Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services

I call this meeting of the Assembly Human Services Committee to order. Want to remind folks that we are accepting written testimony today. And if there are disruptions, we will be removed by the sergeants.

But today, since we yet to have quorum and there are many other committees being simultaneously off the floor right now, we will start as a Subcommitee as you hear our bills. I believe the first item of business we have is an Assembly Bill from Assemblymember Avila Farius. So if she's ready, she can come up.

But at the time being, we'll start as a Subcommitee to hear questions and comments. But Assemblymer, if you're ready, come on, Start presenting your Bill whenever ready. You have witnesses today with you?

I do, but they're running late, so I'll just start. That's okay.

Or do you want to wait or do you. Okay. All right. Two minutes, please. oh, give me. I'm sorry, not two minutes.

I don't know. The expert isn't here. You ready?

Whenever you're ready. Okay.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, I'm pleased to present AB790. I will start by accepting the Committee's proposed amendments and I thank the chair and the staff for their work on the measures. Members. The two fastest growing demographics are in California are homelessness and senior citizens and families. Led by women. Single parent households.

California single mothers face disproportionate housing cost burdens. Over 16,300 children are experiencing homelessness, often due to gaps in service delivery.

Your mic is not on

Okay. Is my mic okay? While many programs exist to address homelessness, none specifically prioritize women and children. A group disproportionately at risk of homelessness or fleeing domestic violence. Addressing these issues will not only help vulnerable families, but it also will reduce long term state costs associated with emergency services, welfare and intergenerational poverty.

To help this vulnerable population, AB790 requires cities, counties and continuum of cares receiving state funds for addressing homelessness to develop a specific system that supports women and children. Testifying with me today is B. But she's not here.

I think an author has just. I'm sorry, not author. Your witness has arrived. So if she wants to come up and testify. All right. Good afternoon. Two minutes please. Whenever you're ready. Get situated.

Chair Lee and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Chair and Members. My name is Beatrice Olvera Stotzer. I am the board President of New Economics for Women. New Economics for Women is a proud sponsor of ABC 970 which requires cities, counties and continuums of care that receive state funding to address homelessness.

As you know, by including single women with children within the vulnerable populations for whom specific support systems are developed to maintain homelessness, services and housing delivery. New Economics for Women is a Latina founded organization with 40 year history of transforming lives of families through housing, education and economic mobility.

We continue to hold the audacious belief that women have the economic power to change the world. We've built over 1700 units of affordable housing, have helped thousands of first homes to own their first home, launched small business accelerators and provided financial coaching.

Our vision has always been clear to interrupt intergenerational poverty by investing in the economic resiliency and leadership of women, specifically single mothers. Across California, hundreds of thousands of single mothers are on the verge of homelessness or fleeing domestic violence. Yet time and time again we see that these women fall through the cracks.

The data shows that in Los Angeles County alone, 60% of families experiencing homelessness are led by single mothers. Current funding systems don't prioritize them. Let me be clear.

A person who is unhoused and has diagnosed mental illness, sometimes like schizophrenia, often receives immediate housing and supportive services than a mother living in a car with her four children fleeing an abuser. We've witnessed this over and over and over again.

Not because of neglect, but because current systems are not designed to prioritize women or account for their unique risk and barriers they face. This is an opportunity for California to become the first state in the nation to make the prevention of homelessness among single mothers a policy priority. Ensuring accountability that they are served.

Imagine what could happen when a mother escaping violence doesn't have to choose between her children's safety and risking their future by living in the streets. Imagine her receiving keys to a stable home, enrolling her kids in school and having economic stability. All because you chose to see her, invest in her and believe in her potential.

This is how we break the cycle of generational trauma. This is how we build a California where dignity, opportunity and hope are within reach of every family. I respectfully request that you approve AB 790.

Thank you very much. Now, do we have any Members of the public who wish testify in support of the Bill? Please come up to microphone. Any Members of the public name and organization, please. Marvin Pineda, on behalf of the California. Human Development and Center for Employment Training. And Support, thank you. Thank you very much.

Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Any Members of the public who should testify in opposition to the Bill. All right. Seeing none, we're going to establish quorum first. So Madam Secretary, please call the roll to establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

All right, Members, any questions? Comments? Assemblymers Celeste Rodriguez

I would like to first apologize for the shuffle that we had to do right now. But thank you so much for your testimony and for bringing this back. Go forward. I have the privilege of representing the. Northeast San Fernando Valley and having new. Economics support in our district and being a witness over the last decade of.

All the incredible work that's done. I've also worked on homelessness and I'm so grateful for what you've brought forward here today and I would love to be a co author on your Bill and support it today.

Any other questions or comments? And just to clarify simply where you are taking the Committee amendments? Correct?. Great. Thank you so much. Now that my Committee staff are here. So thank you for working with the Committee staff on this Bill and thank you for your passion to updating our services, especially for unhoused women. I'll invite you to close.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair and staff and Committee Members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And I can't think of a greater honor to be able to be here before you all to speak on this Bill.

Especially being a product of a single parent household raised by a mother and no firsthand the importance of making sure that we are able to occupy spaces of public policy and that we craft that we craft policy that include traditionally marginalized and voiceless communities. So thank you so much for the consideration today.

Thank you. Can I get a motion and a second? The bills are moved by Assemblymer Celeste Rodriguez. Seconded by Assembly Elhawary. I am recommending an aye vote on this Bill. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Five votes. That bill's out. Congratulations. Thank you. Now let's go to file item 2, ACA 4 by Assemblymember Jackson. And while Assemblymember Jackson is getting ready just to notice that file item 3 AB 277 and file four AB 318 have been pulled by the author and will not be heard today.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much Mr. Chair. Committee Members, we will be accepting the amendments from a Committee. We are presenting ACA 4, the housing opportunities made Equal act homelessness and housing availability and affordability is one of the most pressing issues facing Californians today. This ACA would increase and stabilize funding for affordable housing in California.

Simply put, the State of California has failed its residents in ensuring affordable, stable and healthy housing. And it's time for us to deliver on the basic functions of a state which is the health and welfare of its citizens. With me today is. With me today is Eric Vasquez from EAH Housing and Mimi Khalili from AG Global Solutions.

