Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

The Senate Standing Committee on Human Services will now come to order. Good afternoon. We're holding our Committee hearing here in room 2200 and 1021 O Street. I ask that all Committee Members be present in room 2200 so we can establish a quorum and take action. But. But we do not have a quorum yet.

But we will meet as a Subcommitee and begin our Bill presentations. I'll Note we have 20 bills on today's agenda. Eight of those are on the proposed consent calendar and 12 are on action. And so we'll proceed first in file order to file item 3, AB373, by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, an Assembly Member. I'll turn over you presenting your Bill.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Senate Human Services Committee. This bill is based on the understanding that non minor dependent individuals aged 18 to 21 in California who receive services from the foster care system are legal adults in all aspects of the law and should be granted the same rights in court.

Currently, when counsel is appointed to represent a minor in dependency proceedings, they are expected to advocate for the minor's best interest. Although this law is reasonable for youth under the age of 18, current law applies to legal adults 18 years or older and ignores the Independence and legal adult privileges.

Non minor dependents do have greater autonomy and the ability to express their wishes about court proceedings. But council is still able to substitute their judgment and act according to what is perceived to be in the non minor dependent's best interest.

AB373 seeks to give discretion to the non minor dependent by ensuring the legal rights of non minor dependents are fully respected, by clarifying the responsibility of appointed counsel to represent the express wishes of the non minor dependent. Ultimately, this bill aims to empower individuals who have often been spoken for or disregarded.

Finally, this bill will provide a sense of autonomy, Independence and adulthood to non minor dependents, setting them up for success as they transition into full adulthood. With me today in support of this bill is Julie McCormick with the Children's Law Center of California, policy attorney and foster youth advocate and Clarissa Pena from California Youth Connection.

Thank you Mr. Chair and I would like to hand it over to my witnesses.

Great. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us today. You should have two minutes to present and whoever would like to start.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. I am Julie McCormick from the Children's Law Center of California, proud co-sponsor of AB373. Just very briefly, Children's Law Center of California represents tens of thousands of children, youth and non minor dependents which are young adults aged 18 to 20 in foster care in Los Angeles, Placer and Sacramento County.

AB373 really, all it does is clarify that attorneys must advocate for the expressed wishes of their clients, thus affirming these clients autonomy as legal adults. Extended foster care is a voluntary program.

It's specifically for those young adults who turn 18 while still in foster care and the focus is to provide support and services to those 1819 and 20 year olds as they take on responsibility and transition into dependents. And they deserve genuine client directed representation. This change is crucial.

Under current law, Council may override a non minor State of preferences on safety grounds that default harms our clients, many of whom feel spoken for rather than heard. Why this matters As a trusted adult we often hear my lawyer didn't ask what I wanted. That disconnect undermines the attorney client bond and leaves clients feeling disempowered.

AB373 empowers non minors to own their future, be it housing, education or medical decisions, building confidence and preparing them for life beyond foster care. And importantly, this bill doesn't remove safeguards. Social workers will still be able to provide their opinion and recommendations. Courts remain guardians of safety and may override a client's preference if they deem it necessary.

What AB373 does is shift the role of counsel from gatekeeper to advocate, ensuring counsel advances their client voices, not their own judgment. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Awesome. Hello. Perfect. Hello Chair and Members. My name is Clarissa and I'm a proud member of California Youth Connection. As a young adult who has navigated the dependency system, I'm grateful for the attorney who listened to me and advocated for my wishes. However, I've seen that friends and peers weren't as fortunate.

Some felt their attorneys prioritized their best interest over their stated wishes, undermining their autonomy. This disparity is why I strongly support AB373 because this bill ensures that non minor dependents like myself have attorneys who prioritize our autonomy and self determination, giving us a stronger voice in the system.

By doing so we can make informed decisions about our future and take control of our lives. My personal experience underscores the importance of client directed representation. When my sister, a non minor dependent, wanted to live with me, her attorney advocated against it, citing her best interest.

Meanwhile, my attorney listened to my wishes and supported my sister's placement with me. At 16, she came to live with me and despite many doubting her potential, she thrived. She graduated high school early and earned a spot at a four year University. Now she is currently pursuing a degree in political science.

