Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

The Senate Human Services Committee will now come to order. Good evening. We are holding our committee hearing here in room 2200 of 1021 O Street. I ask that all members of the committee be present in room 2200 so we can establish a quorum and conduct business.

And since we do not have a quorum yet, we will meet as a subcommittee to begin bill presentations, and we will go and file order.

We do have a consent calendar which consists of a number of items, and we're entering a motion on consent when we establish a quorum, but we're going to go with those authors present in file order. And so, I don't see somebody new in here yet. So, we'll go now to item seven, AB 349 by Assemblymember Dixon. Good evening.

If there are any principal witnesses to testify in the bill, you're welcome to come forward. I think authors typically present there, right? Assemblymember, typically authors present at that podium, but if you rather sit there and present, that's totally fine as well. So, no problem. Yes, please. Thank you. It's different in the Assembly, where we're in the Capitol building -

That's exactly right. And this is on. You can hear me?

I actually prefer to sit and present myself. So, we'll now proceed once again to file item 7, AB 349 by Assemblymember Dixon, and I'll turn over to the assemblymember to present on your bill.

Well, thank you very much. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Committee. It is my pleasure to present today AB 349. This is my third year authoring this bill, which supports teen moms and their babies in the foster care system.

When a foster youth has a child of her own, that infant is not a ward of the state. As a result, they are left to take care of the child on their own, leaving them in an extremely vulnerable state.

To help alleviate this issue, teen moms in the foster care system are issued the infant supplemental payment, a monthly payment which is intended to be used for all of the baby's needs, including childcare, food, diaper, and more incidentals. Unfortunately, the infant supplemental payment is one of only two foster care payments not currently indexed to inflation.

This specific program has not been updated since 2016, nearly 10 years, and falls critically short in providing these parenting foster youth, the teen moms, adequate financial resources to care for their children. The overwhelming majority of recipients who receive the supplemental funds are from minority communities and have survived sex trafficking, hence their pregnancy.

In fact, our sponsor, Mary's Path estimates that as many 90% of their residents are victim 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 that they can adequately care for their child and themselves.

Additionally, we have seen immense increases in the cost of basic necessities for parents in this 10-year period. Prices of diapers and formula have increased with crushing inflation in recent years. Indexing the supplemental payment to inflation would help compensate for the increase in cost for these basic needs.

Protecting our most vulnerable foster youth is a bipartisan issue and I hope the members of the committee share my commitment to protecting this underserved population. This increase is a necessary step to help support teen moms and their babies who are in foster care in the face of adversity and the high cost of living in California.

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

And good evening, before we go to you, we have established a quorum so if the Committee assistant could please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Okay, thank you very much. Good evening. You have two minutes to address the committee.

Good evening. Chair Arreguin and members of the committee. I am Jill Dominguez, CEO and President of Mary's Path. Mary's Path is a short term residential therapeutic program known as an STRP and we are in Orange County.

Our program serves a very special population, pregnant and parenting teen ages 12 to 21 that are in the foster care system with a history of child sex trafficking. Our teen moms suffer from traumas that put them in the highest tier of mental crisis. We are one of only four organizations in the entire state.

One in three girls in the foster care system will have a baby of her own by the time she's 21. The average age of the mother at birth is 15 and a half years old. 100% are from low-income areas. 66% are Latinx, 33% are African American.

At Mary's Path we provide round the clock support as they navigate being new moms and work on dealing with the trauma that led them to our door. We provide trauma informed care, mental health treatment, our own high school doula support parenting, child development classes. 247 onsite childcare.

Our rate for the care of the babies has not been increased since 2016. The infant supplement payment is one of only two foster care rates that are not automatically increased each year by the California Necessities Index: CNI. The Department of Social Services new tiered rate structure does nothing to change the infant supplement.

We are struggling to provide the most basic care and supervision for the babies. The cost of diapers has risen 90% over the past two years. Formula over 11%. We feed, house, clothe and transport the teen moms and babies because they're not old enough. They don't have driver's license.

And yet we have been neglected and ignored in our request for additional funds in the infant supplement rate. AB 349 supports our teen moms and babies in foster care. It ensures that their needs are able to be met.

I am here to respectfully ask your support for AB 39 to include the infant supplement in the CNI, the necessities index for future years. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public wishing to express support for Assembly Bill 349? If so, please come for the microphone. State your name, organization and position on the bill.

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

Thank you.

Amanda Kirchner, on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association in support.

Jay O. Dentes, on behalf of Alameda County, in support. Thank you.

Unless there are any other members of the public wishing to express support on AB349, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition the AB 349, if there are any. I don't believe there was any registered opposition to this bill. Okay.

Seeing no. Speakers in opposition, we'll bring it to the committee for any questions or motion. Yes, Vice Chair Ocha Bough.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just want to thank the author for bringing this measure forward. You know, it's interesting, there are various spaces in our state that we don't actually update as far as the payments go to today's times. From childcare, which is also far behind when it comes to their subsidies and payments, and now did not know that this was in case. So, you know, we don't know what we don't know. So, thank you for bringing this measure forward and I'm happy to move the bill when appropriate.

Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee on AB 349? If not, turn it back over the author to close.

Well, I would respectfully and very gratefully appreciate your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. We have a motion by the Vice Chair. If the committee sits, can you please call the roll file.

Item seven, AB 349, motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay, thank you. That has four votes. We'll keep that on call. Thank you very much. Assemblymember. And I understand that Assemblymember Nguyen has allowed Assemblymember Ahrens to present before her. So, we'll go to his bill and then we'll go back to her bill because she was first in file order.

So, we'll proceed now to file item 8, Assembly Bill 461 by Assemblymember Ahrens. And if there are any witnesses, you're welcome to please come forward. I turn over to you. Assemblymember to present.

Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chair and members, good afternoon. AB 461 ensures that families facing school attendance challenges receive the support that they need rather than punishment.

Under current law, parents or guardians of students in kindergarten through 8th grade who fail to ensure regular school attendance may face misdemeanor charges punishable by up to $2,000 in fines and up to one year in the county jail.

Additionally, low-income families participating in the CalWORKS program can face sanctions if their child is deemed chronically truant, further reducing already limited income and punishing families, pushing families below the poverty federal poverty line. My bill, AB 461, aims to eliminate these punitive measures that exacerbate economic hardships instead and instead promotes a supportive non-criminal response.

This bill shifts the focus from punishment to partnership, ensuring families receive the assistance they need rather than facing penalties that deepen their struggles. With me today, our witnesses, Yesena Jimenez, Senior Policy Associate with End Child Poverty California, and Claudia Gonzalez, Senior Program Associate with Vera Institute for Justice.

Good evening. You each have two minutes to address the Committee.

Great, thank you. Good evening, Chair and Members. Yesena Jimenez, Senior Policy Associate with End Child Poverty in California, a coalition of over 178 organizations committed to ensuring every child is healthy, housed and fed. And I'm here to urge your support on AB 461, a bill that shifts our approach to connect currency from punishment to support.

Right now, families disproportionately low income and families of color are penalized when their children struggle with school attendance. But the root causes are often beyond their control. Poverty, bullying, trauma, now fear of deportation. Criminalizing parents or cutting CalWORKS benefits only deepens their hardship. And let's be clear, early intervention, not prosecution, is far more effective at addressing truancy.

In Fresno, trust trusted community-based partnerships worked with school officials to inform families about how to address illness related absences. Consequently, unexcused absences decreased from 64% to 43%. Yet families continue to face financial sanctions in the CalWORKS program, losing up to 1/5 of their CalWORKS benefits.

When older teens miss school, that's enough to push families below half the federal poverty line. These penalties again disproportionately harm black, Native American, and immigrant families, worsening racial and gender inequities.

This bill before you is especially urgent considering the federal administration and landscape that we have right now with the removal of Sensitive Locations Policy and the ICE raids impacting children and families across the state.

Raids have heightened fear of deportation among immigrant families, leading many parents to keep their children home and resulting in increased absences where there are ICE rates in their local community. This has unfortunately led to a decline in average daily attendance in those schools.

And again, these are not signs of parental neglect, but parents protecting their kids the best way they know how. AB 461 is an invitation to break the cycle of criminalizing our families.

And when we choose support over punishment, we begin to repair the generational harm that we are doing to our families and build the foundation for true educational equity. Thank you so much and I ask for your support on AB 461.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair, committee members, staff. My name is Claudia Gonzalez. I'm the Senior Program associate at Vera California. We are a national criminal justice and immigration advocacy and research organization. I stand before you not only as a policy advocate, but also as a formerly incarcerated woman who was criminalized.

As a young person, I was subjected to some of the very injustices that AB 461 by Assemblymember Ahrens seeks to address. People are often surprised when I tell them the first time I was arrested and sent to juvenile hall was not because I committed a crime, but rather because my trauma was weaponized against me.

