Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

The State Senate Human Services Committee will now come to order. Good afternoon. We're holding our Committee hearing here in room 2200 in 1021 O Street. I ask that all Members of the Committee be present in room 2200 so we can establish a quorum and proceed with our business.

And I'm Senator Jesse Arreguin, the newly appointed chair of the Senate Human Services Committee, joined by Vice Chair Senator Rosalie Ochoa. Bo. And we'll be joined by other Members shortly. Since this is our first Bill hearing of the legislative session, we need to Establish Committee rules, but we need a quorum to take action on the Committee rules.

So we'll table action on the rules until we can establish a quorum. And we'll proceed now to begin our Bill presentations. We have 14 bills on today's agenda, so seven of which are on the proposed consent calendar. And let me summarize those bills that are on the proposed consent calendar.

File item 1, SB290 Smallwood Cuevas CalWORKS File item 3, SB352 Reyes. Disaster preparedness File item 8, SP471 Menjivar Office of Lanterman Ombudsperson. File item 9, SB624 rather Caballero. File item 11 SB814 Rubio. File item 13 SB739 out of. And 792 out again. All those bills are on the consent calendar at the appropriate time.

After we've established a quorum, we'll entertain a motion on the consent calendar as well. So we'll now proceed with our first Bill presentation. We'll proceed to file item 2, SB560 by Senator Small Cuevas. And good afternoon Senator colleagues, and you may present on SB560 at this time.

Wonderful. Thank you. So I am pleased to present SB560 which authorizes counties to process public benefits. The overpayments in public benefits Like CalFresh and CalWORKS through their administrative penalty system, California Safety Net is meant to offer stability and opportunity.

But for thousands of Low income families, it has become a legal trap that punishes them for being poor and maybe having minor oversight. A missed deadline or small paperwork error can lead to felony charges tearing families apart and pushing them deeper into poverty, even when there's no intent to deceive.

From 20 to 2021 more than 24,000 Californians were arrested and 11,000 convicted of public benefits fraud, often for small overpayments. These are not hardened criminals. 80% had no prior convictions. More than half were black and Hispanic women mothers, many of them Single moms and essential workers. This is personal for me.

I know what it's like to face systems that weren't built with working people in mind. And we need policies that meet people where they are at, not ones that punish them for falling short while trying to get ahead. Consider the case of a single mother who has multiple jobs, relying on CalFresh to feed her children.

She was prosecuted for under reporting her income, which is an honest mistake. Although she intended to repay what she owed, the arrest alone made it harder for her to find a job and to support her family.

And when you are convicted and have a criminal record, you are locked out of about 70% of jobs that are offered to most residents. SB560 offers a smarter, more humane response. It allows counties to handle most overpayment cases through the administrative system, where consequences like repayment or benefit suspensions still apply. People aren't criminalized for such simple errors.

This Bill protects working families from falling through the cracks. It prevents one mistake from snowballing into a job loss, housing instability, and for years in court involvement, which takes time and costs us all money. We are needing to help our counties recover these funds more efficiently and fairly. That's the the kind of accountability we need.

Currently, there's a failure of our system that treats people in a way where they don't have fairness and they don't have dignity. With me today to testify is Alexandra Harris, a worker from San Diego, county, and Tracy Porter, a fellow with the Solis Policy Institute.

And I want to just note that in conversations with folks who work with our vulnerable populations on a daily basis, a lot of this Bill came from those actual social workers who are helping these families and processing these cases. They don't want to see their clients criminalized. And I'm so glad to have Ms.

Harris with us here today.

Good afternoon. Each Witness will have two minutes to address the Committee on SB560. Who would like to begin?

Zero, hello. Good morning everyone. My name is Alexandre Harris and I am an HSS, which is a human service specialist for San Diego. County. I am also a proud Member of SEIU 221. I'm so sorry. I've been a county worker for about 11 years.

My job involves interviewing customers who are experiencing in hardship and have applied for CalWORKS, CalFresh or Medi Cal. During this process, I ask clarifying questions and collect information regarding to the household's demographic and financial situation.

As an hss, I can say the most challenging thing about my job is that customers don't always understand the process or the systems for obtaining the services that they need. Oftentimes they are frustrated, which is unfortunate because they're already dealing with so much. I do my best to inform customers as expectations when receiving their benefits.

Oftentimes a customer can be frustrated and I do my best to De escalate the situation. Although a common area of frustration is regarding overpayments received, it's been my experience that overpayments are frequently the result of an honest mistake. I personally believe that when people are applying for aid, their intention isn't to commit a crime.

They need help and they want to know what is available to them. They aren't always happy with what they're qualified to receive, but they're only looking for help during a very hard time.

I can tell you that when I've seen an overpayment occur, the first reaction of a customer is to panic that they are afraid they're going to lose their services while they are still in hardship and they have fear of getting in trouble. The politest way I can put it is this.

When people come to us for their services, they are entitled to. They are not criminals. No matter what their background may be. They are individuals who are part of our community and should not be criminalized for being overpaid. That's why I feel it is important to be here today to ask for your support on SB 560.

No one is exempt from a hardship in life. When it happens, we all deserve respect and compassion for one another. Thank you.

Thank you so very much. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Committee chair. Members of the Committee, my name is Tracy Michelle Porter and I'm here in strong support of SB560. In 1999 I was convicted of welfare fraud. That conviction cost me everything. My job, my car and the sense of self I had worked so hard to build. Overnight I went from middle class back into poverty.

I went on public assistance after I was injured working a union job. When my benefits ran out, I had no choice. From 1992 to 1995, I received aid as a temporary support. I worked and reported my income as required and took bookkeeping and tax prep course.

That is how I got off of assistance and into the middle class. I did everything I was supposed to do. At least I thought I had. Then four years later, I was charged with fraud. When I stood before the judge, he didn't see a mother who had worked her way out of poverty.

He saw a welfare queen trying to game the system. I had no prior record. I wasn't offered a chance to Pay it back. I was told I'd go to state prison or take five years of probation. I had an 11 year old son.

Of course I chose probation and then I had to go back onto welfare just to survive. What followed were years of setbacks and slow rebuilding. In 2022, I graduated from CSUN with a degree in Africana Studies. And in 2023, thanks to SB731, my record was expunged. Since then I have been selected for two fellowships.

I'm a lived experience expert. And last month I launched From Felon to Fellow, a platform I created to challenge the narratives and policies that harm people like me. Even with all of that, I haven't recovered financially.

I lost 25 years of earning power and at 58, I am still a gig worker trying to make ends meet while living with the effects of ptsd. I was not a welfare queen. I was a working mother trying to survive after getting hurt on the job.

SB560 is about stopping the punishment of black women for doing what they could could with what they had. Please pass it so no woman is forced to trade her future just to care for her child. Thank you.

Thank you so very much. So we'll now ask any other Members of the public who wish to express support for SB560 to please approach the microphone. If you can, please state your name, affiliation, position only. And good afternoon.

Natasha Minskr, Smart Justice California Priority support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kevin Aslan, Coalition California Welfare Rights Organizations. Strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Keely O'Brien with Western center on Law and Poverty. Strong support and proud sponsor of the bill.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Glenn Bacchus OR Prosecutors alliance and strong support. Thank you.

Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California and strong support and co sponsor. Thank you. Thank you.

Yesenia Jimenez with End Child Poverty in California and strong support. Also here in support of a mother named Ali who also experienced this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other Members of the public wishing to express support on SP560? Okay. If not, we'll now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. We'll take two witnesses for a total of two minutes each. Are there any lead witnesses opposition who wish to testify? SB560? Yes. Please come forward, sir.

Thank you. Chair Aragon and Committee Members. Glenn Allen on behalf of the California Welfare Fraud Investigators Association in respectful opposition. SB560 states stealing $25,000 of the taxpayer money would not be a crime. Welfare fraud is not committed by a recipient or a county human services social services Department making a simple mistake.

It is an intentional act by a person to obtain benefits through fraud. This Bill sends a message that fraud can be committed without consequences leading to significant financial losses of the taxpayers money who Fund these programs. I request this Committee to remember State Proposition 36 that overturned Proposition 47.

The taxpayers revolted against the lack of consequences for retail theft under Proposition 47. They voted for felony criminal penalties for thefts over $950. SB 560 has the potential to cause federal law enforcement agencies such as the U.S. customs and Immigration Service to investigate welfare fraud thefts.

Many of our recipients have US Citizen children, but the parents themselves are undocumented immigrants. This will cause undue stress and other issues to our most vulnerable parents and children. This Bill incorrectly states fraudulent thefts under 25,000 can be properly handled administratively through administrative disqualification hearings known as adhs.

This ADH process currently is minimally to moderately used, backlogged and understaffed statewide for over 16 years. It is in need of restructuring. Increasing ADH would add significant costs to the counties and state and would divert personnel and resources away from recipients unless properly staffed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other principal witnesses in opposition to SB560? Okay. Well, now ask any other Members of the public wishing to express opposition to this Bill to please approach the microphone. Please sit. Your name, affiliation and position for the record, Members of the Committee. Chris Baker with the Placer County District Attorney's office.

And we oppose. Thank you. Thank you. There are any other witnesses in opposition, please approach the microphone. Okay. Thank you. So we'll now bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Are there any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Senator Chopo?

Yeah. All right. So I do have a.

Your mic is on him.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here on both sides and Senator Smallquest. A couple of questions. Why? So it eliminates penalties for welfare fraud of less than $25,000. How did you folks come up with the $25,000? That seems like a really high threshold.

Well, you know, this is a. Would be a counter fraud for an individual. And according to the penal code changes, the recommendation is that we reduce this amount down to $950 versus 25,000 right now. If you commit tax fraud, you don't actually catch a felony case until you hit the $25,000 mark.

So we think if white collar crime, typically done by white men in corporate settings, can be receive a felony count at 25,000, we think that hardworking mothers of color who have a fiscal oversight should, you know, not face a felony or be criminalized for minor overpayment.

So the 25,000 is really trying to level out these kinds of crimes. And the prosecutors alliance has been very supportive in educating us on that. And so we think this is a leveling.

This is about making sure that fraud is treated equally and that we aren't falling back to the old tropes of vilifying and criminalizing poor women of color, making up these decades old stereotypes of a welfare mother who is somehow trying to gain a system and a society where now a carton of eggs costs about $10, $10.99 and some people are actually selling them individually out of their cars.

So families are trying to survive. We are providing minimal aid. And when there is an oversight, and particularly I trust those who are processing those kinds of claims, who work directly with those communities and every day.