She's even landed her first job with me along with secured a valuable internship with our State Assembly. Her success is a testament to the power prioritizing young adults stated wishes. If her attorney had prevailed, her trajectory might have been very very different.

So with that being said, AB373 would ensure all non minor dependents have attorneys who prioritize their autonomy just like my attorney did. And I urge you all to support this bill and give young adults in care a stronger voice in the dependency system.

Great. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for being here and telling your story, your advocacy. You did a fantastic job presenting. And with that I'll ask are there any other Members of the public wishing to express support for Assembly Bill 373? Please state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Good afternoon. Kristen Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights in support.

Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support.

Selena Liu Raphael representing the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Chantel Johnson representing Youth Law Center in support.

Mercedes Parker representing California Youth Connection in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB373? Okay, thank you for your testimony. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition.

If there are any witnesses in opposition to the bill saying no witnesses asked, or any Members of the public wishing to express opposition for AB373, please approach your microphone and state your name, organization and position on the bill. And seeing no one else wishing to testify, I'll bring it back to the Committee for questions and comments.

And welcome Senator Durazo, who is sitting in today for Senator Perez. And do you have anything, any questions or comments on this bill? I'll turn it over to you.

I also want to compliment the witness, both witnesses, but in particular your story. And it's without stories like that that we really don't understand what happens in the real world. So you bring the real world into this, into the Capitol and turn that in help to turn that into policy. So thank you very much.

And I supported the bill and Senate Judiciary so I'd be glad to whenever. If ever, when we get a quorum. You get a quorum.

I recognize the motion. Thank you, thank you very much for this bill. It's really amazing to me that people that are either hired or appointed to represent non minor dependents are second guessing the expressed wishes of those individuals and not truly representing them. This is a really important bill. And I thank you for bringing it forward.

I'm very happy to support it today. So I'll turn over to you to close.

Thank you. Just appreciate the story and hopefully many more stories to come because of this bill. As a teacher and a mom, I can't tell you how impactful that story is for me and I think for everybody here. So I really appreciate that and I'm glad that your sister is thriving and here as a matter of fact.

So with that I just appreciate the support and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you very much. We will entertain a motion when we establish a quorum. We need one more Member, but thank you very much. Assembly Member, thank you for joining us today. Thank you very much.

Okay, we'll go next to file item 5, AB 474 by Assemblymember Ward and I see Assemblymember Ward here, after which time we'll go to AB 495 and AB 777 by Celeste Rodriguez. Assemblymember, you may now present in your bill.

Well, thank you Mr. Chair and senators. First, I would like to thank the committee staff for all their hard work on this bill and we do accept the committee's amendments on page six of your analysis.

I'm pleased to present to you today AB 474, which aims to expand affordable housing opportunities by simplifying and incentivizing the process of renting out unused bedrooms through nonprofit home share programs.

AB 474 incentivizes nonprofit home sharing by by ensuring that additional income earned through home sharing does not disqualify low income homeowners from essential social welfare programs and by removing some bureaucratic barriers for those pushing to rent out the rooms in their homes.

While everyone can participate in the programs, they are particularly well suited for older adults as many older adults live alone in large single family homes but struggle to pay their mortgage, property taxes and other basic living expenses.

For witnesses and support, I have Harrison Linder, the Assistant Director of Housing Policy with Leading Age California and when the time is appropriate, I would for your aye vote on this important bill.

Thank you very much. I'll turn it over to you. You have two minutes to present.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Harrison Linder. I'm the Assistant Director of Housing Policy with Leading Age California. We are the sponsor of AB 474. Leading Age California is the state's leading advocate for quality nonprofit senior living and care.

Our over 800 members across the state include providers of affordable senior housing, residential care, facilities for the elderly, life plan communities, skilled nursing care, home and community based services, home health and hospice care. California is facing a severe housing and homelessness crisis and our older adults are among the most impacted.

Nearly one third of California renters pour more than half of their income in rent and that proportion is even higher around 40% for older Californians.

According to the 2024 Point in Time Count, about 40% of unsheltered homeless individuals in California are age 50 and older and as our senior population continues to grow, this problem will only get worse. Leading Age California and its members are committed to addressing older adult housing insecurity and homelessness.