I was a survivor of child sexual assault, dealing with PTSD and survivor's grief when I began missing class. I was desperately calling out for help, but no one noticed. Not a single teacher, not a single administrator made any attempts to check up on me despite being a gifted student. It wasn't until my problem absences became chronic that my school decided to intervene. The solution? To pull me out of regular classes and force me into a special program where I had to complete remedial workbooks. I did not receive any type of mental health support from the district.

On the day I was arrested, my friend had been murdered. And instead of being allowed to mourn for my friend, who was also child sexual abuse survivor I was taken into custody for truancy. Being sent to juvenile hall set me up for failure. It ushered me into the school to prison pipeline.

I lost most of my youth locked up because I was labeled as truant and as a bad kid. Unfortunately, these practices continue to harm other young people decades later. My mother also got in trouble. She was undocumented. She worked three jobs and was the sole provider for our family. She was fine and had to go to court.

It put her and our family in jeopardy and the fear of possible deportation became real. The solution to truancy should never be to criminalize folks or separate families. Parents and children, especially with those with trauma like mine, should not be punished, but instead supported with the resources that they deserve to thrive in school.

If you want youth to thrive, it is critical to address these harmful practices. AB 461 eliminate harmful sanctions related to truancy like unnecessary jail time and fines. And it removes barriers to accessing critical familial programs like CalWORKS. For these reasons, I urge you to please support AB 461. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll take Any other members of the public wishing to express support for AB 461, please state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Good evening. Rebecca Gonzales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. Also providing support for SEIU California, Californians for Justice, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, Courage California, the Children's Partnership and Epic: End Poverty in California.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership and support.

Connie Chan, on behalf of Treasurer Fiona Ma, in proud support.

Amanda Kirchner on behalf of County Welfare Directors Association in support.

Luan Huynh, Deputy Director of Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support. In addition, we want to express support from our other partner organizations, and they include Parent Voices California, Southeast Asian Resource Action Center, California United for Responsible Budget, Mission Economic Development Agency, Black Women for Wellness Action Project, Asian Americans Advancing Justice SoCal and Smart Justice.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Seeing no other members of the public wishing to express support for the bill, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill, if there are any. Seeing none. Is anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 461? Seeing none. That completes our testimony.

I'll bring it back to the committee for questions, comments or a motion. Senator Perez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, first of all, I want to start off by saying and thanking Assemblymember Ahrens for bringing this bill forward. This is an incredibly powerful and I think incredibly important bill, just given this time period.

I've talk to so many families in my community, in the larger Los Angeles community, that are terrified to send their kids to school right now.

I've talked with parents who are rotating their kids as they go to school because they're single parents and if they are taken, they want to make sure that there's at least one child in the household that's able to go and pick the kids up from school to coordinate with other family members.

That is the reality, I think, for so many of our families in this moment. In addition to that, there are a lot of complicated reasons why students are sometimes truant.

I used to work at Roosevelt High School in Boyle Heights, and oftentimes when my students wouldn't show up for the program that we were running, I would actually go, and they lived in the neighborhood, so I would actually go and go to their homes to meet with their families and talk with them.

And during that time period ran into so many issues. I mean, oftentimes parents didn't even know that their kids weren't showing up for school because they oftentimes were working so many hours that they had no idea. And it wasn't until I would knock on their door and tell them that they weren't showing up that they'd realize.

And, you know, teenagers are going through so much as they're figuring out their identity and whether that be that they don't feel a sense of belonging at home because they're coming out, you know, whether that be a result of challenges that they are facing at home or, you know, as was mentioned before, just the mental health needs that a student might have.

And I think your bill just does such a good job of reframing this to focus on that very issue, to say let's meet these young people where they're at and give them the services that they so desperately need so that we can get them back on track. Right.

Instead of trying to punish these families who frankly are already under resourced and facing so many challenges. So, this is an incredibly thoughtful bill. Assemblymember Ahrens, I'd love to be a coauthor and just really appreciate you bringing this forward. So, we'll definitely be voting aye and very proud to support this.

Thank you, Senator. I would be honored to have you as coauthor.

Any other questions or comments from committee members? Yes, Vice Chair Ochpa Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, a couple of things. Here are some of the concerns that I have with this particular bill. You know, it's interesting because there's a reason why we have compulsory education and compulsory truancy requirements that we need to fulfill as a state.

And that's because there's a way that the school districts need to teeth in order to ensure that our children are going to school.

One of the biggest problems that we have is truancy and, and it's interesting because even in budget, in education, we link the ability to ensure that our students are going to school with the ability to have schools receive funding. Right?

Because if they're not receiving, if they're not ensuring that the students are in the classroom, then the school doesn't receive their funding. So, they need to have that type of - all I can think of is the word is just teeth analogy; to have teeth in order to ensure that those kids are required to be or require the parents to ensure that the children are in school.

I think it's interesting to know that we also have a bill that continuously comes up in education that would require kindergarten to be mandatory in the state. Why? Because it's the only way that the schools have the ability to force parents to ensure that they're sending their children to school.

Haven't been supportive of the bill yet because I don't, that's my personal opinion. I mean, you can hear my arguments in education.

I don't think five-year-olds, you know, they're still, are babies, they're still, you know, but the majority of the reasoning behind it is that, you know, it's the only way that gives students - gives schools the authority to ensure that our students are going to school.

Now having said that, one of the biggest concerns that we have within the educational system is the fact that when our students are not in the classroom, they're not learning. If they're not learning, then that sets them up for literally unsuccessful ability to achieve the American dream. Right?

Education is a pathway, and it doesn't have to be formal education. It can be skills, can be training for work requirements. So, there's various varieties. So, when I'm talking about education, I'm just talking in general. But the importance of that student being there is incredibly important.

It's one of the reasons why the legislature passed a bill a year, two years ago that would prohibit school districts from suspending children from school.

Everything that the legislature has done thus far is ensure that we have systems in place to basically compel our school districts to compel our parents to ensure that we have our students in the classroom in order for them to receive an education.

Removing that ability to be able to do that through this measure, especially financially, is just another way, in my humble opinion, that removes the ability to compel our families to be or make sure that their kids are in school regardless of what's going on in immigration right now.

That's a different conversation that I've had in committee as far as ensuring that our parents know their rights as immigrants and the rule of law in the State of California when it comes to education and immigration, including the fact that our schools don't have the authority or the capacity by statute to collect any information that states what the immigration status is for our students.

Schools are not allowed or not supposed to per statute, to collect any of that data. So, this notion that the schools can be approached by ICE and say, give us a list of your undocumented can't happen, won't happen because we don't have that information by statute, we cannot collect that information. But many parents don't know that.

Many of our teachers don't know that. So, I've been a proponent of ensuring that we, as legislators have those conversations for parents to know our school districts, to know our teachers, to know even the public, to know what those rights are that protect our students while in the classroom.

When I see bills that use that as a means, that fear of parents not sending their children to school because of immigration, it worries me. It concerns me that we're perpetuating that notion and that idea that their children are safe in school. And so, as we have those conversations, it worries me.

It worries me because for every child that does not, for every day that that child is not in school, that's one day less of learning that they have.

And our state, our school district, everything that we've done thus far is to ensure that we have a system that compels our parents, gives the teeth to the school districts, compels our parents to have those kids there, and therefore those kids have the best chance at succeed in the American dream.

So that's the concern that I have here, is that, you know, when you look at our whole system in California, everything is to incentivize behavior, right? We're trying to move away from dissentivizing folks from doing certain behaviors.

And with this, it worries me that it can be used as a talking point to continue that narrative that our kids may be unsafe at school, when they're truly still are safe at school. And also, it takes away other incentives for our parents to actually ensure that their children are still in school.

So those are some of the concerns, because I think about the whole from various angles. And this is one of the benefits of being in education and seeing everything in education and that. That context, but also seeing it from a public safety perspective, because I served in public safety and also from the human services component and capacity.

So, I'm trying to see the whole picture as a whole and say, does this add to what the legislature has actually been reinforcing and pursuing these past couple of years since I've been here, my fifth year here in the Senate? Or is it stripping away and being. And being a.

Or doing the opposite of what the legislation now, mind you, I haven't always been supportive of every single measure that has gone through here, such as mandatory kindergarten. But I understand the concept of ensuring that we do have a system that ensures that our kids are compelled to be in school.

And that's one of the reasons why I can't support the bill today, because I am thinking about ensuring that we have a system that incentivizes, compels those parents to be able to be in school. Otherwise, what incentive do we have? And it's my understanding also...let me see.

So, when it comes to the pursuing of the criminal penalties for truancy, it's left to the discretion of the school district or the DA. It doesn't automatically happen. It's a discretion. So, you analyze the school districts, the DA analyze the context in which that that child is being assessed, taking everything in consideration.