Thank you, Assemblymember, and good afternoon and good to see you again, Chair Lee and the Committee Members. My name is Eric Vasquez, the Education, Advocacy and Government Affairs Associate at EAH Housing.

For nearly six decades, EAH has been one of the most leading and reputable affordable housing developers across the West Coast, with over 25,000 units in both California and the State of Hawaii. We're here today in proud support of the HOPE act, along here with our colleague and dear friend, Assemblymember Dr. Corey Jackson.

For us, and to be Frank, I look at our slogan at EAH, a roof is just the beginning. But for us, it's more than just that. It's a promise. We see the affordable housing crisis for what it is, and we understand that these unprecedented levels of homelessness is something that fundamentally needs to be addressed in this state.

That's why we wholeheartedly believe that the HOPE act is the path forward, that we need to unlock thousands of new units for our affordable housing production, but also to continue to bring in more funding to the homeless solutions and services that we provide on our sites.

With that too, dedicating a 5% minimum from the state's General Fund is, is something that we have been advocating for and have long wanted to see in our industry. We operate all across the state. We develop and we manage senior, family, veteran, and most importantly, permanent supportive housing solutions that remain affordable in perpetuity.

The HOPE act for us is the strong, strongest and most viable path that we can have right now to alleviate this crisis. EAH doesn't see this as just a temporary fix. We see this as the long term structural solution that we need for our, our unhoused populations.

And with that, on behalf of EAH staff and our residents, we strongly urge your support for the HOPE act today. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness, please.

Hello. Good morning, Chair. Well, good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for having me. My name is Mimi Khalili. I'm with AG Global Solutions. I will try to make this brief. I want to Start with something often overlooked. Poverty is not just a statistic.

It is a weight that distorts every aspect of a person's life. I've lived through that for years. We lived on people's good graces, where they were available, moving every year. And my story is not unique. It is a story of thousands of Californians who carry the invisible burden of poverty every single day.

Housing is the root of so much of this. And I'm just going to skip over some of this because we're trying to get through this quickly. It breaks down community. I've seen firsthand how families are pushed further from jobs, spending hours on buses or in traffic.

How children fall behind in school when they change district mid year because rent went up again. How neighborhoods lose their cohesion when people are forced to leave. Investing in affordable housing doesn't just address a crisis. It reduces long term costs across the state budget.

When people are stably housed, they are healthier, their children perform better in school and interactions with the emergency services and criminal justice system decrease, freeing up public dollars and improving outcomes across the board. ACA is a solution we desperately need. It creates stable funding. And this measure isn't about just producing more units.

It's about restoring dignity and stability. It's about ensuring that kids like I was don't have to feel like they don't matter. That seniors aren't facing homelessness for the first time in their lives. That working families don't have to move out of California just to a place they can afford. This is about justice.

And this is our only chance this year to deliver it at the scale that matches the crisis. And this is the bill that can do that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now do we have Members of the public who should testify and support the Bill? Please come to microphone. All right, do we have any opposition to this Bill? Please come forward. Any Members of public wish to testify in opposition to the Bill?

All right, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments, motions similar to Tangipa.

So how much on average do we spend a year on homelessness in the State of California?

Probably a little over $1.0 billion.

What would 5% of the General Fund budget be to be spent on homelessness? As much as up to 10 billion. 10 billion a year. So when I was reading that for the past five years we spent $36 billion on homelessness and an audit was just done in the LA area that realized that it hasn't solved anything.

Do we believe that more money is the solution?

Yes, actually Something to realize is this, is that the amount of money that we have done is actually making progress compared to the huge hole we've dug ourselves in as a state. So we've actually slowed down homelessness every year. The problem is that we haven't stopped homelessness at this point because we need even more investments.

The data does suggest what we do. What we're doing is working to slow the bleeding. The reason why we need more is that we do not have enough housing stock, nor do we have the type of housing stock without all the different rules of how you can qualify for that housing.

And so the question, your question is, will more money help? Yes. Has our current expenditures worked? It has worked, but to a certain extent because we don't have enough funding right now to that we've been touting that. We've been spending about a bit just on how affordable housing. $1.0 billion every year.

What we're not telling people is that we need 5 to 8 $1.0 billion every year to get out of the hole we have had that has accumulated over the decades.

See, and I fundamentally disagree with that because of the track record that has been shown. $36 billion. And now we have a homeless population of 180,000 people or more. And there's data out there that shows that we have 50% of the nation's homeless population in the State of California. And this is very personal to me as well.

In 2016, I ended up homeless, and I was sleeping on my teammate's couch as I was working, trying to get an education and level the playing field. And I just had some amazing friends that took me in while still fighting. And so I understand.

I just don't believe that this is the solution, is to double down on what's not working with more money. I think the goal is actually to get government out of the way. I've worked at the local level with supervisors to help build what we call affordable housing.

But at $450,000, a door on an apartment complex isn't affordable at all. That our goal.

And maybe it's something that we can work together in the future to cut the cost and the cost of government, empower people at the local level to build the housing that is needed and push that there, because what the current path that we're going down right now, the data shows the direction is swinging. It's not working.

And I don't believe that more money is a solution on this. And I will be a no vote on this one.

Yeah, I appreciate that. But the data does suggest that it actually is working. Now, the data you're probably looking at are the programs that we experimented with that didn't have the type of outcomes we were hoping to have. And so we're not doubling down on the programs that have not worked.

What we are doubling down on is the programs that we have worked based upon the data, the most recent data, and what I mean by the most recent data, like last year. And so we now know, given the data, which programs work and which programs don't work.

But to say that none of them work is just simply not true. Now what we also know is this. For the last few decades, we have been relying on local governments to do what they're supposed to do, doing adequate housing. They have failed in that.

What you have seen, what you would have saw last year and what you continue to see this year is a whole host of bills to get streamlined processes because we know the huge cost is based upon how long it takes for housing to be done.

I'm carrying bills, many Members are carrying bills to cut out that process and to limit the amount of lawsuits and all those things that have exacerbated the length of time, which is adding to the cost.