And in this difficult budget year, we're sponsoring AB 474 which would incentivize and remove barriers to participation in nonprofit home sharing programs to promote housing stability among older adults and increase affordable housing options for all low income renters, all at negligible cost to the state.

AB 474 incentivizes participation in nonprofit home sharing programs by ensuring that to the extent legally possible, rental income received by a low income home provider in a non profit home sharing arrangement does not have their eligibility for things like MediCal, Calfresh or any other government social services impacted home sharing the act of sharing one unit of housing between two or more people is practiced by adults of all ages, but it's especially popular among older adults who often need to supplement their fixed incomes which have not kept up with rising costs, especially in California.

In the Bay Area, Leading Age California Member Front Porch operates a non profit home sharing program called Home Match. Home Match and all other nonprofit home sharing programs as defined in AB 474 provide no cost services including conflict mediation and case management to promote housing stability among its participants, all at no cost.

In addition to helping to match individuals together, home providers and home seekers, the average Home Match participant, or home provider specifically is a 70 year old woman looking to get both financial and social support through Home Match. Financial support comes via rent paid to the tenant and social support comes via the companionship of living together.

And sometimes there's also a task exchange. Home seekers are very diverse, but they are also on average older. Home sharing helps low income older adults generate supplemental income to stay housed in their home as long as possible and it also provides low income renters an option beyond explicitly set up affordable housing programs.

It's low cost and high impact and we urge your support for AB 474.

Thank you very much will not take any other testimony from any members of the public in support of AB 474 please state your name, organization, position on the bill.

Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of the following organizations in support, Front Porch, CalPace, Eschaton, Volunteers of America, Northern California and Northern Nevada and Christian Church Homes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 474? Seeing no additional speakers, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 474. If you'd like to speak in opposition the bill, please come forward. We'll take any MeToo testimony in opposition AB 474 at this time. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition?

Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments, if there are any. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I know in my district, particularly in the City of Berkeley, there are a lot of senior citizens who own large homes who'd like to rent rooms in those homes or rent, you know, sort of accessory dwelling unit in their home. They're house rich, but they're cash poor.

And so this is one way to increase the supply of affordable housing in our communities and to help assist seniors and low income homeowners.

But get some supplemental income and if you are receiving existing benefit programs, you shouldn't be disqualified by getting some additional supplemental income, just like we do with our short term rental laws to provide some additional economic assistance for people to address the high cost of living in the State of California.

So thank you for reading this before and I will be supporting the bill today and I'll turn it over to you to close.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I think you summarized it very well. I think the entire. Since I think we have no other office present, I might just elaborate a little bit more. Oh, we do have one. Hello, Felicity. Well, I'll just elaborate really quickly.

You know, Leading Age has done a fantastic job really coming to the moment right now to be able to support older Californians in their pursuit of living and aging gracefully and being able to have dignity.

And the housing solutions that we know we need to find, they've been able to really demonstrate street that we know we have a housing crisis here in California and we know that we have a growing number of homeless on our streets, a disproportionate amount continuing to be older Californians as a subset of those that are newly homeless as well.

So we've got to do more in this space right now. Now we don't have enough housing units to house everybody in California. We're working on that. But we do have enough bedrooms in California right now.

And it's unlocking some of these opportunity sites, opportunity bedrooms, in a way that is going to make more, more sense of our statutory code and our tax code as well.

And this bill, while it started out a little bit more expansive, you know, we've had to work with other committees as well to sort of get in a place that sort of met what was passable at the moment.

But I want to again commend leading age for their advocacy in this because I know they're going to come back to us with more ideas to be able to address this growing situation that we have right now. And this is just one of those.

To your point, it's a false choice that somebody that is sitting there with extra bedrooms in their home but is low income and is duly qualified for a government benefit shouldn't lose that government benefit by the sake of having be able to rent out a bedroom. It's a win win situation there.

But our code is creating a situation where they have to have this false trade off. Let's not have that anymore. Let's be smart about the policies and the opportunities that are right in front of us. And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much, assemblymember. Thank you. We don't have a quorum yet, but we'll entertain a motion at the appropriate time. We already have a motion by Senator Durazzo, so once we get an additional member, we'll, we'll be able to take a vote. And with that we'll move on to our next author.

You see, we have Assemblymember Rodriguez here. We have two bills, AB 495 and AB 777. And which one would you like to begin with?