And if they are saying that these are oversight issues that can be addressed administratively, I don't think we need the criminal system and to penalize these mothers. So the $25,000 is what triggers a felony case in traditional sort of fraud cases.

And we think that our young mothers who are in these programs deserve the same kind of opportunity to, to address a smaller oversight without facing any jail time or charges.

Thanks for bringing that. I was not aware of that. So that's a good. It's. It's a good. But I'm not sure whether or not the logic is to bring it up to that point or to actually bring the white collar crime down. Well, that's not what this Bill is.

So I know this bill is not about that. This is. We're. I know we, I think we do need more fairness in how we prosecute those cases, but in this case, particular instance, we're talking about mothers who are just simply trying to feed their families.

And Even the Prop 36 and all of those references do not apply to this conversation today.

Well, I didn't bring the analogy. It was brought up, so I just thought I referenced. I'm like, we're talking about that. We might as. We should probably look into that as well. And I think the other question that I had had to do with.

So it's my understanding, first of all, that in order to prove that the offender committed fraud, there has to be a proof that the offender intended to defraud the system to steal the funds.

So when we're looking at these crimes for fraud within the system, first of all, how often has that been brought to, how many cases are being brought to charges with fraud?

And with that in mind, when they are brought to charge, how many of that or what percentage of those cases are actually convicted and show that there is an intended, an intent to defraud the system? What does that look like? An intent to defraud. Defraud the system.

And the reason I'm asking is I'm trying to prove whether or not. I'm curious as to whether or not how difficult it is to prove that there is intent. What does that look like?

Well, I'm no attorney, so I can't sort of lay that out. I do have an expert who can share that. But I want to just tell you the reason why we see a disproportionate number of black and brown folks in, in our criminal justice system is because the intent is in the interpretation.

And too often bias is behind interpreting what is intent and what isn't. So because we have created these stereotypes of, you know, people of color as criminals going back to the Nixon Administration. And it's been emblazoned in our sort of common framework of how we think about certain groups.

Too often that fuels the bias in our institutions and those who are employed in our institutions. And we have a situation where you have a disproportionate number of individuals who are black and brown who are accused of crimes based on the interpretation of that intent.

And most often it results in a lot of what we've been dealing with is trying to correct that system because in the end that costs people's lives, communities and their families, because the intent and that interpretation is based on personal bias.

But I will invite my co sponsor to say a few words and to get specific to your question.

I think the attorney probably also might have an opportunity and through the chair if it would be possible also to get some feedback from the attorney. Yes. Oh, I did wait. I did say I wanted to have my.

Yes. Sponsor speak to that.

Natasha Minsker. So the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code reviewed this issue through, through a series of hearings and it's their recommendation as the basis of this Bill and the key issues here. You asked how many times these prosecutions happen. They found that in a 10 year period there were 10,000 prosecutions for public benefit overpayment.

So on average, about 1,000 people a year are facing these prosecutions. Now, you asked about intent. It is true that the statute requires intent to defraud. The challenge is how our criminal justice system operates in practice. So these cases do not go to trial where a prosecutor has to actually prove intent, as you heard from-

Ms. Porter, our lived experience expert, that when she was charged, she didn't understand what was going on. She had no experience with the criminal justice system, and she was offered the choice of state prison if she went to trial or taking a plea bargain and being put on probation.

So almost universally, these cases end with a plea bargain where the person is making payments back. And so the issue of intent never actually put to the test. In addition, these forms are filed under penalty of perjury. And that's where, frankly, the prosecution has its real hammer. Right.

Because anything that is a discrepancy in the documents from what the person filed and signed can be used as a basis to prosecute them, even in the absence of intent to defraud. And so this is the real catch 22 that people find themselves in. They've made a mistake in the paperwork.

They, they are working because they are required by law to work while receiving welfare benefits. They're attempting to comply by providing the information about the income they're receiving. But there's been a mistake in the paperwork. They have signed this paperwork under penalty of perjury. They are charged many months after the payments have been received.

And so very quickly, they find themselves facing welfare. They're facing felony prosecution for mistakes that they did not know about. And had it been brought to their attention, they would have corrected.

But now it has accumulated to the point where it looks like a significant amount of fraud, which really has its root in this failure of understanding the paperwork and the requirements.

Okay, thank you for that explanation. Okay. And then one last question with the. Just kind of curious if we could hear from the opposition as far as the. If there's any feedback on. On the intent. I'm just so. I think so. Let me, before we go to the opposition, if there's anything that they would like to add.

Quick, another comment. Is there any provision that you see fit, either through the chair for the author or the support witnesses. Witnesses. Is there any level of caveat or carve out that we need to do in order to actually prove fraud? Is there anything.

I think the concern that I have is that, though I understand these cases and thank you for sharing your life experiences here today. But at some point, do you folks ever see that there is actually an intent for folks that actually intentionally try to defraud the system?

And should there be safeguards to ensure that those folks that are actually. People. Who are defrauding the system should be have an opportunity to be go through the system and be actually criminalized or be prosecuted and actually serve their time if necessary?

I mean, is there a scenario where that actually should exist and should we have law that actually allows for that to happen?

Well, I just want to say that does happen and maybe we can give more detail on that. But we've had a long system of making sure that folks who are receiving aid are not defrauding the system. And I think what's being raised here is that there are ways to address those oversights.

There's a difference between the oversight and fraud. Right. And so this is about addressing the oversight and being able to provide administrative ways to course correct and to recover whatever those resources are. But I'll Defer to yes.

SB 560 allows felony prosecution if an individual did things such as used a fake name or fake identification in order to show that they were eligible for benefits or if a person applied for benefits in multiple counties. So SB 560 absolutely allows felony prosecution regardless of the amount loss or overpayment.

It could be one dollar in those kinds of situations where there's significant evidence of intent to defraud. And it is not a situation where you have a person who legitimately is entitled to receive benefits and they're being accused of fraud based on some misunderstanding or mistake in the paperwork.

So absolutely, SB 560 is intentionally drafted to achieve exactly what you're saying.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Senator Ochoa-Bogh, did you want to ask the opposition to respond?

Yeah, just addressing, keep your response relatively quick. Addressing the term mistake as a 49 years in law enforcement, I don't. If I see, I look at a form and I see that could be a mistake, I look at it.

Number one, eligibility workers like this lady to my right spends an hour and a half with the first time somebody applies for aid. They go step by step. It's a complex, long 25 page application. Each question is asked.

Here's where the misnomer about a mistake, one big question that does fraud is is a parent of these children in the house, yes or no? They say no. Okay, I'll let that go as a mistake. The first time you apply, three months later you're asked again on similar forms, is the parent in the house no.

Six months later, same question. No. Or do you have any income when they apply? No. Three months later, they have an annual. Not an annual review, a quarterly review. They ask again, do you have income? No. So I see over a year and a half period. No, I have no income. No.

The father is not in the house. Then they go to the house. The father is making $8,000. Not rich, but they would never qualify for this aid. That's not a mistake. Time after time after time. And we do have to prove in court that it's an intent. That's a very. It's a specific intent.

And one thing that's a mistake or one writing down something wrong, fine. But when you see it six times in a row, over a year, two years, that's not a mistake. Then they're asked these questions every three to six months on a form that they fill out one other thing and another thing that's not brought out.

I could charge anybody over $950 with a felony. I don't. Most counties has to be $5,000, $10,000. I worked in Sonoma county for 16 years. I didn't take any case to the District Attorney's office. If it wasn't $5,000, they would charge it 1,000.

But no, but once you're going above 5,000-10,000, and it's repeat non mistakes that somebody lies on the application. And there's simple questions, are you earning an income? That's one of the biggest violations. Or is a father in the House because he's working? Thank you.

Any other questions? Senator Ochoa-Bogh? Okay, Any other questions and comments for Members of the Committee on SB 560? Okay. The chair recommends an eye on this bill and I'll turn it back over to Senator Smallwood-Cuevas to close.

Well, I appreciate the questions and the debate. And you know, we know that people with no criminal history represent about 80% of these kinds of convictions. We know they're largely women of color. We know they are anchoring families. And we also have heard that an administrative process can fix this kind of overpayment.

And so, you know, I think we need to rely on the folks who are doing the work who understand the ways in which we can improve the system that helps to make the state whole, but also maintains the integrity of our families. And I think this bill will do that. It's a common sense Bill.

And I respectfully asked for your. I vote.

Thank you. Thank you. The witnesses joining us today. You can please take your seats. So before we entertain a motion on SB 560. We do have a quorum established, so if the secretary can please call the roll. Yes, if you can please call the roll to establish quorum.

Arreguin. Present. Arreguin. Present. Ochoa-Bogh. Present. Ochoa-Bogh. Present. Becker. Limone. Perez. Present. Perez. Present.

Okay, we do have a quorum. Thank you. So, going back to the first order of business, which is the adoption of Committee rules. Entertain a motion to adopt our Committee rules or I'll move to adopt the Committee rule. Okay. Move by Perez to adopt the Committee rules. If we can please call the roll on that motion.

There's no call on the rules.

Okay. Is there any objection of those Members present to adopt the Committee rules? Hearing none. That motion carries. Thank you. And will now entertain a motion on SB 560.

Approz.

Okay, move by Senator Perez. And that is a motion to do pass to Public Safety Committee. You can please call the roll.

File item two, SB 560. Motion is due pass to Public Safety Committee. Arreguin. Aye. Arreguin. Ochoa-Bogh. Becker. Lamone. Perez. Perez. Aye.

We'll keep that bell on call so the Members can record their vote. And thank you very much. Thank you, Senator. Smallwood-Cuevas. Before we go to Senator Dr. Wahab, I'll now go back to the consent calendar. The consent calendar once again consists of seven bills. File item 1, SB 290. File item 3, SB 352. File item 8, SB 471.

File item 9, SB 624. File item 11, SB 814. File item 13, SB 739. And file item 14, SB 792. Does any Member wish to remove an item from consent hearing? None. I'll entertain a motion on the consent calendar. Move by Senator Perez to approve the consent calendar. Let's call the roll on that motion.

Consent calendar. Arreguin. Aye. Arreguin. Aye. Ochoa-Bogh. Aye.

Ochoa-Bogh. Aye. Becker. Lamone. Perez. Aye. Perez. Aye.

Okay, we'll keep that motion on call as well. Thank you. So we'll now proceed to file item four, Senate Bill 433, by Senator Dr. Wahab. And good afternoon, Senator. You may now present the bill.