But the idea is that if we as a state do not clear the way, not just regulation, but in the funding of affordable housing, then we are simply not going to do what we need to do. It'll be a policy decision to keep people on the streets. This says no more excuses. All hands on deck.

It's time to deliver for the people that are in your district and my district.

All right, very well. Any other questions or comments, Members? Vice Chair Castillo, you have a comment?

I just want to start by thanking the author for the intention of this film. You know, I have worked with the homeless, you know, as a therapist for the County of Riverside. So I have worked with the homeless. So.

And I, I saw, you know, the programs, I worked in those programs and I saw a lot of money being put into programs that didn't help that many people. And I can tell you, in one program I was in, in a 10 month period, only one person was helped.

And that was because I stood side by side with that person out of a hundred people. So I don't more money being put into programs when there's already programs that exist. I just can't grasp that. So I just can't support it right now. Thank you.

In this Committee, we are focusing on the homeless programs, but yesterday we were in a housing Committee that really talked about the overwhelming majority of this money is actually going to build housing. And the idea is that if there's plenty of housing, then we don't have to worry about those programs.

To see, number one, are they meeting this criteria? Right. There's different definitions for permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, emergency shelters, all of those. And many of those are federal guidelines, which means there are still guidelines on the book, many of them federal, that are actually keeping people homeless because of the stringent requirements.

We're saying let's just build enough housing for everybody and forget about the requirements. Let's just get people in housing so that they can be on a path to thrive.

Assemblyman Rodriguez, I'd like to move the bill. Well, first I'd just like to thank the author for bringing this constitutional amendment forward. You know, of course, as I said yesterday, too proud to be a co author on this, but housing and homelessness remain one of the top quality of life and economic issues in this State of California.

Yet we allocate probably 1% of our budget realistically to this issue. Of course, as we're seeing with the proposed budget, the Governor has slashed many of the programs that provide for the creation of new housing opportunities that people can have. Homes. I firmly believe that the solution to homelessness is homes. It's very simple in that sense.

I would of course, encourage my colleagues to read the excellent book analysis starting on page five. It talks about historically, since 2019, how much we've invested into homelessness.

And mind you, this is a recent phenomenon because historically we have depended on local governments to take on the task of solving housing and homelessness, though some counties and cities do it better than others. But I would argue that if we leave it all to your cities and counties alone, the problem can only get worse.

I don't think the problem will get any better if we have less money dedicated to it. We have to have more services and more good people that are standing shoulder to shoulder with people who are unhoused to get those services.

And if we have more resources that we have the ability to do that, defunding all those things, you get the entire opposite. So that's why I'm really proud that you're carrying this measure and proud to be a co author. And I'm recommending a strong. I vote. Madam Secretary, please call the roll file.

Item 2, ACA 4. The motion is be adopted as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee, aye. Lee, aye. Castillo. Castillo, no. Calderon. Elhawary.

Aye.

Elhawary, aye. Jackson, aye. Jackson, aye. Rodriguez, aye. Rodriguez, aye. Tongipa, no. Tongipa, no.

4 to 2, that bill is out. Congratulations. All right, so let's move on to the next file item. We have file item 5. AB 349 by Assemblymember Dixon. I think she's there. She is. So whenever you're ready, Assemblymember Dixon, you may begin presenting Assembly Bill 349.

Good morning. Can you hear me? Good morning, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I am. It's a pleasure to present AB 349 today. First, I would like to say that I will be accepting committee amendments to include and quote an additional monthly amount of 517 dollars and 24 cents.

These parenting foster youth are critically underserved, and I will continue to advocate on their behalf any way I can. The committee amendments would make this bill identical to AB 1952, which I ran in 2024, by not only indexing the infant supplement to inflation, but also increasing it by $524.17 to cover the cost of living increase since 2016.

While I am extremely proud of the previous bill and believe the additional appropriation would be of immense benefit to the parenting foster youth, we specifically ran AB 349 this year and ensured it only contained a provision to index the payment to inflation effective in 2026.

In an effort to make sure the bill would pass through appropriations, the need to provide financial assistance to parents of foster infants is key. The introduced version of 392 would ensure these foster mothers would at least secure some financial relief for their infant children.

While I applaud your commitment to getting these critically underserved foster mothers additional funds to take care of their infant children, I do have concerns that the increased funding within the committee amendments may jeopardize the bill's chances of passing appropriations and by extension, further putting these foster mothers at risk of receiving no funding at all or increase at all this year, the 10th year without funding adjustments for cost of living for foster mothers of infant children, the necessity of indexing the infant supplement to inflation cannot be overstated.

The infant supplement is one of only two foster care payments not currently indexed to inflation. Specific program has also not been updated since 2016 and falls critically short in providing these parenting foster youth mothers of foster infants, in other words, adequate financial resources to care for their children.

The overwhelming majority of recipients of the supplemental funds are from minority communities. The recipients are from minority communities and have been sex trafficked. In fact, our sponsor, Mary's Path estimates that as many as 90% of their residents of their facilities are victims of sexual abuse and an estimated 80% are survivors of sexual trafficking.

These survivors are traumatized vulnerable and in need of critical assistance to ensure they can adequately care for their child and themselves. They became pregnant and as a result of sexual abuse or sex trafficking, and that's why they are now in foster homes.

Additionally, we have seen significant increases to the cost of basic necessities for these parents since 2016. According to data from the Institute for Research on Poverty, the cost of diapers has risen by over 22% in the last few years.

Since 2018, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the cost of the formula baby formula has has risen by almost 11% in the last four years. Additionally, immense inflation has also continued to apply additional cost pressures to these parents. Indexing to inflation would help compensate for the increase in costs for these basic needs for infant children.

There has been no increase in the infant supplement since 2016. I believe that protecting our most valuable foster youth, the children of foster mothers, is a bipartisan issue and I hope the members of the committee share my commitment to protecting this extremely underserved, vulnerable population. I know you have taken special interest in foster children, Mr.