We could do 495.

Okay, so proceed now to file item six, AB495 by Assembly Member Rodriguez. And I'll turn over to Assembly Member to present on your bill.

Thank you and good afternoon. Chair and Members. AB495, the Family Preparedness Plan Act aims to reduce the trauma for children impacted by family separation by enhancing legal tools currently in place and educating families on how to create a plan that preserves family unity during emergencies.

In recent weeks, we've witnessed an alarming escalation in federal immigration enforcement across California. The deployment of National Guard as part of these operations has only deepened the fear of uncertainty in our communities, especially for those who face the daily risk of detention and deportation.

At the very least, 1 million kids in our state have at least one undocumented parent and over 100,000 children in our schools are undocumented. Themselves. Just last month, a mother of three was detained by Ayes at her own immigration court hearing. Instead of receiving an update on her case, she was handcuffed and deported to Mexico ago.

Her oldest daughter was left to care for her two younger siblings. In that case, a relative stepped in. But too many families are not that fortunate. Often when a parent is taken without warning, children are left completely alone, vulnerable and unprotected.

That's why we must act swiftly and empower mixed status and undocumented households to prepare for the unthinkable. That, unfortunately has become all too real for many in our communities. AB495 takes a comprehensive approach to encourage family safety plans, strengthens legal tools to prepare in case of family separation, and establishes protections of immigration information at child care facilities.

Because we know the possible separation weighs heavily on many families in California, this bill updates the Caregiver Authorization Affidavit to ensure it is more widely accepted for school enrollment and medical care and allows it to be used by non-relative extended family members such as close family friends or godparents.

We find that so often children of immigrants are left to enter the welfare system. The Family Preparedness Plan Act creates a new joint guardianship process allowing parents facing any long term separations to designate a joint guardian while preserving their parental rights upon their return.

To help ensure that no child experiences trauma and a placement for care and safety, AB495 requires the Attorney General's Office to publish model policies and guidelines limiting cooperation with immigration enforcement at child care facilities by April 12026 and having them adopt policies shortly thereafter.

It requires local education agencies to adopt the latest Attorney General's model policies published in February of this year and encourages up to date emergency contact records by distributing the AG's report at local education agencies. This information will educate families who will benefit from family safety plans.

Speaking in support alongside me today are Kristen Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights and Alexandra Estrella with CHIRLA.

Great. Thank you very much. You'll have two minutes to present on the bill and whoever would like to start.

Good afternoon. Kristen Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights. We appreciate the Assembly Members passion on this issue and I want to speak just quickly to say as co-sponsor of the bill we're obviously in great support.

The Guardianship Program at the Alliance for Children's Rights helps eliminate barriers and provides free legal services to caregivers seeking legal probate guardianships. Every day we see how family separation disrupts children's lives, causing emotional trauma, instability and barriers to education health care and long term well being.

Without greater clarity and enforceability, many parents are forced to make impossible choices. Some make the difficult choice to seek suspend their parental rights through the complicated probate guardianship process. Others opt to use a caregiver's authorization affidavit for a more informal arrangement.

The Caregiver's Authorization Affidavit is an existing legal tool used by a caregiver who is not the parent or legal guardian of the child in their homes to consent to school enrollment and some medical care. They do not transfer custody of the child to the caregiver, which only a court order can do.

Notably, using a caregiver authorization affidavit necessarily means that children are coming into contact with mandated reporters like school and medical personnel who are required to report suspected abuse or neglect. County child welfare agencies investigate those reports and so allowing non relative caregivers to use this form would increase their contact with mandated reporters.

AB495 supports family agency in decision making, prevents unnecessary trauma for children, strengthens family stability and ensures that schools and agencies are equipped to support families in times of crisis. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

My name is Alexandra Estrella and I'm an immigrant. Every day I prove that where I come from does not limit how far I can go. I've learned that education has no borders, but I've had to work twice as. Hard for every opportunity. Not because I chose to, but because I have to. And I have no other option.

Nothing was ever given to me. I fought relentlessly for my place, for my safety, and for the future my family dreamed of when they came here. Not long ago I got a call from someone I love. They asked me if ICE detains me, will you take care of my kids?