Thank you. Chair, colleagues and Members of the public, I'd like to thank the Committee staff for their engagement with our office, as well as the sponsors on this very important bill. All my bills are extremely important.

I'm here to present SB433, which establishes room and board rate protection for participants in the Assisted Living Waiver and Calaim Assisted Living Community Support Programs. The Assisted Living Waiver and Assisted living community support programs, both Medi Cal funded, allow participants to live in residential care facilities for elderly individuals.

RCFEs as they are sometimes known alternative to nursing home placements. Under current law, RCFEs may not charge Supplemental Security Income recipients, Social Security recipients more than a standardized monthly rate for a room and board.

State regulations require the standardized rate established by the Department of Social Services to leave those residents with a monthly personal needs allowance of $179 for 2025. However, Low income MEDI Cal recipients without SSI are not protected by a rate cap and are not entitled to keep personal needs allowance. This population comprises over 40% of the program's participants.

Recently, some facilities have taken advantage of this distinction in the law to compel non SSI residents and family Members to of pocket for rate increases or face eviction. Without a rate cap, participants in these programs, older adults, often with cognitive impairments and individuals with significant disabilities, are at risk of losing their homes and care.

I want to highlight that the reason why I work in this space is because the biggest demographic in our growing homeless population is our seniors, right? And also the largest demographic going back into the workforce is our seniors.

And I do come from a community and belief system that we need to provide more, especially now that we are having a silver tsunami and housing is just way too expensive. So with that, I'd like to introduce two witnesses.

Hagar Dickman, Director of longtime Services, Long Term Services and Support Advocacy with Justice in Aging, and Maura Gibney, Executive Director, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, otherwise known as Canner. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. You have two minutes. Address the Committee.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Senators. I'm Hagar Dickman, Director of California LTSS Advocacy for Justice in Aging. Justice in Aging is a national legal advocacy organization committed to advancing the rights of Low income older adults. Proud co sponsors of SB433. Typically participants in the Assisted Living Waiver and the community support are very Low income.

To be Medi Cal eligible, they must have less than $1801 in monthly countable income. Participants also typically have high care needs. Maybe many participants are individuals with Alzheimer's or dementia. And recently there's also been an increase in users with mental health conditions.

Participants in these Medi Cal programs pay for room and board at residential care facilities for the elderly, or RCFEs from their own income, which covers rent and basic services like food. Medi Cal covers their personal care needs and other services at the rcfe. To live in an rcfe, residents must also give up their community homes.

As you heard from Senator Wahab, participants who do not have SSI can see their room and board rates increase to levels they cannot afford despite still being eligible for Medi Cal and still being eligible for the Assisted Living Waiver or the Community Support.

Assisted living providers use this loophole to extract additional funds from residents family Members, while at the same time getting paid by the Medi Cal program. Providers also increase rates to unaffordable levels when they wish to evict individuals who they no longer want to care for.

Over the last couple of years we have been hearing from legal aid services organizations and ombudsmen and through Canada's callers that an increased number of assisted living waiver participants have been seeing increases in their rates to unaffordable levels that are above their income.

SB433 protects California's Low income older adults and people with disabilities from unreasonable rate increases by Medi Cal assisted living providers and clarifies existing law that already authorizes Department of Healthcare Services and Department of Social Services to enact this rate protection.

It creates parity between SSI and non SSI Medi Cal beneficiaries and assisted living by allowing all program participants to retain the same amount of resources regardless of their source of income and enjoy the same protections from rate increases and resulting evictions.

And for clarification, that amount that a resident will be able to keep is no less than $179.

The rest will be going to the Provider for Women Board Rates Protecting residents from rate increases means ensuring that our Medi Cal Members can continue living in stable community settings of their choice where they can receive essential Medi Cal covered services and keep them out of expensive hospitals, emergency rooms and nursing homes.

For these reasons, we urge you to vote aye on SB433.

Thank you. Good afternoon Committee Members. I'm Maura Gibney, Executive Director of California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform. We're a statewide nonprofit which has worked for for over 40 years to improve the quality of California's long term care system. We are proud co sponsors of SB433.

Our staff handle thousands of calls annually from people navigating the maze of Medi Cal benefits that offer an alternative to permanent institutionalization like the Assisted Living Waiver and Nursing home diversion programs.

We have experienced an increase in calls about facility operators charging exorbitant monthly fees to Low income residents and exploiting the lack of consumer rate protections as a strategy to evict those that they no longer want to care for. Since failure to pay is One of the five legal reasons to evict a resident in an assisted living facility.

Those who increase the rate beyond what the resident can afford are in effect forcing them to leave. Residents who do not have a home to return to will be forced to seek placement in a skilled nursing facility, and those who cannot find placement will be at imminent risk of homelessness.

One Cantor caller reported being charged $1,480 by her ALW facility from her monthly income of $1,500. She cannot afford a cell phone or new clothing with only $20 a month.

The unfortunate reality is that because she is not eligible for ssi, the facility currently has the ability to raise her rate at any time to $1,500 or $2,000, leaving her with no guarantees that she can stay long term in the place that she currently calls home.

The Medi Cal funded services through ALW and nursing home diversion are the only option for high need individuals to avoid living permanently in institutions when they don't have caregivers or or a home in which they can receive care.

This Bill creates a simple solution to protect Medi Cal participants from being displaced from their facilities and allows them to keep a small amount of money to preserve their Independence and dignity so that they can afford to buy clothing, toiletries, or pay for a cell phone.

Both of the programs impacted are only available to those who meet the criteria for free Medi Cal. This means that they must have a limited amount of available income. As such, the facilities who choose to accept Medi Cal payments from these programs should also be limited in how much they can charge for these reasons.

On behalf of canner and thousands of older adults and people with disabilities who depend on these Medi Cal programs, I respectfully request your aye vote on SB433.

Thank you so very much. So we'll now take any other witnesses in support of SB433. If you can, please approach the microphone and state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Good afternoon. Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jason Sullivan Halpern with the California Long Term Care Ombudsman Association in strong support. Thank you very much.

There any other witnesses in support of SB433? Okay, thank you. We'll now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. We'll take two witnesses for two minutes each and if there are any lead witnesses that wish to testify, please approach the table.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Selena Copie Hornback with the California Assisted Living Association representing RCFEs throughout the state, including those addressed in this bill, who participate in the Assisted Living Waiver and CalAim Community Supports Programs. Unfortunately, we oppose this bill as it is in print.

We will happily continue working with the author and sponsors on the portion of the Bill that caps charges for residents in the ALW or CALI programs. However, we strongly oppose the portion of the Bill that would allow DSS or DHCS to decide when and for which residents and RCFE would be subject to rent control.

RCFEs are not landlords. They provide care and services to residents who need assistance with activities of daily living. Current law correctly identifies this distinction by enumerating that rent controls do not apply in this setting. The sponsors assert that this portion of the Bill is restating existing law.

However, we believe the section that they are referencing is a provision that allows a waiver of licensing requirements imposed on RCFEs that would allow them to participate in these medi Cal programs, not a waiver of every and any law that that applies to an RCFE.

We will continue working with the author and sponsors to ensure that the language does not have any unintended negative consequences on participants and the next witness will go into more detail on that. However, at this time, we remain respectfully opposed to SB433.

Thank you to the Chair. Go Bears. Thank you. Members, My name is George Kootenarian. I'm here on behalf of Six Beds, a statewide trade Association that represents the small residential care facilities for the elderly or RCFEs that serve six or fewer residents.

Sixpence wants to be clear that it doesn't condone facilities charging residents who are receiving services under the ALW a rental rate that is in excess of what they can afford as a form of eviction strategy.

Which is why we are supportive of a rental rate cap for ALW residents that is aligned to their income and we do acknowledge the recent amendment better aligning with income as the standard.

Regarding this specific amendment, we do have one remaining concern about the possibility that aligning the personal and incidental needs allowance of non SSISSP ALW participants with that of SSISSP may cause some proportion of the approximately 44% of non SSISSP ALW participants to have a share of cost which would render them ineligible for ALW services.

We hope that the author's office and co sponsors will continue to engage a dialogue with us on this topic to ensure that no one unnecessarily loses Eligibility for alw, which we note isn't anybody's intent. We do have questions and concerns with the other amendments.

First, Subsection C states that subsections A and B which address RCFS not being subject to rent controls can be waived by DHCs and DSS. At best, this amendment is extraneous. The bill analysis acknowledges the same.

At worst, the amendment creates confusion by invoking DHCS's and DSS's waiver authority as it relates to the alwind into a health and Safety code section that has broader reach, namely private pay scenarios.

Second, the most recent amends now broadened the scope of the rate cap to encompass all medi Cal reimbursed services, not just the ALW or community supports. We have questions about this. Which medi Cal services are these? Do they exist today?

We're concerned about overly broad language that attempts to capture services or programs that may not even exist today and believe it's more appropriate to address programs currently in place. We look forward to continuing work with the author and co sponsors. Thank you and be happy to answer any of the Committee's questions.

Okay, thank you very much. I was requested by a member. We do have a kind of an Alphabet soup of acronyms talked about. If you could just explain what the acronyms mean for the benefit of the Committee and the public. I apologize. That's okay.

ALW is Assisted Living Waiver. DSS is Department of Social Services. DHCS is Department of Healthcare Services. My apologies. No, no. Thank you.

Okay. I'll now ask any other witnesses in opposition to SB 433. If you can please approach the microphone and state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Yes. Members, Mr. Chair. Darby Kernan. Darby Kernan with Leading Age California. We associate our opposition unless amended with calla and six beds. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition to SB433? State your name.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Dory Paniza and also president of sixbeds.org Northern California. I'm RCFE operator for more than 30 years and I'm opposed that bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Gina Wasdy of Six Beds. We oppose the bill unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Olivia DeAnda, RCFE, owner of South San Francisco for 30 years. Active Member of Six Beds. Strongly opposed.

Good afternoon, everyone. Ethel Gomben from San Bruno. Being an RCFE operator for about 20 something years. And I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Hi, this is Fernando Paz, operator of RCFE Member of SEIZE Beds and I strongly oppose this bill. I have on business for over 10 years. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Pros Gonzalez of Gonzalez Home and operator of RCFE for 37 years. And I oppose this.

Thank you.

Deanna Panetta. I'm a Director of Home CA, which is an organization to help alleviate homelessness in the State of California and strongly oppose.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? SB433, if you can, please press the microphone. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. To our witnesses, if there are any questions, the Member can direct the question to the author or to the witness. But it's now in order for the Committee to discuss the Bill.