And so, we asked what instances would typically cause them to pursue criminal penalties against the parents as opposed to offering support services. And they couldn't really tell us what that was. So, there isn't much data that's available that would allow us to analyze that. So, it's very rarely that it actually occurs, incredibly rare.

So, it behooves to ask whether or not this is actually needed because it really doesn't happen. It's very, very rare. But what it does allow us to do is actually analyze why, in the circumstances, behind why that student is absent.

And I think we need to keep those systems in place so that we actually can go to the root of the problem.

Because if we don't know why that child is truant, if we don't have a system that, you know, compels our parents to be there, and it compels the system, or in this case the school system, to pursue and go to the home and ask what's going on, we lose that child.

And so, for various of those reasons that I try to mention, I know there's a lot. Because with many of these bills, there's so much that goes around it, I can't support this bill today.

But trust me, when I, my intent has always been to inform and empower both our school system and our parents to ensure that we have a system that is successful for all of our children to be able to stay in school, receive the best education and have the best chance at achieving their American dream.

And I'll give you the opportunity to respond in your closing. Well, I'll ask are there any other questions or comments? Yes, Senator Becker.

Thanks. I will move the bill.

And thank you very much for bringing this bill for today. I will be supporting it. With that, I'll turn it over you to close.

Thank you. I want to thank the committee for the robust conversation. I think you brought up a lot of great points and I can tell that your heart is certainly with mine and wanting to make sure that students go to school. And that's the biggest indicator.

I think all of me and our sponsors agree with you on that. Unfortunately, the current statute, current truancy law doesn't actually, and the data will show you, compel more attendance. Truancy has gone up drastically with the threat of imprisonment, with the threat of fines on the books.

You bring up amazing points, Senator, but the current law does nothing to help with that. And my bill doesn't repeal the amazing partnership between school districts and the district attorney. There are five steps that go into place of intervention between parents in the school district and the district attorney. That is still going to happen.

They have been models to compel and get students to go. We can do all of those things without punishing.

And I think to your earlier point, I think the immigration debate that we're having in this country and acutely in California is very much linked and tied to this bill because we're seeing, there is no excuse absences for your parents getting taken or for you missing the bus and can't afford to go to school because you can't financially get yourself there.

Like I was. I was a truant student and my parents were punished because of this. And so, we need to be doing everything we can to look at the data and seeing what actually helps students. Like I said, I agree with all of your points.

I just don't agree that the current law in place actually does anything to help truancy and does anything to help our students. But I'm really looking forward to continue working with you and the rest of the committee to address this issue. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much. We have a motion by Senator Becker. If the committee assistant could please call the roll.

File item eight, AB 461. Motion is do pass to public Safety. [Roll Call].

Okay, thank you. We'll keep that bill on call. Thank you very much. As announced, we're going to go next to file item 5, AB 346 by Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators, for your flexibility. Assemblymember Ahrens had to MC a very important birthday event. If you didn't know already, the assembly side celebrates birthdays.

I'm here to present a bill and I know Senator Ocha Bogh wasn't supportive of the last one, but I think that she's going to be very supportive of this bill here, and she knows it quite well.

AB 346 improves access to necessary care and treatment needed by California's most vulnerable populations by streamlining the in-home supportive services paperwork process required for recipients to be authorized to receive paramedical services from their caretakers. These services include assistance with administering medication, inserting a medical device into the body, and providing wound care that the recipient cannot administer themselves.

AB 346 addresses this challenge by expanding the list of healthcare professionals who are allowed to sign the paramedical services form. Here to speak in support of the bill is Amanda Kirchner on behalf of the California Welfare Directors Association.

Thank you. Good evening. You have two minutes to address the committee.

Thank you so much. Mr. Chair and Members, Amanda Kirchner with CWDA. We are the sponsor of the bill. We want to support our IHSS clients as best as possible.

And one of the places that they have run into difficulties is in getting their paramedical certification forms filled out because they're required to be signed off on by a doctor.

This more closely aligns with the broader health certification form that can be signed by other licensed health care providers, including nurse practitioners who are offering more direct care these days. And because of that, we're just trying to tighten up that streamline, make sure that they can both sign both of the forms within the scope of practice.

We've got technical assistance that's been offered by CDSS even today. And so, we look forward to the bill. Urge your aye vote. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you so very much. Will not take any testimony in support of AB 346. Please state your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Counties of Riverside and Ventura and the Urban Counties of California and the Rural County Representatives of California, all here in support.

Jay O. Dentas on behalf of Alameda County in support.

Jeff Neal representing the counties of Contra Costa and Yolo, both in support.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of San Bernardino County in support.

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

Good evening. Dylan Elliott representing the counties of Kern and Humboldt as well as the City and County of San Francisco, all in support. Thank you.

Luan Huynh, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support and thankful to CWDA.

Thank you very much. We'll now take any testimony in opposition to the bill. Are there any principal witnesses in opposition AB 346? I'll note there was no registered opposition to the bill. Seeing no one in the committee room will take any me to testimony in opposition. Seeing none.

It's now in order for the committee to discuss the bill, entertain any questions, comments or motion. And Vice Chair Ochoa Bogh.

I'm in support of the bill. Thank you for bringing this measure forward. And I will yield to Senator from Pasadena for the motion

Are there any additional questions or comments from the Committee? If not, I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators. I do want to thank Senator Ochoa Bogh for getting this conversation started. It's a very important process in which I feel like it's going to help many family members get this going. And as you saw, there are no opposition to this. But I respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We have a motion. If the committee assistant could please call the roll.

File item five, AB346, motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay, that bill has the votes needed, but we'll keep it on call.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator.

Okay, next in file order is file item 10, AB 654 by Assembly Caloza. Hi, good evening. I'm going to present on behalf of Assemblymember Lee at the end of the agenda. And so, after that, we'll go to assembler Lackey and good evening here. The principal witnesses, if they can, please join us.

And good evening, Assemblymember, you may now present your bill.

Thank you so much. Chair Arreguin and colleagues, I'm here to present AB 654, which addresses a gap in our homelessness programs in Los Angeles County by establishing a dedicated telephone system to provide direct assistance to individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness. As many of us know, Los Angeles County is the epicenter of our homelessness crisis in California.

And in the most recent homeless count, there were over 75,000 people experiencing homelessness in LA. There is a desperate need for a centralized system that is solely dedicated to helping our most vulnerable get direct services.

Existing systems like 211, 311, and 9111 are valuable resources that provide many services to our constituents, like tree trimming, trash pickup and sidewalk repairs. Unfortunately, our current systems aren't working because they are overwhelmed by the volume and are already handling over 100 different services. But no one number is dedicated solely to responding to homelessness crises.

Evidence shows that current referral systems struggle with extremely high call volumes, particularly during crises resulting in thousands of unanswered calls and excessive wait times, sometimes hours long. This bill does not eliminate the need for referral agencies like 211 or impact their important function. 211 and other referral agencies are a valuable resource to our constituents.

However, its broad scope is the reason why we need a separate and dedicated line for urgent homelessness related needs. When someone is in-house and needs help, their call shouldn't compete with non-urgent service requests. They need an immediate response and not to be placed in a general queue or to be on hold for hours.

AB 654 authorizes LA County to create a dedicated line managed by a direct service provider and ensure that we get our most vulnerable the essential services that they need.

We're also making really good progress in our conversations with LA County, including my supervisor, Supervisor Hilda Solis, who supports AB 654 because this bill would align to the county's new mission of creating their own homelessness department.

And unfortunately, the supervisor could not be here to testify, but I appreciate her support and will continue working with her office on this bill.

With me today to testify and support is Paul Asplund-Dirani, founder of Second Grace LA and he's actually he does so much incredible work in my District Assembly District 52 and is a resident of Pasadena, so I believe he's a constituent of Senator Perez. Please Paul

And you have two minutes sir.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair Arreguin and members of the committee. My name is Paul Asplund-Dirani and for the past 10 years I've been leading teams of direct service providers in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Approximately 230 people lose their housing every day in Los Angeles. That's nearly 84,000 people a year.

And while the majority of them will succeed in regaining their housing on their own within six months, they all for weeks and sometimes months impact our already overloaded system. I have stood with many people on their first night on the streets.

It comes with the territory, and it breaks my heart to see people face what I faced many years ago when I became homeless: shame, hopelessness and bewilderment. We have precious little time to make the lifesaving connections for someone before they become the victim of a crime, suffer life altering emotional Trauma and surrender to hopelessness.

Every step we take matters, both in engaging services and in building trust. We often fail and are overwhelmed under resourced and lacking vital tools to help connect people to services. And referral programs like 211 have never worked as promised. During the February 2024 storms, 13,000 calls to 211 winter shelter hotline.