Chair, and I was very happy to support your bill 890 on the floor to help continue the legislature's commitment to protecting foster youth. The funding for these vulnerable communities should not be a partisan issue, and I applaud the chair for working with my office on these amendments. And I support the amendments enthusiastically.

I hope that we can continue to collaborate and then I can count on the chair's continuing support when we get to appropriations. That has been the issue. This increase is a necessary step to help support parenting foster youth in the face of severe adversity and exorbitant prices.

I have with me today Jill Dominguez, Executive Director and President of Mary's Path, who is sponsor of AB 349. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, Chair Lee and members of the committee. I am Jill Dominguez, CEO and President of Mary's Path.

If you could put the microphone closer to yourself.

Sorry about that little amateur move. Sorry. Mary's Path is a short term residential therapeutic program known as an STRTP located in Orange County. Our program serves a very special population, pregnant and parenting teen ages 12 to 18 in the foster care system who are victims of child sex trafficking.

Our residents are teen moms who suffer from traumas that put them at the highest level and the highest tier of mental health crisis. We are one of only four organizations statewide that serve this population of which none are above the Fresno line. How large is this program?

One in three girls in the foster care system will have their own baby by the age of 21. The average age of birth at Mary's Path is 15 and a half years old. 100% are from very low income communities. 66% are Latinx, 33% are African American.

50% of parenting foster youth will have their own child involved in the foster care system. One in four will be homeless by the time they are 23. 100% of the time that baby equates to the family they were not born into and the love they so desperately crave.

At Mary's Path, we provide round the clock support as they navigate being new moms and work on dealing with trauma that led them to Mary's Path. We provide mental health treatment, our own high school doula support, parenting class, 24/7 round the clock child care. Every mom needs a break.

We are struggling to provide the most basic care and supervision for the babies. Our rate for the care of the babies has not been increased since 2016. I will repeat, the cost of diapers has risen over 90% over the past couple of years. Formula over 11%.

We feed, house, clothe and transport the teen moms and babies, as the moms are not old enough to have driver's licenses. And yet we have been neglected and ignored in our requests to increase in additional funds to help support this infant supplement rate.

The infant supplement payment is one of only two foster care rates that are not automatically increased each year by CNI. And here we are again talking about it.

I am here to respectfully request your support for AB 39 to include that one time raise to the infant supplement so that we can reflect the current rate of inflation and ensure the rate is included in the CNI in future years. I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Now, do we have Members of the public who wish to testify in support of the bill? Please come forward to the microphone. Oh, could we have the microphone turned on for the public hearing, Sergeant or. Thank you. Yeah, there we go. Name and affiliation please.

Thanks. Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. In support.

Kim Lewis, representing a spirit net serving foster youth in 31 counties in support.

Annie Thomas on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Hello, my name is Jacob Niemann from the Association of Regional Center Agencies. And we support this bill.

Thank you. Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any Members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to the bill? All right. Seeing none. The bill has just been moved and Seconded.

But are there any questions or comments from committee members? Assemblymember Tangipa.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward and I also want to thank the institution as well. To hear that there are only four. Maybe there are things that we can do.

I have some grave concerns going into the budget for next year and with programs have to be cut, especially when the Department of Finance stated but this is an area where the children, again, they need to come first. The cost of diapers, I mean I've seen it with my siblings and family.

My sister was a young mother and needed as much help as we can. And I'm glad that there are institutions out there focusing on those. I also want to ask, I would love to come and visit the facility and see how much more that we can do by putting children first.

And just getting to the cost of inflation is probably part of it. But when we're looking at harder things in the future when it comes to cuts and programs, this is an area that we'll make sure we'll fight for you. Thank you for bringing this.

Thank you. We'd be honored.

All right. Any other questions? Comments? Seeing none. I'll invite the author to close.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, just to clarify, this program is in effect, we're just talking about putting an annual cost of living index on it. So the cost of providing food and formula and diapers just can be adequately funded. And so I'd be so grateful for your support.

And we'll just keep making the point with the Appropriations Committee if we are so honored to have your support today. So thank you. I asked for an I vote.

Well, thank you very much. Thank you for working with the committee on the Committee amendments. You know, it is our policy to make the strongest bill possible and then we go to probs to figure out the fiscal question. But we always want to set the precedent of the strongest policy.

And I believe that I share your strong belief in helping the these parents out. And we want to make sure that they have the strongest possibility. And you never know with the way the budgets are and everything. But I think we should always be trying it. With that, I'm recommending an I vote on this bill.

And the bill has been moved by Senator Rodriguez, second by Senator Tangipa. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item 5, AB349. The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

[roll call]

5. That bill is out. Thank you. Thank you. All right, let's move on to file item 680 779 by Assembly Member Lackey. So whenever you are ready, you may come up to present.

Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair Members, for allowing me to present AB 779. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments. And this measure is designed to protect survivors of domestic violence and strengthen our child welfare system.

Right now, survivors of domestic abuse can face neglect allegations simply for just being victims, being forced to choose between staying silent or risking child removal. AB 779 builds on a proven program in the Antelope Valley that places domestic violence consultants directly into the Department of Child and Family Services offices.

These experts guide social workers in real time, helping them understand family dynamics and connect families to critical resources. The pilot has worked. It's trauma informed, family centered, and keeps more families together safely. The Antelope Valley has some of the highest rates of domestic violence and foster placements.

This program directly addressed those challenges and in this Bill will scale that success for the state. With AB779, we can expect this model and give our social workers and families the tools they need to act with compassion and precision. This Bill is preventative, not punitive. It keeps children safe without further traumatizing families. I'd like to introduce Ms. Zagal on behalf of the California Partnerships End Domestic Violence, as my witness for this proposal.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey. Your witness may begin. Two minutes, please.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. My name is Magali Zagal. I'm with Greenberg Chorig representing the California Partnership End Domestic Violence. As you know, the Partnership is California's recognized domestic violence Coalition representing 104 Domestic violence agencies that serve survivors and their families.

We believe that no protective survivor parent should be penalized for having experienced domestic violence by being separated from their children for decades. Unfortunately, survivors have not had positive experiences with the child welfare system with unfortunate effects both on them and their children. The research shows there is a better way.