And also, are there any questions or comments from Members of the Committee on SB4. 3?

Senator Trobo, I have a question. I noticed that we had a lot of witnesses with the six beds and under. Is this Bill impact our smaller facilities more so than actually the larger facilities?

I don't know that it specifically impacts them differently. We just have a good membership base that likes, that likes to show up. But we're concerned about the consumer eligibility piece. There is a bit of a technical element here with the Bill and eligibility related to sheriff costs.

We just want to make sure that we're in active dialogue to make sure that there's no unintended consequences.

Where we really have strong concern, though, is invoking the waiver ability of Department of Health Care Services and Department of Social Services, which is a limited waiver in the context of the assisted living waiver, and then bringing that into a health and safety code section that is more broadly addresses rent control, which is generally there's a prohibition on, on rent control in RCF fees.

And so, you know, it potentially creates a lot of confusion and it extends the authority of DHCs and DSS in a way that we don't think is actually intended to be the case.

If, if I may too, we do have Members who are participating in both the ALW and the CALI programs. We represent assisted living providers of all sizes and we have a number of our providers who are. Have a number of their. Their beds that are dedicated to these programs.

So it does impact us as well as, as the six beds.

Mr. Chair, I believe there's another. There's another witness I would. Wanted to speak. Okay.

Would you like to direct a question to the witness in support? Because that's how we're going to conduct this question and answer, period.

I didn't want to take the initiative because I don't want to be disrespectful.

I would have the floor. So I wanted to just, if you have a question? Yes.

No, just. You had your hand. I wanted. Sorry.

I wanted to address the question because I wasn't sure if it was directly addressed to opposition or sponsors.

Well, I addressed it well, it didn't matter at this point. I mean obviously for the opposition just because there were so many witnesses here and if I could just put a plug in.

This is why advocacy is so important for you folks to come and speak to the Members and educate the Members on the issues and the bills that impact them. Because your voice does have power.

Just as you know just want to put that in there that there is a lot of influence that you folks could have in your testimonies. But yes, ma'am.

Yeah, I just wanted to address the concept of ALW and calim that it. It doesn't apply to every bed in the facility. And I think the other witness addressed this that we are talking about those specific residents who the facility has agreed to accept and agreed to accept on supported by Medi Cal.

So they are you know we're talking about limiting the room and board payment that that already very Low income person receives so that they can live with dignity, have a little bit of money so that they can pay for personal items and then the facility owners are still paid on top of that room and board rate by Medi Cal.

So I think I just wanted to clarify that it's not the entire facility. It's not all facilities. It really is an optional program that you know some of the owners choose to participate in and then choose to allot one or more of their beds.

To so as an. Mr. Chair through the chair.

So for clarification purposes and I'm just kind of curious of the unintended purpose potential consequence of that and I'm liking it to sort of rent control and regular housing where where we see folks that do not it in the long run it actually is a disservice to the consumer by having rent control because it dissentivizes folks for having it owning.

They rather sell it than actually keep those facilities those homes under the rental cap communities. It actually in the long term it actually poses a disservice to folks needing housing for under a rental agreement. So is there. Did somebody.

I did but please finish the question. I just wanted to. Yeah. If we can let the Senator finish her question.

So I'm just kind of curious. Has there been any analysis or any consideration of the unintended consequence as far as folks that are under the. Under the potential of this program later on having limited spaces or folks knowing that they're coming in with this particular qualification.

Would there be an unintended potential of having less beds available to them in the long term?

Who are you directing?

The question, the support. I'm sorry.

Okay, so the assisted living waiver is actually a very small program. It's already quite limited. It's only available in 15 counties. It's only available in a very specific number of facilities that have to be approved by dhcs. And it is capped annually, I believe, this year at 16,000 or so. So it is a very small program.

The newer program that's also included in this Bill, the Calaim Community support, It's a mouthful. Nursing home diversion that is not capped. It is up to. And it's a very new program. So it's quite small right now.

So it's really up to kind of a Whether the managed care plan, the medi Cal managed care plan decides to authorize this person and whether the facility owners decide to accept them. So it's not. I think maybe sometimes there's comparisons when you hear these kinds of things in the nursing home industry that there's a limit of beds.

I mean, obviously there's some things we agree on and some things we don't agree on. I don't personally see this being an issue because what we're hearing is that facility owners are lining up to become providers for both ALW and the community support nursing home diversion because it is actually much more lucrative for them.

I mean, you've got somebody who's got a payer behind them. Medi Cal versus a private pay person who could run out of money at any time.

So while a medi Cal recipient could in theory run out of money at any time, most of these folks are coming in with a steady source of income, either SSI or their retirement income, compared to a lot of private pay people that we talk to all the time they're paying, supplementing with their personal savings, they eventually run out of money.

They eventually become evicted. That's a different issue. So I do not see it being. It seems like a steady source of income. Again, I'm not a facility operator that, you know, is good comparatively to private pay and it is quite set and like steady in.

I mean, I'm sure that there's other issues maybe with whether or not a facility agrees to become an ALW operator, But there's no shortage of providers who are trying to become providers, trying to go through the process with dhcs currently. Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Yes, Senator Perez.

Yeah, I would love to ask a couple of questions and I appreciate the author for raising this issue and you know, those that shared and support some of the challenges that are being faced in these facilities. And I guess, you know, for the opposition.

Have you all found that there have been cases of these facilities raising rates on patients to try to drive them out of the facility? And is this an issue that you've seen personally?

No, not. We haven't seen this as an eviction strategy as the proponents claim as it was brought up, it's actually a source of stable, stable revenue. So it really, for us, it's a little bit perplexing on why a facility would want to use it as an eviction strategy.

So that specific motive is kind of new to us and we don't know any about any specific fact pattern. We know that there's some anecdotal stories that they're referring to and we're taking them at face value, but we don't know. We're not aware of specific instances as an eviction strategy.

And do you all have data? I'd love to hear from those in support if you all have data and kind of what you've seen as you've heard these stories. And yeah, just to get more, more details around that.

Unfortunately there is no data that I can think of as far as the number of people that are experiencing this, where they're either being charged, you know, exactly the amount of income that they make, leaving them with nothing for personal needs, or people that have been evicted as a result of this.

We do get phone calls from consumers all over the state. So we have heard from people and keep track. We have have our own kind of internal spreadsheet of people that have gone through this, which we've, together with justice in Aging, been working for two years on this issue.

Part of the reason why this is not as widespread right now is because most people or most facilities that operate within the structure of the Assisted Living Waiver program, advocates alike were working under the idea that there was a fixed boarding care rate.

Most owners in the ALW program who participate in AOW believe there is a fixed rate. It was only after we started getting a few kind of these one off calls and we reached out to the Department of Healthcare services or DHCs to ask them, hey, something's really wrong here.

This person is supposed to be paying a fixed board and care rate. We all know this, right? And they were being charged $1,700 a month and then come to find out that there was just this kind of loophole or oversight, whatever the word is that you want to call it, for non SSI individuals.

So that is a growing population of the ALW program. These people that are over the SSI income limit but under, you know, meet the criteria for free medi Cal. So we don't have significant data yet, but it is a growing problem. We are getting more calls about it.

As far as to the eviction strategy, there are fewer cases of that. What we have seen is those residents who have become just too difficult for the facility owner to, to deal with. And so this is the eviction strategy that they choose.

There are other pathways to get rid of, or I don't shouldn't use that term, but to find a more appropriate placement for somebody who is no longer, you know, this is not the best placement for them. And we do not believe that raising their rent and evicting them for non payment is the best strategy.

Thank you. And I, I.

And we don't support that either. I think we can agree on that.

I appreciate that context. I mean, obviously, I think the issue of the rising number of seniors that we're seeing fall into homelessness is a real challenge. I've seen those numbers rise, particularly across Los Angeles. And unfortunately, and we need to build more facilities or we're going to continue to see those numbers rise.

We have a huge population of, of folks that are aging here in California and frankly, not a lot of folks have the financial means to support themselves as they enter into the elderly age. So. Thank you. Thank you for answering my questions.

Any other questions or comments? If not, Senator, Dr. Wahab, you may close.

Thank you. First off, I just want to highlight a couple of facts with me. The term rent control is always utilized to kind of scare folks, especially our colleagues that are a little bit more conservative on housing issues.

I want to highlight this, that this Bill explicitly states that it does not authorize the imposition of rent control for licensed RCFEs. And for the Senator that specifically asked this question, I want to repeat that this Bill explicitly states that it does not authorize the imposition of rent control for licensed RCFEs.

The term rent control is utilized largely as a scare tactic on issues that we are again trying to protect the most amount of residents. Our amendments propose that DHCs and DSSs may waive that provision when they find it necessary and appropriate, such as when facilities choose to accept medi Cal payments for certain eligible residents.

I also want to highlight that when we're talking about residential care facilities for the elderly, right now there's about 94,131 beds available, and the number of licensed facilities is 7,474. And that is growing. I also want to highlight that this has nothing to do with six beds or more and so forth.

You know, licensed facilities can grow, can expand, go into different cities. This is a growing business. And it's a business that provides a lot of stability. As you heard, 10 years, 30 years, 20 years in business. This Bill, you know, they stated will limit access to the assisted living waiver. This Bill actually does not. Right.

This Bill makes no changes to Medi Cal eligibility pathways, the pathways that people use now to access no share of cost. Medi Cal will continue to be available and are not impacted by SB433.

I also want to highlight the fact that the Medi Cal patients, and I want to be very clear about this, they are largely deemed as living at the poverty level. These are individuals that are deeply in need of support. These are individuals that can potentially.

They're 60 years of age and older with potentially growing disabilities and conditions that prevent them from living their life fully. I want to highlight that these things are. These institutions are incredibly important to have many of them.

We are not trying to harm the industry, but we also want to highlight that the levels of income that they are now requiring is more than what people make on Social Security, especially in areas like LA and the Bay Area, that the cost of living is extremely high to begin with.

Many cities are trying to invest in senior services, senior care, senior housing, and they are not able to hit those numbers. These programs are incredibly important to just allow people to live their lives and also help families take care of their elders.

Because what is happening right now is that for a number of different reasons, including failure to pay rent, these facilities are able to evict within 10 days.

So I want to highlight that, again, this particular Bill is largely just to protect our most vulnerable, those at the poverty level, those that are on Medi Cal and those that we deeply care for because they are aging population. They deserve the care they need. Respectfully ask her. And I vote.

Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Witnesses for joining us today. I'll motion on SB433 move to approve move by Senator Perez. We can please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, we'll keep that bell on call. Thank you. And we'll go to our next File item, which is file item 5. SB434, also by Senator Wilhoff. And you may present the Bill.

Thank you, chair, colleagues and members of the public. Again, I want to thank the committee staff for their engagement with my office as well as the sponsors of this bill. SB 434 provides eviction protection parity for some of our most vulnerable seniors.

The bill also ensures that residential care facilities for the elderly RCFEs have demonstrated efforts to create a safe discharge plan in the event of an eviction. Despite existing law requiring tenants receive 60 days notice of an eviction if they're live if they've lived in a home for a year or more.

The prevailing standard in RCFEs is to provide only 30 days notice. Unlike nursing homes, RCFEs are under no obligation to assist their residents to find a safe and appropriate place to live after being evicted.

Federal rules require facilities receiving a Medicaid home and community based services waiver funding must abide by the same laws that applies to evictions for all tenants statewide. In an era of California being under scrutiny by the federal government, the state's failure to provide clear, equitable protections to RCFE residents threatens hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding.

So I would like to invite my two witnesses, Jaclyn Flores, consumer and price. I mean, consumer and policy advocate for the California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, CANHR, and Carmen Brammer, daughter and primary caregiver of formerly evicted RCFE resident Pauline Brammer.

Good afternoon. You have two minutes to address the Committee. Welcome.

Thank you. Oh, is this on? There we go. Thank you. Hello, committee members. My name is Jaclyn Flores and I'm an 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.

SB434 has several important protections against bad RCFE evictions. But there's one piece that's absolutely essential. The preservation of at least hundreds of millions of federal assisted living waiver dollars that keeps older and disabled Californians out of nursing homes. This funding requires California to give the same protections to RCFE residents that we give to all tenants.

SB434 aligns RCAFE Eviction protections with the civil Code and simultaneously ensures California is in compliance with stipulations to continue this funding. Last year I worked with a resident of an RCFE who had lived at her facility for eight years.

The facility administrator did not get along with the resident, so he had her placed on a 5150 hold for grave disability. She is disabled, which is why she was in an assisted living facility. The 5150 hold was cleared, but the facility repeatedly refused to allow her to return.

There was no eviction notice given and no unlawful detainer served. This kind of eviction is so common that we have a name for it. It's called hospital dumping. This is just one example of an RCFE eviction case, but we're getting increasing calls about them.

Something needs to change and we need better protection for our older and disabled adults. Every tenant in California who has lived in their home for at least one year is entitled to receive a 60 day notice of eviction. Why is it that older and disabled adults have less time?

SB434 ensures that RCFU residents do not end up homeless or dead after they are evicted. I thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions the committee members may have. On behalf of CANHR and RCFU residents across California, we respectfully request your I vote on SB434. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you. I'm Carmen Brammer. Thank you for this opportunity to share the devastating experience my mother, Pauline Brammer, endured at Sonnet Hill. Initially, Sonnet Hill appeared to be an ideal RCFE. However, within months they attempted to increase our monthly rate by $1,400, knowing it was their contract error.

When I challenged this, I was subjected to months of harassment, including false reports of financial abuse to Adult Protective Services and Social Security office. In April 2022, my mother was rushed to the emergency room in critical condition with a heart rate that had plummeted to 22 beats per per minute.

A severe fecal impaction indicated prolonged neglect and extremely low oxygen levels. Sonnet Hill refused to disclose her hospital location, forcing me to threaten police action. While fighting for her life, Sonnet Hill evicted my mother, falsely notifying the hospital.

She was not allowed back due to non payment, but later emailed me that it was due to the severity of her condition, a direct result of their neglect. When I sought answers from Sonnet Hill, I was locked out.

The Executive Director berated me, saying he would spend the rest of his life making sure I was put in jail because I was an abuser. My mother's critical condition required skilled nursing care where we face further challenges due to the lack of time to find a suitable facility.

Having RCFEs issue immediate evictions without due process is inhumane and causes severe trauma to vulnerable seniors and families. I urge you to support SB434 to protect our seniors from illegal dumping and to ensure my mother's suffering leads to positive change.

Thank you so much for being here today for your testimony. We'll now take any other witnesses in support of SB 434. You can please come forward. State your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists. In support. Thank you.

Yasmin Peled on behalf of Justice and Aging, in support.

Jason Sullivan-Halpern with the Long Term Care Ombudsman Association in support.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in support of SP434? Okay, we'll now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. We'll take two witnesses for two minutes each. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition to SB434? Why don't you sit, Sir? Why don't you sit here at this.

Hello again. George Kutnerian with 6Beds. Our members are committed to serving some of California's most vulnerable vulnerable residents, not displacing them. Eviction is truly a last resort and never taken lightly. We're empathetic to the overall aim of the bill to provide RCFE residents with adequate protection against inappropriate evictions.

But it's unclear how lengthening notice requirements directly solves this issue. In our experience, Most operators of RCFEs engage in extensive good faith dialogue to resolve circumstances that could lead to an eviction notice. Unfortunately, lengthier notice requirements don't take into consideration these attempts at resolution that often occur in the background.

We have concerns about lengthier notice requirements having the effect of abbreviating these good faith discussions which does not serve anyone well. We understand from the sponsor that oversight of the eviction process may be more the concern.

And we're certainly open to dialogue regarding a more targeted approach addressing licensing's oversight role as opposed to a broad brush approach of lengthier notice requirements. Although we do acknowledge and appreciate the amendment limiting failure to pay to a 30 day notice requirement. Finally, we also have concerns about the bill requiring RCFES to create a safe discharge plan.

While a safe discharge plan sounds reasonable in concept, the specific requirements of the plan include RCFEs making assurances about other facilities ability to meet resident needs, including their financial practicability. And RCFEs must do this for facilities within 60 miles of the resident's preferred city.

Unfortunately, RCFES are not equipped to make such assurances for other facilities in the immediate area, much less 60 miles away. We don't believe residents are well served by RCFEs playing a role for which they are ill equipped. We believe that the appropriate role for RCFES in discharge situations is that of a resource.

We look forward to continuing to work with the author's office and the sponsor. Thank you and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. My name is Lori Ferguson. I'm an attorney with the law firm Hanson Bridgett and I'm here on behalf of the California Assisted Living Association. I have represented RCFES assisted living communities in eviction proceedings since about 2015, so for about 10 years.

And I would like to comment that the protections right now that exist for residents of RCFES are robust. The requirements that RCFES need to follow in order to evict a resident, which is a last resort, are more difficult than for your typical landlord tenant relationship.

Contrary to the comments that have been made, there is no overall 60 day notice requirement for residents of a typical apartment or rental property.

That 60 day requirement that's been mentioned with respect to individuals who have resided in their home for over a year is under Civil Code 1946.1 and that specifically refers to non renewals after a specific term of a lease.

For example, if the lease is a year and the landlord wants to not renew, if a person's been there for over a year, the landlord must give 60 days notice.

In the typical landlord tenant relationship, there is an ability to evict someone for on three days notice or less than 30 days notice, less than 60 days notice, and certainly less than 90 days notice. So contrary to the comments that have been made, the protections for RCFE residents is more robust than for normal tenants.

And then after that there is the unlawful detainer process that RCFES must endure go through for evictions. I would also like to comment, and again I echo the comments that were made on behalf of CALA, but the increased notice requirements actually put residents, the individual who's being evicted and the others in the community at risk of harm.

In a situation where a resident has had a change of condition, maybe has prohibited conditions that are no longer able to be cared for in an assisted living setting, or perhaps changing behaviors due to perhaps cognitive impairment that is worsening that resident and the others who live in the community are put at risk if that resident has to live there for 60 days or 90 days for the notice period before they are moved to a community that's more appropriate for them.

And I will just reiterate that we're just talking about the notice period here. We still would have the eviction process. So thank you very much for your time. I ask that you vote no.

Thank you. Okay, we'll take Any other witnesses in opposition to SB434. You can please line up and state your name, affiliation and position for record.

Darby Kernan, with Leading Age California. We associate associate our opposition unless amended with the other opposition. Thank you.

Thank you once again. Name, affiliation and position.

Good afternoon. Dorie Paniza, 6Beds. President of Northern California RC for operator for more than 30 years. I oppose that bill. Thank you so much.

Olivia DeAnda, RCFE owner and 6Beds Member. Strongly opposed.

Gina Wasdyke, founder and director of 6Beds. Strongly opposed.

Ethel Gomben, C & C's Care Home in San Bruno. Strongly opposed. Thank you.

Lily Mauricio from San Bruno. Strongly opposed.

Fernando Paz, Sacramento. I strongly oppose this bill.

I'm Rose Gonzales of Gonzales Home. I strongly oppose.

Deanna Panetta, Director of Home CA. Strongly opposed.

Okay, thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition to SB434? Okay, so it's now in order for the committee to discuss the bill. And so I'll ask, are there any questions or comments from members of the committee on this bill?

Senate Perez will be back. Senator trobo.

So yes, Mr. Chair, I do have a question or for clarification would love to hear from the lead witnesses in support with regards to the concerns or the statements made. That. A resident may have a change. Of.

Special need based on their condition that they may have that may require them to be reassigned to a different facility because a current facility wouldn't have the ability or the capacity to care for this individual.

So in light of that mindset, how does this all work with regards to ensuring that they actually are moved to a facility where they can actually receive the proper care?

So SB 434 does not bring anything new to the table in regards to like a health Relocation order. So currently there is already due process for residents who are living in assisted living facilities that have increasing care needs. So RCFEs are non medical facilities.

And so if an RCFE has a resident who has a health need that they cannot, that an RCFE is not licensed to care for, then they can get an approved Health Relocation order from dhcs. So I'm sorry, from dss.

So Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division would issue this relocation order and have the resident placed in an appropriate setting or it would grant the RCFE the ability to move the resident prior to the 30 day notice.

May I address that as well?

Can I also, if you don't mind.

Well great. I'm glad you're mentioning that because I was just going to ask for the other support witness in regards to your mother where she was placed in the hospital for medical reasons and you know, obviously was not able to come back.

But were there medical reasons why that your mother was not able to go back to the same facility or why she wasn't able to be accepted to the same facility? Was there a consideration in that respect? And then. So we'll give you an opportunity. Yeah, go ahead. To address that.

As well as following up with the, with the length of the process and the procedure in which folks are reassigned to a facility that are able to take care of the new medical condition.