Of those 13,000 calls, only 5,700 were answered. That's a 44% success rate. Wait times averaged 55 minutes, with the longest exceeding 13 hours and 25 minutes. And out of those, only 372 motel vouchers distributed during that major emergency.

The long hold times might be annoying to you and to me, but when your cell, your only connection to the world, runs out of battery, you just plug it in. And not so for the people who we serve. For every person whom we fail to connect to vital services, it is a 100% failure.

In 2023, 7 people died every day unhoused in Los Angeles. For them, this system is a 100% failure. I, like many of my peers, no longer use 211. So, we've turned to online communities, chat groups, personal connections, and reaching deep inside organizations to people whom we know.

And a new resource focused on the needs of our community would be a lifesaver. When you wake up every morning knowing that seven more people have died in the night because we're not doing enough, it can either break you or compel you.

I hope it compels you to adopt this bill and to provide us with the tool we need. Please vote aye on AB 654. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public wishing to express support for AB 654? So please come forward to the microphone and state your name, organization and position on the bill. Okay. Seeing no other witnesses wishing to testify, I will now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 654.

If there are any anyone wishing to testify in opposition, AB654. Okay. If not, we'll close testimony and bring it back to the committee for discussion. Just say, I really appreciate you bringing this bill forward. I will be supporting it today.

I do want to acknowledge some of the comments that were received by United Way and some organizations specifically concerned about whether this was duplicative of the 211 system. But I think, as the witness said clearly, I think stated that the system is overwhelmed, particularly in cases of an emergency. And it serves a variety of functions.

Isn't just referring people to shelter. It's also connecting people to a variety of social services. And so, I think this is. This would be really beneficial for the County of Los Angeles. You know, different cities in California have different homeless response teams or behavioral crisis teams that have separate numbers.

So, I don't see that as being duplicative of or in conflict with the 211 system but rather building off of it. And so, I appreciate you bringing this bill forward, and I'll be supporting it today. Any other questions or comments, Senator Perez? Sure.

Well, one want to first of all, thank the author, Assembly Member Caloza, for bringing this forward, and thank you for your testimony as well. You know, for me, this is an incredibly personal issue. I have several family members that are still homeless, and I've lost several family members out on the streets.

And so, I understand that very tough reality that we lose so many people to homelessness on a regular basis, and oftentimes we don't even know who those folks are. And it is a very painful and very tragic loss.

You know, one of the things I want to recognize, well, having a system like this I think is incredibly important and would be supremely valuable, is we have also faced challenges with staffing for some of these hotlines.

I served on the LAHSA commission for some time, and, you know, while I was there, we would actually direct people to use the 211 system.

If you remember when Los Angeles went through atmospheric rivers and we saw huge flooding throughout LA, and of course, for our unhoused folks, that puts them in danger of getting sick, in danger of death. Right. I mean, there's so many numerous things that could happen.

We weren't expecting that much water flow to come down and the lines were overwhelmed. I mean, we had folks that contacted directly, you know, and reached out to me and my office to share that they weren't able to get through to anyone. And we've had those other issues too, with even the county's domestic violence hotline as well.

There's been some staffing issues and some staffing challenges there.

So, I would love to have a system like this, but also just want to make sure that we also have people there to pick up the phones when they're calling, because nothing's more heartbreaking than hearing that somebody's in the middle of an emergency and that they're being kind of routed in a circle.

And that's unfortunately what I've discovered in working with several folks that have actually tried to utilize these systems. And sometimes I've even just gone out of my way to test them out myself. And it's frustrating, right?

I mean, you're in the middle of a crisis and you're looking for help and you're not getting the answers that you need. So, I don't know if just from a funding perspective, if that's one of the things that you're trying to take into account, but I know that that's just the greatest challenge we face.

It's just the staffing so that we can get that adequate response. Thank you.

Do you want me to...yeah, thank you, Senator. And, you know, completely agree and thank you for your work on LAHSA. And I think, you know, for me, this bill was a top priority for me because I think what's different than maybe other services that we have is that we're bringing the service providers to the table.

And, you know, the funding is always going to be, you know, an issue when we're getting so much heat for the amount of dollars that we're put into the homelessness crisis.

But there's not much that we can speak to in terms of when we're going back to our district, when we're getting questions about, you know, whether or not our dollars are yielding the results that we ask.

And so for me, I'm in this space of, like, we have to try and be creative and try to see what new solutions we can come up with. And so that's something that we're working on, is looking at what other funding streams we can have to support LA County.

As you know, they took out, I think it was $300 million from LAHSA, and they're putting $1 billion towards a new homelessness department. And so, the time for change in reforming our systems is now.

And so, while we're looking at other state sources, you know, I think the county obviously is going to be a critical part on this. And so, Supervisor Solis is going to be a key piece in this and trying to ensure that we have adequate staffing and, and funding for this. So, we'll be working closely with the county.

Vice Chair Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hello and welcome. So, a couple of statements that I would like to make, and then I'm going to give a little context, so I'm not going to be supportive of the bill and I'm going to explain as to why.

So, what we've seen so far also, both in housing and in all of our bills that have to do with accountability and addressing how much money funding we've allocated towards homelessness. And as someone who has worked closely, if not, you know, firsthand leading the efforts on creating funding for 211.

We've been working very, very close with the organization across the state, have been carry resolutions on their behalf and carried budget requests on their behalf, mainly in part because the Governor has also used 211 as a reference to gain access to services throughout the state.

And if the Governor is going to, you know, advocate and promote 211 in in our state, then it should be a responsibility to ensure that they're fully funded, because they do, and part of their mission is to ensure that when someone calls for assistance, whether it's for housing, for financial assistance, or healthcare, whatever it may be, that they're addressing their needs.

They have an array of a network of folks that they have access to that literally when they call, they ask and it says, what are the needs that you need? And then literally connect them with folks in those in every single aspect that they may need. So, it's a cohort of services that they offer.

The problem has been that depending on where they are in the state, they haven't been fully funded. So, the system is there, but it's not fully funded. Whether at the local level, county level, city level, or the state. We haven't fully funded a system that we currently have.

And the concern that I have is that we create, and we have a tendency in the state to create more systems which creates more bureaucracy, which creates more departments, and creates more overhead and cost for the state, rather than actually streamlining and ensuring that what we currently have in the state is fully funded so that they can do their job 100%.

And so, they either lack the funding or they lack the workforce to be able to do that. And in our best of efforts, and heartwarming, in an effort to literally want to help, we create more organizations, more entities, more commissions, more departments, creating bigger but not necessarily fully funding all of them.

And that every time we do that, that's extending a little further the expanse and getting it bigger, but not necessarily getting it right. So, I have this philosophy that I've acquired in these five years here in the Senate that we truly have to invest.

The state has to prioritize ensuring that we are fully funding our current systems rather than expanding them and creating bigger and more costly programs in our state. So that's why I can't fundamentally, I completely understand the premise and the principle of wanting to have an organization that addresses homelessness.

But the other reality is the fact that if LA County wanted to do this, they don't need the federal approval to be able to create a network, another system for homelessness. They can actually start this on their own.

They don't need the legislative, they don't need the federal approval, and they don't need our approval to be able to do it. They can do that on their own and promote it. So that's the other concern that I have. And so, three-digit phone numbers, they don't need the state to be able to do that.

LA County has the capacity to do that if that is what they would like to do. So having said that, I cannot in good conscious be able to support the bill today.

Not because I don't understand that, not that I don't support the principle or the premise of wanting to create a line specifically for homeless, but because we already have systems in place that actually, if they were fully funded, could do an even more effective relaying of those services holistically, such as 211, to be able to meet all of the wraparound services that people need when they call in.

So that's why I'm not going to support the bill today. But I do commend your efforts in trying to think creatively and outside the box. I just want to make sure that we're doing it, that we assess what we currently have and support that. So having said that, I won't be supporting the bill.

So, I apologize for that.

Okay. Unless there's any further questions or comments, I'll turn it back over to the author to close on the bill.

Thank you Chair, and thank you to my Senate colleagues for your comments and your feedback. And just to restate what we've mentioned, you know, our current system isn't working. We don't have a robust system where you can call and get direct services.

The existing services that we have, the three digit numbers like 211 and 311 those are referral agencies. They are not meant to give you direct services when you're out on the streets and need help.

And oftentimes the current option that we have, that we're giving people, you're on the line for, if you're lucky, 30, 40, 50 minutes, if not for hours. And so that's not working.

And so I refuse to accept that as our reality, that that is what we're going home to our district and telling people that that works, that if we fund that, that all of a sudden that this homelessness crisis will get better, because it's not, you know, we need to try anything and everything to ensure that we can make a dent in this.