I'm the only person they know with any kind of immigration status and even mine is uncertain. I'm a Special Immigrant Juvenile Status recipient, living every day with the fear that my future future here is not guaranteed. I said yes immediately, but that call shook me to the core.

No family should ever have to make that kind of plan. Yet this is the reality for many of us. Our community lives in constant fear. At school, drop offs, at work, in doctor offices. And when deportations happen, it's always the children who suffer the most. AB495 offers a way forward. It lets families prepare.

It ensures there is a trusted adult ready to step in so kids aren't left waiting, confused or taken into a broken system. It gives schools and caregivers the clarity they need. Most importantly it restores dignity to families struggling to survive under impossible circumstances.

If this Administration is going to keep tearing families apart, then the least those in power can do is make sure children are not left in the dark, scared, abandoned and forgotten.

I urge you to support AB 495 because every child deserves, at minimum, to be with someone they trust and feel safe when their parents are mistreated and violently ripped from their lives. If you do nothing, remember, it is the children who would pay the price. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony and being here today. We'll now take any testimony from anyone in support of AB495. Please come forward and state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Selena Liu Raphael, representing the California California Alliance of Child and Family Services. In support.

Eric Paredes, with the California Faculty Association. In support.

Julie McCormick on behalf of the Children's Law Center of California as well as the California Lawyers Association Family Law Executive Committee. In support.

Amanda Kirchner, County Welfare Directors Association in support.

Monica Madrid, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rghts, CHIRLA. proud co-sponsor in strong support. Thank you.

Lily McKay on behalf of First 5 California in support. Thank you.

Nicole Wortelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership. In support.

[Unintelligible] on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. Strong support.

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors here in support.

Debra Sanders with Catalyst California in strong support.

Andrew Shane, End Child Poverty California in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB495? Okay. If not, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition. AB495, if you like to see, speak in opposition. If you can, please come forward and you'll have two minutes to address the Committee on the bill.

Good afternoon, my name is Nicole Young. I'm representing moms for Liberty California and Our Duty. AB495 is being pitched as a lifeline for immigrant families. A compassionate shield for children left in the lurch. But beneath its well meaning facade lies a gaping loophole that could deliver our kids into the hands of predators.

This Bill assumes every adult stepping forward has a child's best interest at heart for but what happens when they don't? What happens when the system meant to protect becomes a gateway to harm? Under 495 a relative is defined so broadly it's chilling.

An adult related to the child by blood, adoption or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including step parents, step siblings and distant relatives like great great grand uncles or even their ex spouses. This means someone with no blood tie, no meaningful bond, no real connection to a child could claim them.

A cousin's ex husband five times removed could step in and take control. Does that sound safe to you? Worse yet, a non relative extended family Member is defined as any adult with a vague familial or mentoring relationship to the child or family.

A neighbor with a piece of paper could seize the power to make life altering medical and educational decisions for a child. The devastating reality; if a parent is detained, deported or simply unreasonable, this Bill grants any adult unchecked authority. No questions asked, no safeguards in place. Guardianship records sealed from scrutiny.

The state's own anti trafficking agencies left in the dark. A child's whereabouts potentially unverified once they're whisked away to a new school or someone else's home. This is not a safety net. It is a shadow system that invites exploitation.

495 isn't protection, it's a blueprint for predators, a catalyst for heartbreak and a betrayal of the trust we place in our laws to keep kids safe. Let's demand a system that shields, not endangers our future. Vote no on AB495.

Good morning. Did everyone receive the packet that I I'll be reviewing the affidavit. Nicole Pearson. I'm a mother of three, a child of immigrants and an attorney who spent her career helping immigrants and fighting human trafficking. I am also desperate to help children affected by ICE raids. But AB495 is not it.

We all know this because in 2021 the Federal Government faced a swell of unaccompanied minors at the border and was desperate to place them quickly. What did they do? They reduced vetting procedures and as a result the Department of Homeland Security has lost Track of over now 600,000 unaccompanied minors.

Despite this, California wants to do something similar, but even worse, with just one sheet of paper from the Internet.

California wants to let someone that is not related to your child remove her from school, enroll her in any other school in the state, authorize any medical treatment of her, including mental health services and drugs, without the parents notice and knowledge or consent. This is not fear mongering. I'm not being hyperbolic.