By keeping families together and equipping survivors with what they need to parent effectively, including safety and support from service providers, we can promote better outcomes for their children. We need more systemic reform that moves us towards a system that supports families and empowers survivors.

AB779 represents a significant step toward closer collaboration between domestic violence agencies and child welfare. It takes the lessons that have been learned in the Antelope Valley in a pilot collaboration between LA County Department of Child and Family Services and Desert Oasis and seeks to scale it up statewide.

The original collaboration saw domestic violence service providers act as consultant advisors for child welfare personnel with the objective of being. With the objective of ensuring that families affected by domestic violence are treated with the competency they deserve. This Bill would take that approach statewide as part of the pilot.

It is absolutely critical that our two fields, domestic violence and child welfare, work more closely together and that child welfare agencies recognize the strategies survivors employ to protect their children even as they experience domestic violence themselves. This Bill will move us in that direction.

We thank Assemblymember Lackey for his leadership on this important measure and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. Perfectly on the two minutes now do we have Members of the public who wish to testify in support of the Bill? Please come forward. All right. Any. Any witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Any Members of public wish testify in opposition to the Bill, Please come forward. Seeing none we'll bring out the Committee.

It's just been properly moved and seconded. Any questions? Comments? All right, seeing none. Assemble. Thank you for working this Committee and accepting Committee amendments so that all counties that choose to try out this program can try it for themselves. But I'll invite you to close.

Just plead for your aye vote.

All right. Very well. I'm recommending an I recommendation on this Bill. And the Bill has been moved by Assembly towngupa and seconded by somebody Rodriguez. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on this Bill.

[Roll Call]

5 votes that is out. Thank you. Next we'll go to file item 8, Assembly Bill 1335 by Assembly Member Gonzalez. So whenever he's ready, you may come forward.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm- I'm proud today to present AB 1335. AB 1335, a critical piece of legislation that would create additional employment opportunities for those with disabilities.

Specifically, this bill would remove the outside accreditation requirement for regional center vendored employment programs and would instead require that these service providers remain in compliance with with service standards set by the state. This bill does not remove oversight standards from these programs, but rather shifts the responsibility purely to the state to ensure consistency and efficiency.

Current law requires that habilita- habilitation service providers comply with the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, CARF, standards. CARF is a private nonprofit organization that accredits various human service programs throughout the nation. The CARF accreditation process is often lengthy and expensive. And as state standards have evolved over time, the CARF standards have also become redundant.

The duplicative and complex nature of this process serves as a barrier to service providers who seek to offer employment services to those with disabilities. Employment programs are the only type of service coordinated through Regional Centers that required outside accreditation and in addition to the standard vendorization process.

AB 1335 brings consistency to the Regional Center vendor process by requiring the state and Regional Centers themselves to to have oversight and review authority over these programs. I want to be clear this bill does not reduce protections or oversight for ensuring the viability and effectiveness of these programs.

I am working with the Department of Developmental Services and the Department of Rehabilitation as well as the Association of Regional Centers to ensure this bill can be properly implemented while also maintaining necessary protections and flexibility. AB 1335 is about equity and fairness for the disability community.

Those within the disability community are often the most marginalized and vulnerable members of society. The ability to obtain and maintain steady employment, it's a lifeline for members of this community. Creating more opportunities for such employment is critical and is of the utmost importance for protecsing- protecting one of California's most vulnerable communities.

This bill, sponsored by the California Disability Services Association, has no opposition and has received broad support from employment first disability stakeholders, including organizations representing individuals receiving services, their families and those that support them, including disability rights organizations. Colleagues, this bill levels the playing field for those with disabilities seeking employment.

The current burdensome and duplicative requirements act as a real barrier for such opportunities. I encourage you to join me in advocating for the disability community as a- as a dad of a son with cerebral palsy with spastic quadriplegia. That's why I'm here, to give him a voice. Because he doesn't have a voice.

So because of that, that's why I ran. That's why I chose to come here. And that's why I'm here in front of you today to give my son and the sons and daughters of California a voice. With me today to testify and support is Alona Yorkshire with the Adult Skills Center and Andrea Croom with InAlliance.

And I also have Emma Lynn who is available for technical questions.

Hi Chair and Committee. Thank you. I'm Andrea Croom. I'm sorry. I knew that was going to happen. I have very bad MIC technique so. I'm Andrea Croom. I'm the Executive Director at InAlliance.

We are a provider agency that supports over 350 adults with developmental intellectual dis across the greater Sacramento area and we've been doing so since 1952. We provide day program employment support, pre employment support, independent living and supported living to provide employment services in California. Providers like InAlliance are required to obtain a third party accreditation through CARF.

Excuse me, In alliance has maintained a full three year CARF accreditation since the 1980s when we first began moving from sheltered workshop to community based employment. This shift aligns with California's 2013 Employment first policy, which established competitive integrated employment as a priority for people with intellectual and develop- developmental disabilities.

However, despite the commitment, employment remains to be very low across this population. CRAFT accreditation, while intended to promote quality, does not clearly improve employment outcomes. Excuse me. Instead, it's significant- a significant financial and administrative burden on service providers. InAlliance is currently preparing for our CARF accreditation that is coming up in May.

So far, out of pocket, we have paid over $12,000 for the survey, over $300 for the CARF manual, and we've been prepping since October. These costs are not reimbursed and they're already coming from limited funds that we have. They could be better allocated to staff and retention efforts.

As we continue to struggle finding qualified staff to provide these services, our small administrative and program leadership team have spent accumulative weeks of organizing documents, aligning internal procedural formats to apply with the current CARF manual, reallocating our case records for audit not to enhance services, but to meet formatting and procedural expectations that are already covered through state regulation.

These efforts have diverted time and energy from our mission critical work. Our program managers have used this time to develop employment opportunities. Our program assistants could have been supporting direct staff in the field where they- where they are needed most.

My team and I could continue to focus on our pending projects to improve our internal processes, projects that would have an actual direct impact on the individuals we serve.