And it starts in LA County. So respectfully ask for your aye vote. And thank you to Paul for sitting all day in my office as we wait for this hearing. Thank you, Paul. Of course.

Thank you. Is there a motion on the bill?

I'll move the bill.

Okay. Thank you. I have to pass the gavel over. Okay, we have a motion. If the committee assistant, please call the roll.

File item 10, AB 654. Motion is do pass to Local Government Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay, thank you. We'll keep that bill on call.

Thank you very much. Going next in file order is file item 13, Assembly Bill 779, by Assemblymember Lackey. And good evening.

Thank you.

Well, good evening, Chair and Senators. Thank you for allowing me to present this Bill, AB 779. 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 in the Department of Child and Family Services offices. These experts guide social workers in real time, helping them to 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, as well as foster placements. This program directly addresses those challenges, and this Bill will scale that success for the state with an opt-in program.

With AB 779, we can expand this model and give our social workers and families the tools they need to act with compassion as well as precision. This Bill is preventative, not punitive. It keeps children safe without further traumatizing families.

And I'd like to thank and introduce Amanda Kirchner, on behalf of the California Welfare Directors Association, as well as my witness for this proposal.

Thank you very much. Good evening. You have two minutes to present the Bill.

Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Lackey, for your leadership on this issue. On behalf of County Welfare Directors, we are in support. What we have found is with recent data from our Child Welfare Indicators Project, about a third of the calls coming in for general neglect are related to domestic violence.

And because of that, so many of our children, which is our priority in the child welfare system, are in families that are in crisis but feel unable to speak out and get additional help.

Additionally, with our social workers, what we found is because they are in the child welfare system, working the system for so long with families and see repeated domestic violence with families and children, it can traumatizing for them as well.

And so, the ability to have a domestic violence counselor integrated into our child welfare agencies is going to be able to bridge those gaps sometimes between our practice models and the victim practice models for domestic violence. We think this is an excellent pilot to be expanded out and are supportive of the measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll take any other testimony in support of AB 779.

The Chair, Members, Martha Guerrero representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Thank you very much. There any other members of the public wishing to testify in support of AB 779? Okay, if not, are there any principal witnesses in opposition to AB 779? Note that there was no filed opposition to the Bill, nor should there be. Any other opposition testimony? Okay, if not, I'll bring it back to the Committee.

This is really an excellent program. I really appreciate you bringing this Bill forward so we can establish this three-year pilot and really study the effectiveness of it and look at how we can expand the statewide. So, I really appreciate you bringing this forward, Assemblymember, and I will be supporting your Bill today.

Well, thank you very much. And I hope we can get your support for this very difficult set of circumstances where many of these women are literally trapped.

Yeah.

Any other questions or comments? Yes, Vice Chair Ochoa Bogh.

Just a comment. Just want to echo the Chair's comments as far as the Bill goes and will be happy to move the measure when appropriate.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. I'll turn it back over you to Assembly Member to close on the Bill.

Well, I would just ask for your support on this Bill. As I said before, we think that this is a remedy and it's certainly worth pursuing because we have many, many way too many women that are in this predicament and it's, it's something we can fix. So, I would urge your support for this measure.

Thank you very much. With that, we do have a motion by Vice Chair Ochoa Bogh. If the Committee Assistant can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that does have the number of votes to move out of Committee, but we'll keep it on call. And thank you very much, Assemblymember.

Thank you for your time.

Okay, we'll go next to file item 18 and 19 by Assemblymember Addis and then we'll go to file on 21 after that and then, I'll present on behalf of Lee and make a motion on consent and then we'll be done.

So we'll proceed now to File Item 18: AB 1076, and Assembly Member, you may present on the bill.

Great. Thank you so much, chair. I'll try to be quick. I'm here to present AB 1076. That will strengthen the California Achieving a Better Life Experience or CalABLE Program, expanding its reach to empower more individuals with disabilities to save for their future.

CalABLE accounts are tax-advantaged savings accounts for people with disabilities that allow them to save up to $100,000, and account holders can withdraw money tax-free without risk of losing means-tested public benefits like Supplemental Security Income and Medi-Cal. So this allows members of the disability community to plan for their future and build financial security.

However, existing law is unclear as to whether and how CalABLE, the CalABLE Board can accept grants, gifts, and other funds from philanthropic entities and legislative appropriations. In addition, many individuals who qualify for CalABLE are not aware of the program and don't realize that they are eligible, so we have a solution.

1076 will strengthen CalABLE's reach and ability to support people with disabilities by authorizing the CalABLE Board to accept funds from philanthropic entities and legislative appropriations and use the funds to encourage eligible individuals to open CalABLE accounts and use them to their maximum potential. Joining me today is Connie Chan, here to testify on behalf of the State Treasurer.

Okay, thank you very much. You have two minutes to present on the bill.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Connie Chan, and I'm here on behalf of California State Treasurer Fiona Ma, who is sponsoring AB 1076 and serves as a chair of the CalABLE Board.

CalABLE is California's savings and investment program for individuals with disabilities, allowing them to save in tax-advantaged accounts while protecting their eligibility for benefits like SSI, which more than a million Californians rely on for basic needs such as housing, healthcare, and food.

Historically, individuals receiving SSI were limited to having less than $2,000 in assets, which prevented them from saving for emergencies or their future. To date, CalABLE has more than 14,000 accounts with over $200 million in assets. However, this is still less than 1% of the state's eligible disabled population.

CalABLE has limited resources for outreach which has hindered its ability to serve more people who could benefit from the program. AB 1076 will help CalABLE by allowing it to solicit philanthropic support to fund outreach and marketing efforts. This will help bridge the information gap and reach more individuals who could benefit from the program.

The bill also allows CalABLE to share information through state tax returns, increasing awareness and outreach in the same way that the ScholarShare 529 College Savings Plan has done successfully with minimal costs. AB 1076 is a necessary step to ensure that more individuals with disabilities can access CalABLE and begin saving for their future. On behalf of the Treasurer, she urges your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so very much. Will take any other members of the public wishing to express support for AB 1076. If you can please come toward the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill? I don't see any other witnesses wishing to testify.

Are there any members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to AB 1076? Seeing none, that completes our testimony, and I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or a motion. Vice Chair Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you so much for this, for moving this measure forward. You know, it's interesting, just the facts that the state--the State Treasury conducted a public survey last year to identify program awareness and only 22.6% of folks were aware of the program and only 30% of service providers were aware of CalABLE.

I think this is an excellent program that needs to be promoted and I'm grateful for the State Treasurer, Fiona Ma, for bringing that to awareness, for Assembly Member Addis for bringing this measure forward, and I'm happy to support the the measure and look forward to moving the, the--making a motion for the bill to move forward when appropriate, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so very much. Any other questions or comments from committee members? If not, I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

Well, thank you, Senator, for your supportive comments, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so very much. We have a motion by Vice Chair Ochoa Bogh. The committee assistant, please call the roll.

File Item 18: AB 1076. Motion is do pass to Revenue and Taxation Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay, thank you. That does have three votes. So that bill is out, but we'll keep it on call. Thank you very much. And we'll proceed to your next bill which is File Item 21 AB- File Item 19 rather AB 1208.

Thank you so much, chair and members, I'm here now to present AB 1208, a bill that shifts California's Developmental Services system towards a more thoughtful and equitable performance outcome measurement system. This bill is sponsored by Disability Voices United and supported by SEIU and we've worked closely with both organizations to craft a thoughtful piece of legislation.

For a very long time, the Developmental Services system has mainly focused on quantitative outcomes such as how much money is spent or whether a program is following the rules.

But now, both at the federal and state level, there's a shift towards looking at more qualitative measures such as are people getting the outcomes they want via person centered planning and self determination. So moving this direction has not been easy. It has been very challenging to move from a quantitative to a qualitative system.

But it is necessary and it will help people particularly those receiving these services. So AB 1208 would direct the Department of Developmental Services to create a comprehensive set of outcome, quality and performance standards that will then be used to measure the performance outcomes of the Department, Regional Centers and vendors.

With me today to testify in support is Judy Mark, President of Disability Voices United.

Thank you very much. Good evening. You have two minutes to present on the bill.

Thank you so much. I'm Judy Mark, President of Disability Voices United. We are a statewide advocacy organization directed by and for people with disabilities. I'm here today as a proud co sponsor of AB 1208.

And I'm here on behalf of my son and the over half million individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities receiving services from the state's network of 21 Regional Centers. Last year, I was appointed by then secretary Mark Galley to serve on the Master Plan on Developmental Services.

This was an opportunity to explore the causes of the long term systemic racial, ethnic and geographic disparities and make a set of recommendations to improve individual outcomes and system accountability. What we learned is, number one, the system has been more focused on compliance than outcomes.

