in most cases, the children are better off with their parents as flawed as they are.

But we have to be able to include them in whatever we do. And then protection also for those mandated reporters who now will think, oh, I referred them to a CBO, I think I'm good, I'm done. And I think as it is written, I think they would be legally responsible if anything were to happen to that child.

No, I respect that. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you, Dr. Jackson. Thank you for your work in the space. I echo the sentiments of my colleagues in both respects and their respect for you and what you're doing, especially because, as my colleague noted, we are losing a social worker who has been a champion on a lot of these issues.

It's glad that we now have someone new with a great level of expertise and care and concern for the most vulnerable among us, including those of color, who are at all times typically left behind. And in the sentiment and their concerns, I share them as well, snd in particular, I'll just highlight one because I know we're getting long and they've shared quite a bit.

But the area around the CBOs and the fact that there is not a proper training program for them and that they don't have the same requirements that the other workers have or providers have, that is concerning to me.

And if the Bill had included, and because we're at this place where we can't amend it, but if it had included even language that there would be some type of alternative certification for those programs and that was a requirement for them to be able to do it, I would be like, more apt to be like, okay, I can let them figure it out because there is like a clause on that CBO.

That there is some type of program or that there would be required to be some type of program before they were able to do it. Before they were able to, for the mandated reporter, before the mandated reporter was able to lose its liability. Because on this, it says that they're not subject to subdivision C, which is that part that says they have to under, you know, I think it's criminal liability, all of that.

They actually, they can report to a CBO. It doesn't have to be trained, doesn't have to be anything, and they lose all of that. And although we believe that most social workers, that social workers are good actors, right, or they wouldn't be in this field. But we know there's bad apples in every field, right?

And so if someone had alternative motives and to refer to a CBO, lose that liability, that child under general neglect, and I know there's a distinction between severe and general, and that under general neglect gets caught up in the system and gets left behind, and to know that we created a law that did that, that is disconcerting to me.

So I think that the thought process to go in this direction is absolutely perfect. I love the title of the report that they're about to vote on, shifting from reporting families to supporting families. I think 100% everyone could get behind. But for me, because this is a start window and that one little piece is not there, like I said, the rest of, I figured it could be worked out with cleanup, with how they do the guidelines.

But that one little piece is, I think, extremely important if we're gonna put it to law that it had to be some type of alternative certification or something like that attached to that, and I would feel way more comfortable.

I can take that back to the Administration. Yeah.

And so with that, I won't be able to support today. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Nguyen, then Assembly Member Lackey.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Dr. Jackson. As somebody who was a foster parent and did respite, I completely understand what you're trying to do because many times I got that phone call like, are you able to take this kid? A report just came in and I would take them in.

Sometimes babies, sometimes, you know, little kids, sibling sets. So I understand what you're trying to do. As somebody, though, who ran a CBO for over 10 years and worked in that space for nearly two decades, I do have some concerns. We provide wraparound services and areas to support organizations, state, county that does this specific work.

I also know that in that space, there's a lot of turnover on staff. They come in and they work, they get their expense, and they go to a bigger space like the county, like the state and whatnot.

I actually lost a lot to go work for CPS because that's where they wanted to go and they wanted to get the space of doing the wraparound services and the work in the community before they got picked up there. So my concern is that, in addition to everything that my colleagues said, and I won't repeat them, but I do know that space very well.

I do know that there's a lot of turnover, and I don't know that that would be a safe space for us to send our children to, knowing that the individual that assisted this family, this sibling set, this child is going to maybe not be there in the next couple of months, in the next couple of weeks in the turnaround.

You know, these kids need stability not only in their lives, but also in the folks that are going to be assisting them as well, too. And then, like, the oversight, who's going to hold these individuals accountable? Who's going to be able to say, okay, did this organization do what they were supposed to do? Can I take a look at the files? Can I see that, you know, there was progress made in this family?

One of the other areas, I'd say, is when you have all these CBOs that are working and putting this together, there has to be a platform where we're all on the same page, because sometimes there's a shift from one organization to the other and they get passed around, and that doesn't exist in the CBO world right now.