The burdens not only strain established providers like myself, but are significant- significant hurdles for smaller organizations that might not be able to sustain the cost associated with maintaining this accreditation. This isn't about quality assurance.

It represents a genuine barrier to equity and undermines our shared objective of expanding employment service access for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities within California. Thank you for your time.

Alright, thank you. Next witness. Two minutes please.

Thank you. My name is Alona Yorkshire. I'm the Deputy Executive Director of the Adult Skill Center. We provide services in the Los Angeles area to about 500 individuals. Our service lines are very diverse. They include employment, but we also provide in home supports, personal care, behavioral and medical supports, and in home services. So this is.

The employment line is just one of the things that we provide and that will be important, but foremost, I am also a mother. I'm a foster mom and I had two special needs children that are now young adults that benefit- that would benefit from these services.

So I definitely care about the quality of these services and would not be here if I thought that quality would be diminished by this. In fact, I believe strongly that the quality of our services and service access will benefit from this bill.

So when someone has a disability, currently, they most likely look to a vendor of the Regional Center such as my- my agency to provide job training, placement and support. Currently, almost all vendors have very long waiting lists to provide these services due to a high demand and very few providers causing a barrier to employment. To many, many Californians.

There is a barrier to becoming an employment provider that doesn't exist for any other service line. So we provide, like I said, six different service lines. The only one that requires CARF accreditation is employment. The CARF accreditation is a certification by an out of state board. It duplicates pre existing QA measures that already exist in California.

There's a quality control that already exists from Department of Developmental Services, from Department of Rehab and from Regional Centers. And most recently, California introduced the Quality Incensive- Intensive- Incentives program and also the ACRE certification that all employment providers must adhere to. So there's all of these other quality control measures for employment specifically.

So CARF is a very cumbersome, expensive and long accreditation process. My agency has been CARF accredited for the past four years. It costs us about $20,000 and endless administrative resources to go through the CARF process.

Although it has really great standards, they are duplicated in other California quality measures that we sometimes have to go through in the same year. The process of CARF accreditation starts about four months prior to the four day audit.

It takes about six of our department leads and a cumulative 1500 hours to gather the documents required and save them in the format required by CARF. So that's another undue burden. The week of the audit, we're 100% in the audit process and all other business stands still.

As you can imagine, it has adverse effects on the programming and client services, especially when it is duplicated by state audits within the same year. We have about 35 clients on our waiting list that would be able to be served in a timely manner if these hours were better used.

If you could wrap up, please.

Thank you. The cumbersome and unnecessary process creates a huge barrier to more employment providers entering services and the fact that as more Californians rely on social assistance instead of being employed.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Now, do we have members of the public who wish to testify in support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone now in support of the bill.

Braydon Holtzinger with Blue Heron Program serving the Yolo and SAC area.

Thank you.

Stephanie Jimenez, on behalf of California Mentor and Mentor Community Services, in support.

Alright, thank you. Now, do we have any witness in opposition to this bill? Any members of the public who wants to speak in opposition to this bill? Seeing none, I'm bringing it back to the committee. Assemblymember Tangipa if you have questions, comments.

Yeah, I just want to say one, it's also great to join this committee and to sit on it at least full time and to listen to a lot of these stories because this is, I think for a lot of us, the same reason why we got into it.

And I just wanted to thank the author and the institutions that help some of the most vulnerable population get into this process. And just by addressing this issue of duplication and the burdensome. These Regional Centers do God's work and they shouldn't be burdened with the,

I always call it the cost of government, filing paperwork, to file more paperwork, to do more paperwork. But you should be trusted with the boots on the ground to know what you're doing because this is a servant society that is there.

And so I'm just honored to be here and to make a motion to move the bill so that way we could support these. I know the author. This is something as I've gotten to know him, true, near and dear to his heart. And so it's an honor to be here to make this motion.

Any other questions or comments? Alright, the bills are probably second, but I'll invite the author to close.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. I want to clarify again what this bill does. AB 1335 consolidates the oversight and regulatory- and regulatory over the- the programs at the state level. As county operated and ultimately state run programs, the standards under which these providers operate are best handled by the state itself rather than an outside accrediting agency.

I get the opportunity not only to advocate for my son but for the community as well that he gets to hang out with.

And I love when they get to go out to work because to see their faces like just kind of normalize, it's just there is nothing like it when they get a chance to just be part of community and not have to wait in line just to be a part of that. So it's, you know, I'm highlighted.

I want to highlight my commitment to working with the sponsors and the necessary stakeholders to ensure that the Regional Centers and DDS can properly implement this. I want to thank you and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. I want to appreciate the supporters of this bill and appreciate the offer bringing this bill forward. But I wholeheartedly, respectfully disagree. I do not think that we should be foregoing these quality checks when it comes to the IDD community.

It is so important, especially in the employment space, that the trust- the trust that the IDD community and these families have in our system is not eroded from deregulation. I seriously think that this state has made serious efforts to move towards a system that values not just the availability of services, but the quality of these services.

And I appreciate your passion for this issue, I appreciate your lived experience with it, but I am going to be recommending a no vote on this bill. So, Madam Secretary, the bill has been moved by Assemblymember Tangipa and seconded by Assemblymember Castillo, please call the roll.

File Item 8, AB 1335. The motion is do passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [ROLL CALL]

Two to one. That bill is on call. We'll leave the roll open. Thank you. Assembly Castillo. When you're ready, you may present your bill, Assembly bill 1066.

If the bill doesn't get through at like, if the bill doesn't go through, I'd like to ask for reconsideration. Okay, thank you.

So, Assemblymember Castillo, do you have any witnesses or anyone or.

I don't.

Okay, whenever you're ready then.

What time is it right now? I'm like, good afternoon. Is it afternoon? Is it still morning? Good afternoon. Mr. Chair and members. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 1066, a straightforward common sense measure that I, that I wish we could all be able to support across party lines. This bill is simple.

If you commit a crime, including drug trafficking, attempted murder or possession of child pornography, especially while here as an undocumented immigrant, you should not receive a single penny of taxpayer funded support from hardworking Californians.