So there is a provision about a health relocation order on the books, but the Department of Social Services never employs it. What the clients, my clients, the RCFEs are told to do is to go through the eviction process. One of the five grounds for eviction is a new need not previously identified.

And after reappraisal done under Section 87463 of title 22, the licensee, the person conducting the reappraisal has determined that the resident that the community is no longer appropriate for the resident.

That's the ground that the Department wants the RCFEs to go through when an individual does develop a new medical need, even needs that are listed as prohibited conditions under the regulations.

In fact, Calla received an email from the Department of Social Services just on Friday indicating that, yes, the Department of Social Services never uses the health relocation procedure. So it is just practically not available. And that's not how it works. We have to go through the 30 day notice and then the unlawful detainer process.

If I can just add to that it's accurate, it's not really used as pragmatically, even though it's on the books and we don't want probably providers to try to use that. 30 days is better than three days. I would just argue that, you know, we don't want providers trying to use that as much. The 30 days has, you know, kind of been the standard.

Well, and if I could chime in, there's also a three day notice that's separate from the health relocation order. I'm sorry about that. So the three day notice that you might hear about is for good cause.

In that circumstance, the RCFE has to go to the Department of Social Services and ask for permission to to issue a three day instead of the 30 day notice. And that's only in situations where the resident's behavior or condition is a threat of harm to that individual or to others in that situation.

That's practically not available as well either. In fact, the Department of Social Services reported to Calla that In the last 10 years they've only granted those requests 187 times. That's over 10 years in my 10 years of practicing.

I think in all the times I've helped my clients submit those requests, I think I can recall one time it was granted and that was when a resident was had a gun and was threatening others with a gun. So it's very rarely used.

Okay. Did you have a question for the other witness in support?

Well, I think they can have addressed it with the answer there.

I did want to make a comment, if you don't mind.

Is there any objection? Okay.

No, no. Oh, please. No. So I wanted to just share that. Something that needs to be made aware of is most of us as caregivers, we don't know all these rules and we learn them as we bounce into them.

And unfortunately, because the facilities have the knowledge that we don't have, we're often put in a situation where we don't know if the right thing is being done. And, and more often than not, they do not consult with the medical personnel that is managing your loved one. And they make decisions without talking to those individuals.

And that has happened multiple times. And it happened with my mother. We didn't even know until the day that she was going into the hospital that something was happening. And it was the medical provider that called me and said, I don't know what happened. They never contacted me to say something was wrong.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments for Members of the Committee? If not, Senator Wahab. You may close.

Thank you. I just wanted to highlight some of the commentary here and just provide some education as well. RCFEs are residential care facilities for the elderly.

It's non medical facilities serving 60 and up and they provide room, meals, housekeeping, provide personal care assistance, bathing, dressing, eating, toileting and supervision of that sort, as well as storage and distribution of medication and things like that.

I do want to highlight that one of the things that we've noticed and we have heard feedback is that oftentimes if you're, let's just be very honest about this. If you're 60 and aging, you are going to have more medical conditions as you age. Right.

So it's not necessarily that anybody was hiding anything or it was very transparent that somebody ended up getting diabetes or needing a kidney transplant or any of these extra services that are going to eventually be needed. So I really want to highlight that.

And this is a community that is incredibly vulnerable, especially as cognitive decline may happen as well as health decline as a whole. And some of the commentary that was made about saying that it would make it unsafe for other residents if some of these residents were in place is outlandish.

And you know, residents who are elderly and or disabled receive less time to arrange their move than normal California tenants. Okay. So by the time something is identified with a resident that there is an illness or a growing disability of some sort, you know, the facilities can move very quickly.

They can move very quickly to say, hey, there's increased need here. We don't provide that service, you're out. Eviction obviously happens on a faster timeline than a regular renter. In California, the civil code already requires 60 days notice for tenants who have lived in their homes for a year or more.

This Bill simply clarifies that this rule would also apply to RCFEs protecting California's funding under Medi Cal Home and community based services. I do just want to highlight again that there is a lot of concern I have for our growing aging population. These are simple steps again they can evict for failure to pay rent.

They can do what they need to do to keep their industry alive and booming, because it is a booming industry. They have a lot of support elsewhere. But the residents. I just want to be very clear. Some of these homes are not in the area that their families live in.

Some of these people travel, maybe visit their elderly once every two weeks, once a month. It's not out of choice. It's out of society and living in a high cost of living area. By the time that they are notified or they hear that, hey, there are some behavior issues that are not normal for this particular patient.

Whatever the case may be, it all eats away at the time and some bad actors utilize that in a very negative way. So I just want to highlight that this bill is about parity. It's about humanity, and it's about our aging, vulnerable community. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Motion on SB 434.

I will do a courtesy motion.

Okay, thank you. So if we can please call the roll on the motion, which is, due pass to a Duciary.

Arreguin? Aye. Arreguin? Aye. Ochoa-Bogh? No. Ochoa-Bogh? No. Becker? Limon. Perez.

Okay, we'll keep that bill on call. Thank you very much. Just want to announce that. Senator Ochoa-Bogh, I serve on the Senate Energy Committee, which is meeting simultaneously and at some point we'll have to recess the committee to go and cast our votes.

But Senator Richardson is waiting very patiently, so we'll go out of order to her Bill next, which is Senate Bill 748. And good afternoon, Senator Richardson.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. First, I'd like to start off by thanking the chair and the committee for working with me in my office on this very important measure, SB 748, which is the encampment resolution funding program regarding specifically recreational vehicles.

Second, I'd like to accept the committee amendments which will help us to sharpen the scope and also the benefit of this bill. Homelessness may be defined as an individual or family who.

Who lacks a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime permanent residence, a man, a woman, or a child that sleeps on the street, in front of a store or in a recreational vehicle. RV for more than 14 days is considered to be experiencing homelessness. Members, in January of 2024, the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD reported that 187,084 people were experiencing homelessness. And that is a significant portion of those individuals are living in RVs. More specific to California and Los Angeles. As of 2020, people living in vehicles make up almost half of the city's unsheltered population experiencing homelessness in Oakland, where our dear chair is from.

In Oakland, as of February 2022, an estimated 1,031 people were living in cars and vans and another 907 were sleeping in RVs altogether representing more than half 58% of Oakland's unsheltered population.

Due to support needed for the unhoused existing law established, the Encampment Resolution Funding Program, hereafter referred to as ERF Program, specifically was adopted to provide competitive grants to local jurisdictions to support homeless encampment resolution and rehousing efforts. A few of the ERF goals are as follows.

One , to assist local jurisdictions in ensuring the safety and wellness of people experiencing homelessness in encampments and two to provide grants to resolve critical encampment concerns and transition individuals into safe and stable housing.

Often, RV or street encampments do not provide adequate shelter from inclement weather, safety from uninvited strangers or to those who intend them to do harm, and oftentimes, unfortunately, these encampments also don't provide adequate sanitation to avoid disease and infections. In 2024, a recent Supreme Court ruling, City of Grant passed versus Johnson.

The justices ruled that cities and or local jurisdictions do in fact have legal authority to clear homeless encampments. Governor Newsom followed that Supreme Court decision by issuing an Executive order requiring the state agencies to create policies that address encampments, including their removal.

SB 748 enables jurisdictions through the Safe Parking Sites tool to comply with both the Supreme Court ruling and the Executive Order. So what in fact does SB 748 do? It's designed to assist those local jurisdictions with acquiring additional locations for temporary parking so that additional temporary housing might be met by those who need it most.

Examples that some of you may be aware of in the Los Angeles County, which is actually the largest county in the United States, operates 124 hour seven days a week RV Interim Housing site at Expo with the 24 hour security and resident monitors.

The site also provides wraparound services including housing navigation and access to permanent housing to incentivize RV residents to move into permanent housing.

In terms of its safe parking sites, the LA County operates four sites which include access to park a vehicle in a safe parking lot with on site security, restrooms, referrals and linkages to community resources, and access to case management and financial assistance.

Essentially, what I want to make very clear to the public are these safe Parking sites provide the same type of service if an individual was also, unfortunately, unhoused and on the street. These are noteworthy programs that are assisting our unhoused constituents.

And SB 748 seeks to not only strengthen these programs, but also to expand and replicate successful outcomes in terms of accountability.

Keeping this bill in line with the governor's request for accountability, SB 748 requires the California Interagency Council on Homelessness to support to submit a report to the Senate and Assembly committees on local government, transportation and Housing and Community Development on the funding distributed for each purpose.

As I close, finally, I understand that there might be some that have different perspectives or concerns, and I always stand ready to work with them.

As mentioned, the key point of utilizing the Encampment Resolution Fund is to give all of local government and jurisdictions multiple tools in the toolbox to address homelessness and to assist people who need our help most. With that, I'll pause, and I have two representatives here as witnesses.

Mr. Christopher Wysocki, he's with the Western Manufactured Housing and Communities Association, and Ms. Carly Shelby with the City of Compton.

Great. Good evening now. And you'll have two minutes to present.

Great. Okay. Good afternoon, chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Carly. Here today on behalf of the City of Compton and strong spring of Senate Bill 748 by Senator Richardson.

As housing costs continue to rise and shelter space remains limited, more Californians are turning to vehicles, particularly recreational vehicles, or RVs, as a last resort for shelter. And in Compton and many other cities, these informal encampments along public roads present urgent health, safety, and environmental challenges.

But current state programs, including the Encampment Resolution Funding Program, don't fully address the unique needs of people living in vehicles. Senate Bill 748 helps fill that gap.

It expands eligible ERF uses to include safe parking, RV storage and removal, and enhanced site hours, tools that local governments urgently need to support people living in vehicles while also managing public safety responsibly. The bill is not about punishment. It's about giving cities the resources to respond with compassion and coordination.

In Compton, the city has made real efforts to connect unhoused residents with services and housing. But we really are constrained by funding and statutory clarity when it comes to RV encampments. SB 748 empowers cities to act both thoughtfully and humanely while still honoring the ERF's core goal, which is helping people transition from encampments to safe and stable housing.

And for that, we urge your. I vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Chair, members, Chris Wysocki with Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association. And we want to thank the author for introducing this bill. It was brought to our attention by the Senator that she was going to introduce this and we took it to our legislative Committee.

And I was actually surprised by the number of stories that we had heard from mobile home park owners around the state and how this would actually help not only the mobile home residents, but also the residents of RVs and automobiles that are parked on city streets.

What our mobile home park owners are seeing and a lot of local businesses, especially in inner core, heavily industrial areas of the state. In our larger cities, you've got a number of RV encampments that they park there and people might live nearby, but they're still exposed to the refuse, the trash.