And so when we add this layer on top of that, then we're all providing different types of services, and it could actually take a step back with some of these kids rather than moving them forward. So I love the intent, as my colleagues said over here. I love this title right here, right, and I think we're on the right track. I just don't think we're necessarily there yet. So I can't support this today as well.

Thank you. Assembly Member Lackey.

Yeah. I don't think anybody questions your pure motives on this particular Bill, but I will tell you as someone who has been very strongly impacted by the failures of the system. In my district, we've had some very severe tragedies over the years, one just weeks ago.

But I'm telling you, one of the biggest problems from my perspective is this non-substantiated finding and what that means. And that's why there's an over-representation in those numbers, because every one of these victims, every one of them had non-substantiated claims and reports. We have Gabriel Fernandez, which is a very well known case.

Noah Cuatro, Anthony Avalos. Those kids were less than 10 years old. They're dead. They were killed by their parents.

I know those cases very well.

Yeah, we have one that's like six weeks ago. Baki Dewees, three weeks old, a baby. And there was history of abuse. What I'm trying to tell you is that I feel that our system is overrun not because of the system itself, but because of family dysfunction is great.

And there's a lot of people that need adaptive help, and that's where we are falling short in making this a priority. In my opinion, the funding that has gone in this direction is woefully short. DCFS is so underfunded, it's not excusable. Absolutely, it's not excusable. And the training level because I don't think not a one of those social workers that found that there was non substantiated claims intentionally was ignoring anything.

But we need better training. We need these people to understand that these children do not deserve the hurt and mistreatment they're experiencing. And less communication, which is what this Bill includes, it actually prevents more communication, from my perspective.

And we need to prevent these tragedies. And I know everybody in here wants that, including you, would like prevention. And the way to do that is not to stifle communication. We need to shine a light on these difficult circumstances so that we can help, right? Help the parents, not punish, but help.

And I think that's we all want this to happen, but right now, these tragedies are piling up. And we really, really need to take this issue on in a serious way, because I can't think of a greater affront than a child not being supported in their own home. The place of safety does not exist in these cases.

These are fairly extreme cases. But it's my opinion that these extreme outcomes indicate we have a very deep problem. And a lot of people like to say, well, it's because they don't have biological parents in their home. That is myth. That is not the problem.

The problem is dysfunction and how to get help and remedy to that dysfunction and remove that child from that dysfunction until we can get remedy. That's not happening and that's where our focus needs to be. And I hope that we can come together. And I wouldn't mind, even if you need a partner.

And whatever happens, it has nothing to do with you. It has everything to do with the problem. And so I'm not able to support this. Yeah.

Thank you, Vice Chair Alanis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize. I'm not completely read into all of this that's going on today. So I'm just, I'm trying to catch up with the packet you guys just gave us. It seems to me like the biggest issue here is the actual mandated reporting training itself, and I'm wondering why we're not addressing that.

I did some little searching and seeing that there's been some Assembly bills in the past, some Senate bills that have addressed that as far as training and what they should be doing. But from what I'm hearing in testimony, we don't really have that training for these mandated reporters. So I'd really like to see focus on that.

Going back to some of the points that our colleagues brought up here with having different agencies or resources for mandated reporters to go to and not possibly having the legal coverage if they did go to one that wasn't covered by a mandated training, I guess you can say policy.

As a prior law enforcement officer, as a prior crimes against children's detective, I just see by adding more people to the table, not saying that it's a bad thing, but adding more to the table, different databases, different buildings to go to, different investigators, whoever it is, is going to make it even harder for law enforcement to try and keep track on that.

What if it's a weekend and maybe that office isn't a 24/7 place? Who do I get the information from? How do I get the information from when I need to make sure this child gets all the care they need from right now?

Right now we have a mandated reporter to somebody who has to have somebody on call all the time. So those are some of the things that I have concerns, and obviously I share the other concerns that my colleagues have.

But just looking at it from a law enforcement side, it's just so many moving parts where you can have some things happen that we don't want to happen. Believe me, I'm frustrated sometimes when I go to a house and maybe something hasn't been done, but I know who I can go to to make sure it's pushed.

Whereas maybe I don't know this certain group or I don't know this certain organization. And the other thing is throughout the state, this is a big state, does my district have these groups that we're talking about? Do others have these same groups that they have?