Number two, there is a lack of trust in the system by many people with disabilities and their families, especially people of color. And number three, there are too many work groups and performance measures that keep the bar very low for people with developmental disabilities.

AB 1208 is the first bill to attempt to implement some of the master plan recommendations. This bill requires for the first time that DDS establish just one unified stakeholder workgroup that recommends clear and ambitious benchmarks for Regional Centers and service providers. If they exceed a benchmark, they receive an incentive.

If they don't meet it, they will be subjected to corrective action ranging from technical assistance to probation. It's about time that we set out a set out clear and high expectations for organizations that receive taxpayer dollars to support people with developmental disabilities.

And it is especially important at this time when our system could face drastic budget cuts from the Federal Government. We're deeply grateful to Assemblymember Addis who has championed the need for transparency, equity and accountability in the Developmental Services system.

And we're looking forward to partnering with our co sponsors, SEIU and other stuff stakeholders to help us realize the promise of the master plan. And I. I urge you to vote aye on this bill.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any Members of the public wishing to speak in support of AB 1208? Okay. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 1208. There was no registered opposition to the bill. So saying no speakers who are opposed to the bill.

I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments or motion. Vice Chair Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just want to thank the author for bringing this measure forward as well. And I think as we look at most of the concerns that we have within government, many of the times is whether or not we fully fund them and whether or not they're able to have the workforce that they need.

And another one is accountability. And I think as legislators, actually, most people don't know this, but one of our primary responsibilities as legislators, as a legislature, is to have oversight and accountability over all of our state agencies and departments.

Most people don't realize that we get so busy with bills that we forget our actual job of oversight and accountability. So this is another measure that actually promotes that intent. And so I am happy and fully supportive of this effort and happy to move the bill when appropriate. Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. Senator Becker.

Yeah, thank you. I'll just also say I think this is exactly what we need to be doing. Setting uniform benchmarks, mechanism to measure performance indicators. It's exactly the kind of thing we need to be doing in government. So I'm proud to support the bill today, too, and I'll move it if it's not been moved already.

It has been moved. You've seconded it.

That's okay. I won't take it personally that you weren't listening to my remarks, but that's okay.

Unless there are any other questions or comments, I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

I'll say Madam Senator had phenomenal comments and thank you so much and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so very much. It's been moved, seconded, thirded. We'll ask the committee assistant to please call the roll.

File item 19, AB 1208, motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. [roll call]

Okay, we'll keep that Bill on call, but it does have, I think, the vote sufficient to move out of Committee. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Our last Bill presentation before I present on behalf of Alex Lee is file item 21 AB 1357 by Assemblymember Rodriguez.

And I'll turn over to the Assembly Member to present on your Bill.

Thank you. I can tell everyone can feel the late hour of today. I'm very excited to be here. This is my first Senate hearing, and it's lovely to see so many familiar and friendly faces. I want to start by accepting the Committee's amendments and of course, thank the Committee for all of their work.

AB 1357 is a straightforward policy that ensures that guaranteed income payments do not count against eligibility requirements for public assistance programs. Guaranteed income pilots in our state help participants become more financially stable, improve their mental health and create full time employment opportunities.

Currently, some Californians have to make the difficult choice between joining these temporary programs that can lift them out of poverty or keeping essential benefits like Medi Cal or food assistance. That is not a choice anyone should have to make.

AB 1357 fixes this issue by explicitly stating that guaranteed income payments will not be counted as income or resources for any state assistance programs like Medi Cal, CalFresh, CalWORKS, Capi and others.

This Bill can bring us closer to ensuring that Californians participating in guaranteed income programs are not punished for trying to meet their basic needs and create a better future for their families. Speaking in support of the Bill with me today are River Burkhart, a UC Davis student, and Cameron Burns with Mayors for a Guaranteed Income.

Great. Good evening. You have two minutes to present on the Bill and thank you for your patience.

Thank you Chair and Members. My name is River Burkhart and I am a Guaranteed income recipient from United Way Collegiate Guaranteed Income Program. Since April of this year, along with nine other former foster youth at UC Davis, I have been receiving $500 for a month for a year.

This program was launched in April of 2024, including nine CSU Sacramento Guardian Scholar students who will receive $500 a month till they graduate in May of 2026. Receiving both guaranteed income and CalFresh has had a profound impact on both my educational and personal journey.

As a former foster youth and someone who is enrolled in the Indian Child Welfare Act, I've experienced firsthand the instability and financial hardship that many of us face when trying to pursue higher education. The $500 monthly guaranteed income I receive from United Way has provided a level of stability I've never had before.

It helps cover my rent, food and other essentials without having to work multiple jobs while attending UC Davis full time. Along with this, CalFresh ensures that I can afford healthy meals throughout the month, which has improved both my mental and physical health.

Together, these support systems have allowed me to focus on my academics, stay involved in Native student leadership, and begin planning for my future beyond school. This kind of support isn't just helpful, it's transformative and it gives young adults like me an opportunity to thrive, not just survive.

I urge you to consider how life changing this kind of support could be for others like me and vote for AB 1357 which will exempt all guaranteed income payments as income or resources when determining the eligibility or benefits to state public assistance programs. And I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so very much and I'll turn over to you. Nice to meet you in person.

Nice to meet you as well.

I was a Member of Mayor before I came to the Senate.

Yes, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Cam. I serve as the Deputy Director of Mayors and Counties and Legislators for a Guaranteed Income. Quite a mouthful. We're a national coalition of more than 250 elected officials that builds the case for a simple idea.

A small infusion of unconditional flexible cash can unlock a world of potential. As you just heard, our chair and founder, Stockton's former mayor Michael Tubbs, launched the first Mayor LED program in 2017, delivering 500 bucks per month to 125 folks for two years.

Since then the idea has spread to Alameda County, Riverside County, San Mateo County, Ventura County, and of course Los Angeles County, among many, many others. And in each place, one myth keeps coming up that a bit of cash will discourage work or create dependency on government services. But that's simply not what the data shows.

As your Assembly Member just reminded you all, dozens of randomized control trials from independent researchers show increased full time employment and educational attainment as seen with recipients, dramatic reduction in stress and anxiety, and greater financial stability. People are paying off debt, saving for emergencies, and stabilizing their households back in Stockton. So back to the matter at hand.

Mayor Tubbs and a team spent over a year piecing together a strategy to protect participants from losing benefits, and today dozens of programs across California rely on that model with critical support from CDSS. But programs shouldn't have to rely on patchwork fixes.

AB 1357 offers clear statewide guidance ensuring people won't be penalized for getting a small boost that helps them breathe, plan and then move forward, especially at a time of increasing economic inequality and anxiety and uncertainty.

We know guaranteed income works best for folks when leveraged alongside the existing services to pull themselves out of poverty and create economic stability for themselves and their families. We thank Assemblymember Rodriguez for her leadership on this issue and her commitment to protecting rather than penalizing her constituents. Thank you all for your time.

Thank you very much. We'll take any Members of the public in support of AB 1357. If you can please take your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western center on Law and Poverty and strong support Also here on behalf of end child poverty in California.

Good evening chair and Members Elise Borth here on behalf of the Silicon Valley Community foundation and strong support.

Martha Guerrero representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in support and also Mayor West Sacramento mayors of a guaranteed income and support Adriel okoro with Inland SoCal United Way and strong support.

Hi Cooper on behalf of United Ways of California and support Lawrence Joseph on behalf of United Ways of California Capital Region in support Luann Min Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support and thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Will not take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 1357. Are there any witnesses in opposition? I don't see any. Is there any testimony in opposition to the Bill? There being none. I'll bring it back to the Committee for questions, discussion or motion.

Josh Becker I'll just say this seems like a very common sense Bill because we want these pilots. Thank you for all the mayors who've, who've been trying them and we want to make sure they don't, they don't count against people. So I really appreciate the Bill. Hey, Vice Chair Trojan.

So it's interesting. I'm conflicted on this Bill and I'm conflicted on this Bill because as I've spoken to some Republican colleagues with regards to guaranteed income, it's no different than saying what we considered welfare be. You know, it's an assistance for someone without necessarily that's going through a specific situation in life that needs financial assistance.

I've been very supportive of anything that has been aimed or tailored towards our foster youth because of the, you know, limitations that you have as far as support system goes. And I think along with my, with my kids, my seniors, my folks with disabilities, my foster youth is another area where I feel that they absolutely need support.

The concern I think that I have with, with removing and here's where I'm conflicted because I see a similar situation with our seniors where they can't qualify for certain homes because they, they own a home but they're cash drop, they don't have any funding, they have some property and so they or they have certain level of savings for emergencies and they can't qualify for certain programs.