During this year's first extraordinary session, I pushed an amendment to explicitly ensure that no California taxpayer dollars would be spent to protect illegal immigrants convicted of a felony.

While the amendment was not adopted, a letter was submitted to the journal highlighting the body's commitment to ensuring that none of the funding from SBX1-2 is intended to be used for immigration related services for individuals with serious or violent felony convictions.

More significantly, when the Governor signed that bill, he wrote in his signing message that he welcomed clarifying legislation, which is this letter here. That is why I'm here today. Current law does not clearly prohibit state funds from being used to shield individuals who are both unlawfully present in the country and convicted of terrible crimes.

AB 1066 is a crucial step towards restoring integrity of our immigration assistance programs. While reaffirming our commitment to public safety and the rule of law. It ensures taxpayer dollars, our constituents, hard earned money are used responsibly, especially amidst the rampant budget cuts and not to interfere with the federal efforts to remove offenders from our communities.

Let's be clear. This bill does not roll back support for law abiding immigrants. It simply ensures California is not complicit in protecting those who have committed crimes and pose a continued threat to our communities. California has long prided itself on balancing compassion with justice. And I come before you today in alignment with those principles.

But public safety cannot be optional. AB 1066 affirms that in order to be compassionate, we must also be responsible. And if we desire to be just, we must also be lawful. A vote for AB 1066 is a vote to codify values we all should share. A vote against it, frankly.

A vote to protect criminal undocumented immigrants over the safety of the citizens of California. I thank you and I respectfully ask for an I vote on AB 1066.

All right, thank you. Now, do we have any Members of the public who wish to speak in support of the bill, please come up to the microphone. All right. Do we have any witnesses, opposition to the bill? Witnesses in opposition please come up to the desk, please. All right. And you will have two ish minutes.

Hello, Chair, committee members, and staff. My name is Bruno with the California Immigrant Policy Center in opposition. Everyone deserves due process and dignity, including Californians facing ICE detention, deportation and family separation. Since 2015, California's Immigration Legal Aid programs have provided free legal services to tens of thousands of children, college students, workers and families.

These core services achieve safety and stability for thousands of families, safeguard due process rights, and empower people to join the workforce and contribute to our economy. AB 66 would severely limit access to these core services and align state policy with the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda. California's immigration services already have restrictions. Any expansion infringes on due process rights.

Restricting access to these vital services based on prior criminal history removes the only legal safety net available to many Californians, placing them at greater risk of wrongful or unjust deportation. Without due process, people should not be punished twice for the same offense.

The bill language pulls directly from hateful executive orders attempting to criminalize people who are undocumented and restrict attorneys from providing legal support to people who are immigrants. Due process is not conditional. People with past criminal history still have the right to due process. That includes due process in immigration court.

Under immigration law, many people may still be eligible for protection from deportation. Many people facing deportation, including legal permanent residents, have been working in California, paying taxes and building families for decades. They are integral members of our families, neighborhoods, schools, workplaces and places of worship.

Instead of restricting access to due process, California should invest in solutions that uphold and defend fundamental fairness for all. We respectfully urge you to vote no on this bill.

Thank you. Now, do we have members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to the bill? Please come up to the microphone now. Name and affiliation, please.

Monica Madrid, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in strong opposition.

Also on behalf of Immigrant Legal Defense, Acostia Center for Justice, Immigrant or Immigration Institute of the Bay Area, Education and Leadership Foundation, Vera Vera Institute of Justice, Asian Law Alliance, South Bay People Power, SoCal Immigration Project, Central Valley Immigration Integration Collaborative, Thai Community Development Center, Public Council, Buen Vecino, Universidad Popular.

Anallely Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center. In strong opposition.

Also on behalf of the following organizations: Silicon Valley Debug, East Bay Community Law Center, California's United for a Responsible Budget, Center for Gender and Refugee Studies California, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Orange County Equality Coalition, Asian Prisoner Support Committee, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, Legal Aid Association of, California, La Raza Central Legal, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Almas Libres Raises Collective, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, SF Public Defender's Office and Chinese for Affirmative Action.

Thank you.

Alicia Benavidez here on behalf of ACLU Cal Action and Immigrant Legal Resource Center. In strong opposition.

Thank you. Now we're going to bring it back to committee. I'm going to take prerogative. Just ask a question of the opposition. Once you mentioned in your testimony about the safeguards in the One California program already, would you like to to say for the record what those safeguards are right now in there?

Safeguards like the services they provide or. Yeah, so they provide a whole host of immigration legal services. They assist people who are applying for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, Temporary Protected Status, TPS, Citizenship, Naturalization, U Visa, survivors of crime, T Visa, survivors of trafficking, asylum, survivors of violence, as well as deportation defense services.

Okay, thank you. Now, questions? Comments? Assemblymember Tangipa.

Yeah, I just wanted to ask the author, you come from an immigrant family, right? Yeah. And the. When we spoke, you told me a story about your. The Ranchero program.

Well, my dad came here through the Bracero program. Yes. So I am the daughter of immigrant parents.

And how was that process?

Well, my dad came through. He lived in Tijuana. He came through the bracero program and didn't bring my mom until they got their immigration paperwork.

Do you hate immigrants?

No, I don't. Just to comment. I think the opposition, a lot of the information that they provided. My bill, as I stated clearly, it's not for other people who are getting services. It strictly prohibits anyone who has felonies for those specific reasons to not use a dime of California money for legal services.

They can get their own if they want it, but not to use money from California to do that.

And that's.

And anyone else like you mentioned, you know, kids and DACA and whatnot, if they're using the services, that's fine. All I'm saying is that not to use, which is what the Governor agreed with also, was not to use any taxpayer money for felony crimes. And I stated what they were. So pretty much it.

And that would be for say that there's a murderer, illegal immigrant, they shouldn't have the services. Correct? If they were somebody who participated in human trafficking, they shouldn't have those supportive services.

Correct.

If they had committed any other serious felony. Because you're prioritizing Californians and those who followed the legal process. Correct. Okay. Well, and so with that, again, I thank the author for focusing on that because I know she doesn't hate immigrants.