I know we all have CPS in our districts, in our counties, but as far as these new ones, I don't think we do. So I cannot support this. I do hope maybe in the future that we do have more time to spend on it. I'm kind of reserved also with this last minute stuff going through. And so I look forward to maybe to next year, maybe working with you on it. Thank you.

No, absolutely. If I may, Mr. Chair, I think that, number one, I think I've complained with many of you how I don't actually like our current process of how we create policy. I think I've been very explicit in that, which is why I wanted to have the conversation now, because if we don't have these back and forth conversations, I can't, I don't know, right?

And some of the best ideas, which many of you, I'm like, dang, that works, right? And plus, if we can spend time on the floor taking pictures and other stuff, why don't I talk about something more serious? And so I think this is a conversation worth having and that we need.

And so this is not my intent to try to jam this bill through, but this is a primer to the serious work that needs to be done next year, both in the budget process. And I've made it clear, I've told people I won't mention their names, but I've said, don't you tell me there ain't no money for the stuff that we need to do.

Because the way we are treating our children is atrocious. We should be ashamed, and these are our children. And so these set of recommendations, and of course, some of these are big budget items. So I also want to make sure that we don't have the expectation that if every single recommendation is not done at the same time, right, that it shouldn't be done either.

But we have got to move forward and we can't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good because right now, our current law is definitely not perfect and it's creating harm right now, right?

And so it is my hope that we'll be ready and I'll be working very closely with all of your offices, even those of you who are moving on to another house, to be able to making sure, making sure that we understand that, similar to mental health, this is going to be messy because we're dealing with humans.

So I want to make sure we understand that, too. We're dealing with human beings, and human beings just mean messy. And so this is going to be messy. It's going to be uncomfortable, right? And there's going to be a sense of, well, I'm not sure. Well, what if? Well, what if?

And when you're reforming systems, there's always going to be what ifs. We have got to be willing to move forward and continue to adjust as we go, like we're doing with homelessness, like we're doing with mental health, like we're doing with some of these very, very tough issues.

But we have a roadmap and I think that, and they were done by really thoughtful people. And so I look forward to moving forward on these next year. But I could not end the year without having a discussion about it in a thoughtful way and getting out of, and of course, I'm one of the most easiest offices to meet with.

And so there was a lot of people on this opposition list who didn't ask for a meeting with me, and there's no reason why that should have been done. So I think we all need to hold ourselves accountable to making sure that we're doing the best and we're having the best thoughtful conversations.

So with that, I would like to have this as an information item, Mr. Chair.

Yes. Thank you, Assembly Member Jackson. And thank you for kind of framing the issue. We have an imperfect process and an imperfect system to, you know, protect families and kids. And we heard all the issues. I won't repeat everything, but I concur that you raise a legitimate issue that we're interested in, but we can't just make any changes.

Absolutely. At the 11th hour and uncomfortable with going forward with that. But I do think, I'm glad that you're having this conversation and I'm glad we actually heard this. We're late for floor session, but we are not taking a vote on this. The Bill will be held in Committee.

But thank you for making this presentation. But, you know, just to focus on the big picture. You know, I like the title. As we heard from Assembly Member Reyes, "Supporting Not Just Reporting." And I like the concept, but I think there are some issues that we need to consider and I'll just maybe repeat some.

So the notion of talking to a social worker, community service organization, like, what does that mean? There are a lot of people who have that title. I know? Like I always hear these stories about my grandma used to tell the community that she was a social worker, but she didn't have that title.

But she helped people. Like some say "oh, she helps people" and like some community organization that sounds good but they may not be open 24 hours. Maybe they're short-staffed. The person's on leave for a while. So, and these aren't things like some appointment that can wait. This is life and death.

And so I know you care about kids. A lot of us have kids ourselves, and we can't get this wrong. And so we need to have protections on here. And I don't think that we're able to do so at this point in time, but there's always tomorrow.

And, you know, I won't be here, but January is just around the corner, and maybe one of you fine individuals will be sitting here and leading this conversation. But thank you for understanding where we're coming from, and with that, we will hold this Bill.

Thank you very much.

We will adjourn this hearing, go to Assembly floor session. Thank you.