So, so this is where I see that happening with our seniors and I believe that that system needs to be reformed as well. With this one. I think where I'm conflicted is that when it comes to public benefits and having limits and income caps, there's a reason for all of those systems to be in place.

That have systems and caps. And that's in order to ensure that in a system where, especially in our cost of living in California that is incredibly expensive, we don't have, obviously, as seen through our budget, we don't have an unlimited amount of funding available for every single program.

So we have to prioritize needs versus wants and many of the different systems that we have within the state, especially in assistance.

And so when it comes to these and removing them, when it comes to this particular instance for the guaranteed income, I'm just worried that it removes one layer of lens when we're evaluating the needs and prioritizing who gets assistance and where and how much.

And so that's where I'm actually, I'm struggling with the Bill because, you know, when we look at the programs that are qualifying with this program and I'm going to borrow some notes here. Can I see the notes really quick? Sorry.

You know, when it comes to the, to the program such as CalWORKS, the CalFresh programs, the California Food Assistance Program, the MEDI Cal Program, the General Assistance Program, the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment Program, and the Cash Assistance program for immigrants. And those, by the way, for the record, is documented, folks.

All of those are really essential programs that are providing services that are literally needed by so many. And so I just, I don't know if you would like to comment and try to get me across.

I just, when it comes to like, as I said, my biggest concern is that we remove a lens in which we can evaluate the need of individuals for the services and programs that we have.

And if we remove those lenses, then we can't have a prioritization of actual need within a population, especially when we are so cash dropped as a state for programs. That's why I'm a bit conflicted with removing that completely. But I'm happy to hear any.

Yes, I'm happy to respond. I also want to give an opportunity to Cameron Burns, if you'd like to go first. I could go first if you prefer. So I want to start with just, I think what stood out to me. A comment, Senator, about needs for swans. This is very much about needs versus needs.

Before I was a policymaker, I was a program and policy implementer.

I've helped design a guaranteed income program and I've sat with people in poverty who had children doing benefits counseling and watching them make the choice between having food or having this opportunity that would give them food and money so that they can finish their coursework so they could get that certificate to have a quality paying job that could potentially exit them from our frankly broken social safety net, which is not necessarily a whole debate in this Committee.

The way that we build in fiscal cliffs and the way that we prevent people from moving forward, guaranteed income is the opposite of that. It provides a short term monetary opportunity for people to meet their basic needs and get ahead and take a step forward for their families.

And it's been proven to help with mental health, physical health and even gaining full time high paying employment so that people are better off.

And so I think when we have to consider the needs of so many people who are living in poverty because it's so prevalent pervasive across California, I want us to recognize that the people who apply for these programs don't have separate income that's permanent, that's always going to support them. They're still in need. This is.

These are different pilot programs that are backed by research that support them in taking a step forward. So it's intended to be an enhancement. But Cameron, if you have anything to correct or add, I welcome it.

Yeah, a couple points. As the Assembly woman mentioned, all of these pilots are time limited, anywhere between 12 months to I think the longest being 36 months.

So this is very much an innovation in providing folks that catalytic cash to just be able to, you know, sprint for those six months through that work training program that they've always been wanting to do or some education program so that they are not solely relying on these programs that they have been for a decade or as in San Joaquin County Housing Authority when we partnered back in 2017 to create this hold harmless Fund with them.

He always endeavored, the Executive Director there always endeavored for it not to be generational housing. He wanted folks to move on up, move on out. And that was how we unlocked frankly, a conservative board to help support the first guaranteed income program. You spoke about the benefits cliffs.

When folks get a little bit of money to get ahead and then fall, you know, five steps behind, it's rough on a family and that financial volatility is bad.

And then generally the return on investment that I touched on, you know, when you give folks cash and they're doing a little bit better, the system savings, it's just, it's borne out across many, many research studies that we have to point to as well. But I don't know if you have other questions or follow ups, Mr.

Chair, if my mate. So allow me to understand. So with this particular Bill and when we're referring it or applying it to the intent, are we talking about every guaranteed income pilot program in the state.

Are we talking about every guaranteed income program that's already in place or are you, are you narrowing this down to certain guaranteed income pilot programs or studies or recipients?

The intention is for our departments to recognize guaranteed income, the temporary cash infusion for families in need to not be considered for benefits. So guaranteed income programs, that each of them are backed by different groups and research projects. All of the guaranteed income programs.

So you're referring to this particular Bill would impact in concertion with every program to every guaranteed income pilot program or actual program that currently exists in, across the state. Yes.

And for all benefits that are provided by the state so that we're not getting in our own way when we're trying to help people.

So for the record, just for the record, especially Mr. Chair, if I may, I think that the most important part is when people hear, many Californians hear, you know, guaranteed income, they're very, very afraid. So I want for just for the record to, to just express that guaranteed income based on need. Right. Base.

And need is no different than, say, what we currently understand as a welfare aid or assistance. And I think, and I'm saying this, you're looking perplexed a little bit, but I think it's important for many Californians in the public to understand that that's what that is.

And correct me if I'm wrong on that end, but it's pretty much the same thing. It's people that need assistance to get them over the top. No different than what we have known to be welfare system. Except, and correct me if I'm wrong, it usually is as finite.

There's only for a certain period of time or is it indefinite currently through the pilot system that's proliferated since 2017, it is time limited.

And I missed one other point that you mentioned, but this would this innovation in how we deliver welfare is, you know, seen by counties as again, that that extra component of cash to get folks through that past that hump. So I would, I guess it's, it's not how we've always done things.

It is a flexible benefit set in addition to the foundation of our social safety net that sometimes too often falls a little bit short.

Okay. I just think it's important for our brothers to understand there's different perceptions when the people hear guaranteed income. And I've been supportive of other measures with guaranteed income depending on, you know, the demographics that we're assisting.

I think the biggest concerns for most Californians would be that it doesn't become a lifestyle, a lifestyle choice of need or not need. I'm sorry, just a lifestyle that it doesn't incentivize upward mobility, whether it's through work or education.

And I just want to make sure that we have those conversations because the biggest thing for me is ensuring that we have systems for safety nets, which I think are very necessary, but that don't cater to a lifestyle of choice, per se, that it empowers people for upward mobility. So. So, yeah. Thank you.

Guaranteed income is about financial empowerment.

Senator Becker.

Yeah. Just because, I mean, these are pilots, right? Just like we said with the last Bill, there's a chance to do something, test it, see how it works. These are pilots, right? This is not a lifestyle. So we just really clear on that.

Unless there's any other questions or comments. The author. Assembly Member Rodriguez, you may close.

First, I just want to thank the witnesses for being here at this late hour to join me to present this Bill and river for sharing your testimony. I greatly appreciate it and thank you for the robust conversation. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, I'll entertain a motion on AB 1357 moved by Senator Becker. Thank you. The Committee assistant could please call the roll.

File item 21, AB 1357, motion is due. Passes. Amended to Appropriations Committee adaguing. Aye. Aye. Achobog. Aye. Achobog. Aye. Becker. All right, Becker. Aye. Limone. Perez.

Okay, we'll keep that bill on call, but it does have the three votes necessary to move out of committee. Thank you very much.

Thank you all.

For being here today. Okay, I'm gonna move consent, which. Let me read the items. File item 1, AB 42. File item 2, AB 1099. File item 3, AB 79. File item 4,

AB 341. File item 6, AB 1172. File item 9, AB 563. File item 12, AB 689. File item 14, AB 790. File item 15, AB 798. File item 16, AB 1068. File item 17, AB 1069. File item 20, AB 1120. File item 22, AB 1378. File item 23, AB 1476.

Does any member wish to remove an item from consent or entertain a motion on consent? Move by Senator Becker. And if the committee assistant can please call the roll.

Consent calendar. [roll call]

Okay, thank you. We'll keep that on call. Okay, the last item is what I'm presenting on behalf of Assembly Member/Chair Lee. And so if there are any principal witnesses. If you want to join us here at the table.

Welcome Senator Arreguin. You may proceed when ready.

It's my birthday present to Assemblymember Lee, who's at his birthday party right now, I offer to present this bill.

I'm very honored on behalf of Assemblymember/Chair Lee to present AB 678, which require the California Interagency Council on Homelessness to develop and recommend best practices and policies for ensuring LGBTQ individuals receive culturally competent, inclusive and affirming services when accessing state funded housing and homelessness programs.

The California Interagency Council on Homelessness consists of Director level representatives from 18 state departments and agencies who oversee the implementation of policies and programs aimed at reducing homelessness in our state.

Since Cal ICH plays a critical role in coordinating statewide efforts to address homelessness, it's essential to recognize and respond to the unique vulnerabilities faced by LGBTQ Californians, particularly queer youth and elders who are disproportionately impacted by housing instability.