I know I sponsored my mother's legal immigration process, which I was able to give to her on Christmas just a few months, 2024.

So it's an honor to support this bill to make sure that we are unified in prioritizing Californians, making sure that we're fiscally responsible as well, making sure we're not protecting criminals in the state of California.

Thank you. And I just want to add that my parents also sponsored a lot of family on my mom's side and my dad's side also to come to this country. So it's not an anti immigrant bill. It's against those who are in this country that have felonies.

That's what it's not to use a dime of California taxpayer money on them. That's it.

Okay, the bill's moved. So I just want to ask the author a couple of questions too, given now the federal government is going after all types of immigrants, people even on legal residence here. And sometimes they threaten even U.S. citizens here.

And do you believe, say for my district, the Bay Area, where we have legal visa holding students who say objectionable things to the federal government, should they not be able to access legal services?

Well, I'm keeping it to California. I'm not talking about the federal level, I'm talking about those.

Right. But these are college students who perhaps are from San Jose and their risk of being deported because they have objectional views to federal government. Is that something I think are those students not eligible?

I think as California being a sanctuary state, I don't think that they're going to be affected, you know, as you know what you're trying to say of them being deported.

Well, that is actually happening at the moment, even in my area. There are college students who are on legal student visas who for whatever reason, for whatever objectional opinions they have, which haven't committed a crime. Should those students be able to access these funds? Should they be able to access the One California funds.

If they have felonies? No, they shouldn't be able to access the funds from California taxpayers. I don't care who it is. If you have a felony for these specific crimes that I mentioned, they should not be able to access California taxpayer funds to be. To get attorneys to have a felony.

But you would support the state of California defending those legal visa holders from deportation against the federal government.

They're welcome to use the funds. This is strictly for people who have felonies.

Because as I understand in the drafting of the bill, you want us not interfere with federal immigration action whatsoever. Is that correct?

So if we would have a student, great student, great grades, they're at the San Jose State University and they write one essay about something they don't like, would we be interfering with the federal government if we use resources to defend them and staying in the United States.

Right.

If that person hasn't committed a felony of these specific crimes that I mentioned? They should be allowed to use that, if that is available to them. If these programs are available to that person, then they can use it.

I specifically mentioned the crimes that I do not agree with, which the Governor also agreed with.

What I'm saying is inside your bill, too. It specifically says that we should not be obstructing federal federal immigration enforcement as well. Is that correct?

For the felony, the individuals who commit felonies.

So people who have no purported criminal record, no matter what they do. Right. You think they should. We should defend them?

Because right now there's a protection for those who have felonies which they won't work with ICE or whatnot. And what I'm saying here is those individuals who have felonies should not be able to use taxpayer money to be protected in the court of law. They should have their due process. Yeah.

You know, the other individuals who are here and whatnot. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to do that. What I'm saying is that anyone with a serious felony of these charges that I mentioned should not be able to use taxpayer money to protect themselves. That's pretty much it.

All right. Since we don't have any other members here at the moment, do you want to close?

Yeah, that was it. You know, I just wanted to clarify that it's not for all immigrants who are here. You know, it's specifically for the ones that have serious felonies. And I respectfully ask for an I vote.

Thank you for presentation.

I want to second my motion.

Okay. Okay. So the bill has been probably seconded. I would just say is that while I hear your arguments here, I wholeheartedly disagree.

We have had some of these conversations before, but when you introduced this bill and we had this conversation in the special session, California State Legislature reaffirmed very clearly that we are home to all immigrants, no matter how the circumstances brought them here to California. We want to welcome them, make them successful and part of our society.

And now, since the time that you've introduced this language and these bills, the Trump Administration is threatening to deport citizens. They are deporting legal residents for small things like I'm talking about. This is actually happening in my district where legal visa holders could be at risk of going back to, you know, going back overseas.

And we also see an attack on birthright citizenship. So where millions of Americans could lose children, could lose their citizenship overnight and become undocumented.

I know while you express these things, the context and the construct of the bill is quite different, is that it is a very clear surrender to the federal government in their hostile and cruel immigration enforcement. And we will not be party to mass deportations. We will not be party to censorship of academia or all these opinions.

So I'm not going to be supporting this bill whatsoever. And we in this state believe that people ought to have second chances.

So if there's an undocumented person who might have a criminal record, but they need help in eviction court or domestic violence court, because these programs are not just about going to the very, very tough immigration courts. Those things are very, very tough. But it's about everyday civil and criminal criminal cases as well.

And those people deserve to have their due process, deserved our protection. And whether or not they're undocumented or have a criminal record, they ought to still be protected by the law.

And so we must be committed to protecting them in the rule of law in the courts, because ultimately there's a lot of folks who don't have a lot of money. And hiring expensive lawyers is not always going to be happening and possible for them. And that's why the One California program exists.

And that's why in the special session earlier this year, we committed so much more resources towards it. Because I firmly believe that California needs to welcome all immigrants. And this kind of bill is the opposite of that. It's hostile to immigrants. So I'm going to recommend again a no vote on this bill.

And since the bill was moved and seconded, Madam Secretary, can call the roll on this bill.

File item 7, AB 1066. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

[roll call]

Two to one. We'll leave the roll open.

Thank you.

So that is all of the business before the Assembly Human Services Committee today. So I will wait for some authors to return. I'm sorry, not authors. Some Members return. I know there are simultaneous committees occurring right now. So we'll leave the roll open for a couple more minutes. Thank you.

Madam Secretary, could you reopen the role on file item number one?

File item one, AB 790. The current vote is five to zero. Tangipa. Tangipa, I. Current vote, six to zero.

That bill's out.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll for the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

That bill's out.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

Final vote, 2 to two. That measure fails.

[Roll Call]

That measure fails. And now we will take up a motion for reconsideration for file item number eight. And this requires a majority of quorum. Majority of the it requires the Committee. Requires a majority of the Committee to pass.

[Roll Call]

Motion for consideration fails. All right, that's it. Thank you. All right. I shall call this meeting of the Assembly Human Services Committee now. Start all over again. I will now call this Committee on Assembly Human Services to adjourn.