And quite frankly, those circumstances lead not only to a detriment to the greater quality of life for the community, but also to the residents and the people that live in the RVs. Because what we found, according to a lot of our owners, you know, you've got illicit enterprises often taking place in these areas.

There's prostitution, there's, you know, drug dealing. And meanwhile, people in mobile home parks have to walk by this every day while their kids are going to school and from school. So what's the compassionate answer? Because this is not a population that we believe should just be shoved aside.

Senate Bill 748 is a common sense solution that provides the people that live in these RV encampments with the security and the safety that we believe that they deserve. It gives them the wraparound services by providing safe haven for the people that the people that need it the most.

And for those reasons, and just to stress that we believe this is a humanitarian issue and our mobile home park owners want to help the community. We want to see a thriving industrial base. We want to see a safe community. And that's why we're supporting this bill. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. We'll take any other witnesses in support of SB 748. If you can please approach the microphone and state your name, affiliation and position for the record. Are there any other witnesses in support of SB 748? Okay. We'll now proceed to witnesses in opposition. We will hear two witnesses, lead witnesses in opposition to SB 748.

And each lead witness will have two minutes to address the Committee, after which time we'll take me to from witnesses in opposition.

Do I need to press power? Awesome. Good early evening, Chair Members. Senator Richardson, it is with great respect that on behalf of ACLU California Action. We are in opposition today. My name is Carmen Nicole Cox. I'm Director of Government Affairs.

And we appreciate too the conversations we were able to have with your office early on in the legislative session. I think our position remains the same, which is that the answer to houselessness is housing.

And it is absolutely not depriving people of the limited property that they have that serves as the shelter for them in the rain and the cold and the heat. We oppose this bill because it is vague, it is confusing, it will harm community members experiencing homelessness.

We understand that the bill that you have agreed to accept amendments which reduce some of the most significant harm. So we absolutely appreciate you for that. But even with the amendments, we remain concerned and opposed. Primarily, encampment resolution funds are intended to help jurisdictions provide services to people living in encampments.

Particularly, these funds are aimed to help unhoused people move from encampments to shelter, with the long term goal of helping people find safe and stable permanent housing. Unfortunately, SB 748 would detract from that purpose.

It instead would allow jurisdictions to spend funds on ticketing, towing, storing and potentially disposing of RVs and, as amended, cars that are serving as temporary shelter, forcing people from their vehicular shelter out onto the street.

This is likely to decrease an unhoused person's trajectory towards stable housing, as it also, we have to say, cruelly compounds cost and additional property loss upon a person who's already experiencing homelessness. SB 748, as I mentioned, is ambiguous. It would allow the jurisdictions to tow RVs while they are looking to provide services.

So a person is absolute by the language, would be without any shelter while shelter is being sought, to take away their shelter while we look for shelter that may or may not be there.

The bill doesn't define the safe parking site, so it's unclear whether the individuals under this bill would be able to remain with their RV or cars or whether that would be towed. So instead, the bill's safe parking sites seem to operate as nothing more than tow yards, at least as we can understand.

I'll just say, in a tight budget with a dire need for more housing solutions, Californians cannot should not Fund towing and destruction and deprivation of inhabited vehicles. This bill, unfortunately we do that and for that reason we are opposed.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other lead witnesses in opposition? Okay, if not, we'll take any other witnesses in opposition to SB748. If you can please approach the microphone and state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Kathleen Williams, resident of Sacramento, on behalf of many Sacramento organizations, including Services Not Sweeps, the Poor People's Campaign, some of the provider organizations that I've worked with, Loaves and Fishes, we oppose this bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. Chair and Members Katherine Charles, on behalf of Housing California, in opposition.

Robert, a couple concerns sent from Sacramento, strong opposition.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Members Gregory Kramer on behalf of Disability. Rights California, in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair. Members Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association, in opposition.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses? In opposition. Okay. If not, we'll bring it back to the Committee. And if I may begin the discussion. First, I want to thank the author for meeting with me and Committee staff to discuss the scope of the bill and for accepting the Committee amendments which removed Section 5.

I'll just note for the record of the bill, which had very prescriptive requirements around how the state parking site should be administered, specifically included a provision that said that vehicles can only stay there for 60 days.

And I think it was important to take that out because in my experience as the primary of Berkeley who helped establish a safe parking program and as the Senator representing Oakland who's had a number of these programs, oftentimes these vehicles stay longer than 60 days because the people that the nonprofits that are working to provide wraparound services are working with people to either find another safe place for them to move their vehicle or work with them to connect them to temporary or permanent housing.

As the representative of the East Bay, which has a growing number of people experiencing homelessness and people living in vehicular shelter, I think it's important to allow local jurisdictions the ability to apply for.

All this does is allow you to apply for to the state, if this bill were to pass, the use of these encampment resolution funds to establish state parking sites, I don't believe that it does allow for the use of that money for enforcement.

It's for safe parking sites which, you know, you have to lease land, you have to provide sanitation, you have to write wraparound services. These things cost money. So the reality is that vehicular homelessness is an increasing challenge in California.

And allowing the flexibility of these funds to address this particular issue, I think is in line with the intent of the encampment resolution program. I think just gives local governments more tools.

I'll just note for the record, I have a bill, Senate Bill 692, which is not before the Committee today, that would give local jurisdictions more ability to do summary abatement of problem vehicles. And this really is also intended to give local governments tools to manage some of the challenges that Ms.

Wysocki talked about, which are people who are using vehicles not necessarily for shelter but for illicit activities, as creating a detrimental impact on people's quality of life. And if you've been to streets in East Oakland, in my district, you see people literally dumping vehicles on the street or using them to engage in criminal activity, that's not acceptable.

So I really thank the author for accepting the amendments which remove the definition of encampments because there is no definition of encampments in the ERF statute and it should be broad and inclusive to include cars. And to strike Section 5 specifically about the prescriptive standards on towing and auctioning of RVs. Any other questions or comments?

Thank you for elaborating me. Yes. Senator Limon, thank you.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you to the author. Working with committees, I think all of our communities have struggled with how to tackle the issue of those who are unhoused. And I think a lot of us also would love to see, you know, permanent solutions, long time solutions, transition from intermediate steps.

But I think that the reality is that we know and many of us have served in local government to understand the need for intermediate steps. And I remember being on a nonprofit board when we started our first safe parking program in Santa Barbara and how controversial and how difficult that was.

And you know, it wasn't something we wanted to do. It was just a better option than the existing.

And while I absolutely believe that we should always aim for the best options, I think that the reality is we at times have to look at what we are or not able to do and give some type of intermediate option for our local communities.

And I think that you've brought together this piece and I think that local communities will be in the best position to assess whether this is the right approach for the local community. But certainly it doesn't stop them from doing better and being more.

I think that this is just the reality of where we're facing, what we're facing with this intermediate option. So I want to thank you for bringing this forward. I know you've worked really hard on this and you continue to have conversations with the chair and with the Committee.

And with that, I would make a motion to move the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? If not Senator Richardson, you may close. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, it was very encouraging to hear your comments and your experiences as well. And to those who might have a concern, just to restate, and I would definitely acknowledge that my office and the chair's office has been working quite hard.

So maybe you haven't had an opportunity to see all of the amendments which will now be public and further available to you. But again to state this is in no way suggesting to deprive someone of their property.

Actually quite to the contrary, it's allowing them to keep their property and their property is now in a safe location where they don't have to worry that it's being towed, where they don't have to worry that it's being broken into, that they don't have to have those concerns that they have when a person is living on the streets.

Also it was stated that the primary goal of ERF funds. There was a definition that was given and I think it's important to actually state for the record correctly that. Give me one second here that actually the ERF program provides competitive grants to local jurisdictions to support homeless encampment resolution.

So resolution may mean various options to be able to help and rehousing efforts which certainly this program would provide. It gives people a place to go to actually take a bath or take a shower to get support, to get help, which is all what I think all of us here certainly want. I thank you for your support.

I look forward to an aye vote and implementing this program and continuing to work with all interested parties to present the best possible for all Californians.

Thank you so very much. There was a motion by Senator Limon on this bill which is do passes amended to the Housing Committee and if we can please call the roll.

Arreguin, aye. Arreguin, aye. Ochoa-Bogh. Aye. Ochoa-Bogh. Aye. Becker. Limon. Aye. Limon, Aye. Perez.

Okay, we'll keep that bill on call. Thank you, Senator Richardson. So Senator Hurtado is next, but Senator Hurtado is also a Member of the Energy Committee and we got to go vote before they gavel the Committee down. So we're going to call a recess of this Committee so we can go to. Because everyone here is on energy.

So we're going to call a recess. Sorry, but you got to go with us too. And we'll come back, you know, well within the next probably 15 minutes to reconvene.

They are wrapping up their last bill now. Yeah, yeah.

Can she go faster? That we can just do add ons.

Okay, then let's just, let's go to Senator Hurtado. This should have been on the consent calendar, frankly, but it's not. So let's proceed expeditiously on this bill and then we'll take a recess thereafter. I will now proceed. SB444 by Senator Hurtado, you may present on the opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee Members, SB444. I agree with you, Mr. Chair. Should have been on the consent calendar. But I appreciate the opportunity to speak about it because it builds upon the work that I did a couple years ago on the human right to food.

And I know that some of you here on this Committee are perhaps a little bit new to when I brought that Bill forward. And right now we're just looking to get some, some additional add ins there to ensure that the human right to food also ensures and incorporates local communities and incorporating local farmers.

So with that, I have Peter Hansel from the California Farm Bureau who's here to testify and support.

I'll just note for the record, the only amendment you're making is to add the words locally grown and raised with existing policy. That's correct, but we'll now hear from the witness. Thank you.

Thank you. Afternoon. Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon. My name is Peter Ansel. I'm a policy Director for California Farm Bureau. We're a nonprofit organization representing over 25,000 farms and ranches across the state. I'd like to thank the committee staff for the time of the thoughtful analysis.

I agree this would be a great consent calendar item because we're proud to sponsor the bill. It reinforces California's commitment to ensuring that every resident has access to sufficient and healthy locally grown food. It encourages that locally grown food, which will benefit California Farm Bureau Members hopefully and reduce the reliance on imported foods.

This aligns state nutritional health policies with strategies that improve vulnerable communities access to nutritionally locally grown food. Committee did a great job of running through a variety of different funding programs, both from the federal and the state government that provide Californians of all different types with access to locally grown food.