Studies show that LGBTQ youth are 120% more likely to experience homelessness than their peers, and nearly one in three transgender people report experiencing housing insecurity at some point in their lives. And I'll just speak to my own personal experience as the Mayor of the City of Berkeley.

We had many queer youth who were either foster youth or youth who left abusive or difficult home situations, who came to the Bay Area seeking refuge and care, who were experiencing homelessness.

And we also know there are a growing number of LGBTQ seniors who are also experiencing homelessness who have specific needs that need to be addressed comprehensively by the state. Once unhoused, LGBTQ residents face additional challenges when trying to access shelter and supportive services.

Service providers are often unprepared to meet the needs of LGBTQ people, lacking the training and resources to serve them in a competent, inclusive and culturally responsive manner. These disparities are not just statistics.

They're the lived experiences of young people, families and individuals who often face rejection, discrimination and violence simply for living as their true identity should allow them to address these challenges. We need data. We need policies and services that center the real experiences of LGBTQ people, particularly those who are homeless or housing insecure.

AB 678 will ensure that our homelessness programs are inclusive and affirming so we can improve outcomes by connecting this population to housing faster and reducing the risk of individuals returning to homelessness. And once again, this is asking that Cal ICH develop and recommend best practices which will be brought back for further legislative and budgetary action.

With me today to testify is Craig Pulsifer. New is actually Rocco Pallin from Equality California and Mel Escalante from the Trans Latina Coalition.

Good evening, chair and members. Thank you for being here. My name is Rocco Pallin and I'm here on behalf of Equality California, a proud co sponsor of AB 678. As you know well, the affordable housing crisis is impacting nearly everyone in our state.

But LGBTQ people, especially youth and transgender people, oftentimes face greater barriers to accessing safe and affordable housing. For those who are unhoused, discrimination, harassment and a lack of affirming services too often stand in the way of accessing shelter and support.

Last year, Equality California partnered with several LGBTQ organizations to convene town halls in cities across the state to hear directly from community members. We set out to better understand the barriers that LGBTQ people face in accessing stable housing and what changes are needed to to make our systems more inclusive and affirming.

We heard consistent themes across the state. Housing providers often lack the training, tools and cultural competence to serve LGBTQ people effectively. Transgender people in particular described avoiding shelters for fear of violence.

AB 678 responds directly to these concerns by requiring Cal ICH to identify best practices and make recommendations to ensure that state funded homelessness programs provide safe, inclusive and culturally competent services. It also calls for recommendations to improve data collection so we can measure outcomes and hold programs accountable.

In this moment, California has a responsibility to lead and ensure that our systems remain safe and inclusive for everyone. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good evening committee members. My name is Mel Escalante and I'm a transgender man and I am the Training Coordinator for the Trans Latino Coalition. AB 678 is cogent legislation for three reasons.

First, it brings to the forefront of the homelessness crisis, addressing that sexual and gender minorities are the most overrepresented group in the American homeless population and the lack of adequate facilities and programming available to us to address this issue. Second, it prioritizes lived experience alongside professional competence in creating solutions to address the aforementioned issues.

And finally, it generates careers and sets a foundation for a legacy of expertise and professionalism, especially for transgender researchers, managers and executives who have dedicated our personal and professional lives to creating pathways out of homelessness and uplifting our communities.

For my first point, I point to the vast body of existing research from LGBTQIA led organizations such as the Williams Institute, which detail the systemic discrimination faced by sexual and gender minorities in employment, education, family systems and housing services that lead to the overrepresentation of LGBTQIA people experiencing homelessness in regards to prioritizing lived experience.

I want to highlight the success of similar legislation, California Senate Bill 923, and the widespread enthusiasm of service providers in public health who receive cultural competency training from experts who also identify within the population they are trying to better serve. This isn't just about the LGBTQIA community.

It's about empowering our service providers with the right tools and knowledge, leading to more effective interventions and better outcomes for all constituents. When service providers feel confident and competent, it streamlines their work and fosters safer, more trusting environments, benefiting both the provider and the person seeking help.

Lastly, regarding generating careers and setting a foundation for a legacy of professionalism for transgender people, our organization works with dozens of people who have overcome homelessness and we get to see the success they have when it comes to generating recommendations and best practices from lived experience. This isn't just about the immediate impact.

It's about transforming lives while simultaneously strengthening our workforce and public services. This bill creates space for our community to use lived experience as expertise to implement strategies and address a pressing issue. AB 67- AB 678 is critical life saving and common sense legislation. It recognizes a widespread problem and addresses it with efficiency. I respectfully ask for your aye.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much. Now we'll continue with any other witnesses in support of AB 678 here in room 20- 2200.

Annie Chow with the California Teachers Association in support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in support. We'll continue with any registered witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the dais. Any comments, questions?

I appreciate it. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here and waiting. I know it's been a long night. Thank you. Very compelling testimony and I will move the bill.

Thank you very much. And I'm just going to make a couple of questions or comments. I'm going to be supporting the bill today, but I do want to address the underlying issue that I see in concern that I have.

And I think that we as a society need to focus on and it has to do with the fact that regardless of demographic, regardless of demographic, I think we should be compelled to ensure that we are training folks that are dealing with our homeless population with the basic values of empathy, compassion, respect.

Because anyone that's going through a housing instability or being unhoused deserves to be treated with respect. And it makes me sad that we continuously focus on certain demographics rather than saying no, no, no, no.

We want people that are working within this space to have that natural civility, level of decorum, respect, kindness, empathy, and that treats everyone, regardless of demographic, with dignity. So having said that, we have a motion by Senator Becker to move this measure forward. Senator Arreguin, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

File item 11, AB 678. Motion is due pass to Housing Committee. [roll call]

Okay, so we have two votes and. No, I'm sorry, we have three votes. No, no, I'm sorry. That's okay. We have how many votes? Two votes. We have two votes. We'll leave it open for our absent members and thank you for being here today. Appreciate.

Okay. The sergeants to.

Where Senator Becker was absent.

Yes.

So we are. We have asked the members to please join us. And I just on behalf of the committee, want to once again wish happy birthday to the Vice Chair, Senator Ochoa Bogh. And you are free to leave the hearing at this point. Thank you very much for being here from the beginning, for your. For your participation.

So we're going to take what she know. We're waiting for senators to join us. Okay, we'll now lift calls on bills. So I'll go to the committee assistant to please go to the first bill.

File item five, AB 346. Motion is due pass to appropriations.

[roll call]

Okay, we'll keep that bill on call.

File item 10. AB 654. Motion is due pass to local government committee. Becker. Becker, I.

We'll keep that bill on call as well.

File item 11, AB 678. Due pass to Housing Committee. Becker. Becker, I. Limon, Perez.

We'll keep that bill on call.

File item 13, AB 779. Motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Becker. Becker, I. Limon.

We'll keep that bill on call as well.

File item 18, AB 1076. Motion is due pass to Revenue and Taxation Committee. Becker. Becker, I. Limon. Limon, I.

Okay, that bill is out. AB 1076 on a vote of five to zero. Okay, thank you. Senator Becker, you have voted on everything.

All right.

So you are free to go. Thank you. And we'll start from the top. Why don't we do consent first?

Sure.

Once again, consent consists of 14 bills. AB 42, AB 1099, AB 79, AB 341, AB 1172, AB 563, AB 689, AB 790, AB 798, AB 1068, AB 1069, AB 1120, AB 1378, AB 1476.

So we'll open the roll on consent.

Consent calendar. Limon. Limon, I.

Okay. Consent is approved on a. Oh, no. One more.

Perez. Perez, I.

Okay. Consent is approved on a vote of five to zero. Thank you.

File item five. AB 346, motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Limon. Limon, I.

Okay, that bill is out on a vote of five to zero.

File item seven, AB 349. Motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Limon. Limon, I.

Okay. AB 349 is also on a vote of five to zero.

File item eight, AB 461. Motion is due pass to Public Safety Committee. Limon. Limon, I.

Okay. AB 1461 is out on a vote of four to one.

File item 10, AB 654. Motion is due pass to Local Government Committee. Limon. Limon, I.

And AB 654 is out on a vote of four to one.

File item 11, AB 678. Motion is due pass to Housing Committee. Limon. Limon, I. Perez. Perez, I.

Okay. AB 670 is out on the vote of five to zero.

File item 13, AB 779. Motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Limon. Limon, I.

And AB 779 is out on a vote of five to zero.

File item 19, AB 1208. Motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Limon. Limon, I. Perez. Perez, I.

AB 1208 is out on a vote of five to zero.

File item 21, AB 1357. Motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. Limon. Limon, I. Perez. Perez, I.

And AB 1357 is out on a vote of 5 to 0. Does that complete our agenda? Okay, that completes our business for this evening's hearing. With that, the Senate Committee on Human Services is now adjourned. Thank you.