But as the USDA announced in March 2025, there's going to be about $1.0 billion in federal funding cuts to programs that provide local food purchasing to schools and food banks.

And in fact, this past weekend, Governor Newsom highlighted the fact that California's farmers and ranchers face some uncertainty because of what's happening across the country with different types of funding cuts. And so this is just a simple way to acknowledge that the state puts a priority on access to those locally grown foods.

It's a way for state agencies and departments to prioritize those locally grown healthy nuts, fruits and vegetables grown from California's farmers and ranchers. And it supports local strong food systems by benefiting both communities and the people that do the work to grow those foods. And so for those reasons, I ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you so very much. Are there any other lead witnesses in support of SB444? So please come forward. Okay, we'll take any other witnesses in support of SB444. Please come forward and state your name, organization and position for the record. Okay. Seeing no additional witnesses support.

Are there any lead, dare I say any lead witnesses in opposition to SB444? Are there any other witnesses in opposition? SB444? Please come forward to the microphone. Okay.

If not, we'll bring it back to the Committee and really appreciate you bringing this forward to really emphasize the importance of making sure that our state's policy on food security emphasizes locally grown and raised food.

And I think as the witness said, with all the uncertainty that's happening now at the federal level, it's important that California really invest in supporting our local farmers and our local food source. So I thank you for bringing this Bill forward. Are there any other questions or comments on SB444? Okay, move by Limon.

Seeing no additional discussion, Senator, you may close on the Bill. Thank you.

And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. The motion is by Sarah Limon, which is do you pass the appropriations? If we can please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Getting conflicting. Yeah. Okay, we'll keep that bill and call. I've been. I've been informed by the sergeants that there still are two bills in energy so we can continue to proceed with the bill presentations. We have two more bills to present on this afternoon. So our next bill is SB452 by Senator Wilson, Dr.

Weber Pierson and good evening. Dr. Weber Pearson. You may present in your bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, chair and Members of the Committee. I'm here to present SB452 which seeks to prevent the unnecessary and traumatic separation of children from their families by providing pre petition legal representation.

Too often poverty related issues are mistaken for neglect leading to family separations that could have been avoided with the Right Support. Given the the time and I know you guys have to to leave or recess. I am actually going to basically state that.

SB 452 would establish a three year pilot program, the Family Advocacy Pilot Program, which will be administered by the California Department of Social Services.

The program would allocate funding to qualified organizations providing one Preventative Legal Services which will assist families in addressing issues before they escal into child welfare cases and two direct assistance from an interdisciplinary team that can help stabilize families and connect them with their need services and three legal training and technical assistance to strengthen the ability of service providers to support at risk families.

Here with me to testify is Maria Greg Leo, directing attorney for Children's Law Center Anna Navarez, parent partner from the Santa Claria Pre petition program. And we also have Sarah Cook, Director of Policy and legal services for Dependency Advocacy and Julia Mccormick, senior policy attorney for Children's Law center to answer any technical questions if needed.

Thank you. And we'll take two lead witnesses in support. So whoever would like to begin your presentation, thank you. Yes.

All right. Good afternoon honorable chair and Committee Members. My name is Ana Navares and I work for Dependency Advocacy center as a mentor parent with First Call for Families, one of our preventative Legal services program. I want to share a little bit about my lived experience with the child welfare system.

I had two CPS cases and in one of them I was unable to reunify with my older children. Well, in the other I did reunify with my daughter. I genuinely believe if I had support from a program like First Call for Families, neither of my cases would have ended up in dependency court in the first place place.

With my youngest daughter, I knew I needed help, but I didn't know who to turn to. I ended up calling the police because I had no other option than rather than get no other option and rather than getting assistance, they called CPS and took my daughter away.

The trauma from her removal, which impacted both me and my daughter until this day could have been prevented if I had access to treatment services I want, I wanted needed in the community like through a preventative Legal services program. This is why I chose to do prevention work.

I firmly believe that people can change with the right support, especially when that support is rooted in community. As a mentor parent, I help individuals who are in the same situations as I once faced. I provide guidance, resources. I work alongside an amazing team of social workers, attorneys and help families stabilize and remain intact.

I believe in prevention because most families, if given their resources and support, they can turn their lives around without the trauma of separation and formal dependency involvement. This is why I'm supporting. This is why supporting and funding Preventative Legal Services program is so important and why I am respectfully asking you to vote yes on Sb52.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you so very much for being here today. Your testimony yes, Good afternoon.

My name is Maria Griglio and I'm the directing attorney of the Children's Law Center's Family Support and Advocacy center, abbreviated FSAC. FSAC is Children's Law Center's privately funded prevention legal services program for former foster youth who are now parents.

I've spent my entire career working in child welfare, first as a social worker and for the last 30 years as an attorney representing parents, children and Los Angeles County's Department of Children and Family Services, or DCFS. During my 17 years providing legal representation to DCFS, I spent five of those years representing social workers conducting investigations.

I truly believe that the prevention work that I'm doing now with FSAC is by far the most impactful and beneficial to families. The goal of FSAC is to prevent the intergenerational cycle of foster care by providing legal and social services support to our clients as upstream as possible.

This approach allows us to address many issues, including poverty related issues that if left unaddressed, could lead to child welfare involvement.

Some examples of the support our three case managers and two attorneys provide are filing requests for restraining orders and custody orders, legal support for housing issues, connection to housing resources and counseling programs, creation of safety plans, assistance with removing safety hazards from the home, and perhaps most impactful legal representation during a DCFS investigation.

To date, FSAC has supported 92 parents and is represented 28 through DCFS investigations. With just one parent having had their children removed, 100% of FSAT clients have been either African American or Hispanic.

The passage of SB 452 would provide the structure and funding stream that would broaden the capacity of programs like ours as well as make it possible for the creation of new programs throughout the state.

Providing legal representation before a dependency petition is filed is one way to make sure families have the support and resources they need to keep their children safely with them. For this reason, I ask your support for this Bill.

Thank you, sir, very much. Are there any other witnesses in support of SB452? You can please come forward to the microphone and state your name, affiliation and position. For the record. I know you're here in support of SB452. Do you want to.

Yes. Sarah Cook. I'm the Director of Policy and Legal Services with Dependency Advocacy Center. We have two pre petition prevention Legal Services program, co-sponsor of the bill and proudly in support.

Thank you so very much. Any other witnesses in support of SB452? Okay, we'll now move to lead witnesses in opposition to SB452. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? If you can, please come forward. Okay. If not, are there any other witnesses in opposition? SB452. Okay, seeing none. That completes our testimony.

Bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Move the Bill unless there are any other questions or comments, Senator. Dr. Weber, Pierson, you may close.

Well, thank you so much. I want to thank the witnesses for coming and speaking today. I want to thank the Committee for hearing this Bill and just respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 452.

Okay, thank you. The motion is by Sarah Limon. It's do pass to the Judiciary Committee. If we can please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, we'll keep that bill on call as well. Thank you. Okay, we have one more bill and that's from our own Committee Member, Senator Limon, SB778. If there are any lead witnesses in support, please come forward. And sergeants, you'll let us know when we got a. Okay. Okay. We'll now proceed to SB778.

And Senator Limon, you may present.

Thank you, chair and colleagues. SB778 aims to support agricultural working families by expanding access to the migrant child care and development programs under the California Department of Social Services.

SB7.8 expands this specified criteria by redefining migrant agricultural worker, family and statute to mean a family that has at least one individual earning 40% or more of their time of their total income from agricultural work. Additionally, it authorizes eligible families to self certify and provide any necessary documents to establish the income eligibility with CDSS.

Today with me we have Dr. Pineda, on behalf of the Mexican American Opportunity foundation to speak in support of the bill.

Good evening. Welcome. Good evening. My name is Dr. Ciriaco Serpinedo. I'm the President and the CEO of the Mexican American Opportunity Foundation. We're a 62 year old nonprofit organization that amongst other things, provides early education services across nine counties in California.

We want to acknowledge your time for allowing us to be here and thank the Senator Limon for authoring this Bill. The CMEG program or Migrant Childcare and Development Program is a crucial program aimed to provide child care for our farm worker families.

We believe this Bill will ease the enrollment of farm worker families who qualify for the program by addressing what are some of the cultural and linguistic challenges faced by farm workers and their families.

Two key improvements in this requirement change is acknowledges that many farm workers have multiple jobs and the allowance for self certification helps mitigate against the difficult employer verification process. We're here to answer any questions that you may have and respectfully request an ivo.

Thank you so very much. Are there any other lead witnesses in support of SB778? If not, we'll take any other witnesses in support of SB778. Please come forward and sit. Your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Mr. Chair, Senators, Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the Western Tree Nut Association, California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, Strawberry and Blueberry Commissions, and California Citrus Mutual, all in support. Thank you very much.

Chair and Committee Members. My name is Barbara Schmitz. I'm here on behalf of First Five California. And we're in support.

Thank you very much. Okay, we'll now move to lead witnesses in opposition. SB778. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Okay. If not, we'll take any. Any other witnesses in opposition. SB778. Okay. Seeing no additional testimony, I'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Any questions or comments and move by Senator Chobo.

And thank you, Senator Moore, for bringing this Bill forward. I will be voting for it today and you may close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. So the motion is by Senator Tropo and that is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, thank you. We'll also keep that Bill on call as well. I think that completes all of our Bill presentations for today. So would now be the appropriate time to go to. Why don't we open. Why don't we open the roll lift the call on those remaining bills. Okay, so we're going to lift the call first on SB560. Smallwood-Cuevas.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that bell on call. I will now proceed to lift the call on SB433. Wahab.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll let the call now on SB434. Wahab.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that bell on call. We'll now go to. I don't think we have the Kinson count. Zero. Let's go back to the consent calendar. Thank you. And consent consists of SB290, SB352, SB471, SB624, SB814, SB739, SB792. So if we can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that Bill on call. And so I don't. Let's table lifting the call on SB444. So all the Members are here. Okay, do.

No, Perez and Becker are here. So let's hold on lifting the call on that. Let's hold on lifting the call on. Are we caught up? . Okay, great. So we're going to recess the Committee. We'll be back to lift the call on the remaining bills. Thank you.

Sorry, I wasn't following your lead there, and I was like, oh.

On all remaining bills. First on the consent calendar, which consists of SB290, SB352, SB471, SB624, SB814, SB739, and SB792.

[Roll Call]

And so I think that all votes have been recorded on the consent calendar. The consent calendar is approved, so if we can proceed to the next Bill on call.