It's stated right here in the Caretaker's affidavit that I printed for you, which I pulled directly from the Bill. Line 6 allows this transfer of parental rights without even having to speak to the parent. The author claims AB495 is about giving immigrant families the agency to choose the safety plan that works, that preserves family unity.

Where is the parental designation? Their signature at the bottom here is not required. She's co opting a term non relative family Member from the foster care and dependency probate systems, but without any of the procedural guardrails.

No background checks, no interviews, no home visits, no fingerprinting, parental involvement or civil, criminal or professional liability if the child is harmed. Just 100% blanket protection for any adult seeking to abuse any vulnerable child because this does not limit it to immigrant children. This is. This applies to every single child in the state.

Our children deserve to be protected through proper legal channels that currently exist that have safeguards and not just shortcuts that enable exploitation. We appreciate the author's intentions, but these unintended consequences are terrifying and they're unavoidable. We have systems and agencies in place that track and ensure children are safe and return to their parents while respecting parental rights.

We can and must support immigrant families with solutions that don't gamble children's lives. Please vote no on AB495. I remain committed and offer my services to the Senator; excuse me, Assembly Woman, free of charge to help find solutions that work and actually achieve her goals. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB495? If you can please approach the microphone and state your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Wendy Beale, I oppose this Bill.

Rachel Kattan with Stand Up Sacramento County in opposition.

Denise Aguilar, Freedom Angels in opposition.

Tara Thornton, Freedom Angels in opposition.

Amber Arias, Stand Up Ministry, Calvary Chapel Solano, in strong opposition of this Bill.

Florentina De Janaro. Sutter, Northern California Mom's Army, also representing Glad Tidings in Yuba City and Freedom Coalition in Yuba City. Strong opposition.

Tony Berrigan, father of five. Grandfather of 11 strong opposition.

Myra Baldwin, mother of four strong opposition protect the children, please.

Anyone else wishing to express opposition? AB495 okay. If not, thank you all for your testimony. I'm the only Member here. I have no questions for the witnesses. So if the witnesses would like to take your seats at this time. Thank you for coming today and your testimony.

And before I turn over the author, just want to make a few comments. I really want to thank you very much for bringing this Bill forward.

It is extremely timely and I hope you'll consider potentially adding an urgency clause to ensure that if this is enacted, that can take effect immediately, given the mass deportation of kids and families happening throughout the State of California. This Bill does several things. One, it would require that schools and licensed child daycare facilities adopt model policies.

And we know that the Attorney General has provided model policies, but it would ensure that they implement those policies to provide protocols around what to do in the case of immigration enforcement to protect kids and families. That's essential.

And then secondly, if both parents or any guardian is detained and arrested or deported, that somebody that they've chosen could be appointed as a temporary guardian by a court once again chosen by the child's custodial parents, not just the court appointing some random person, somebody that the parents chose to designate to step in in the case of an emergency.

And it's really unfortunate that we're in the situation in our state where this is even necessary. And I just want to lift up the fact that I think it's the family separation policies of this Administration that we saw so cruelly separate kids from their parents and lock them in cages along the border.

And who knows if those kids have ever been able to get reconnected to their parents. And then the mass deportations that are happening throughout our state, mass people grabbing people, throwing them in vans, assaulting people and separating kids from their families.

So I would argue it's the administration's cruel and inhumane deportation policies that separate kids from their families and create harm. That's actually the problem. And this is trying to solve that problem. So I strongly support your Bill. I hope you'll consider an urgency clause. I'll turn it back over you to closing your Bill.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I couldn't agree with your statements more, and I agree that an urgency clause is incredibly appropriate, especially from everything we've been seeing. This Bill offers multiple options for family preparedness planning so that each family has the agency to choose a family safety plan that works for them.

Over the past five months we have worked very hard on this Bill and engaged in conversations with various stakeholders to ensure the best protections for family preparedness. It's so critical that our families have the tools to plan for and arrange supportive and safe, stable caregiving in the event that they are separated.

We must act now to ensure that no child is left without a guardian and no family torn apart when we have the power to keep them together.

I am so proud that this Bill has so much support and I look forward to advancing this really important policy and appreciate you all taking the time today and respectfully ask for an aye vote when it comes time.

Thank you very much. We don't have a quorum yet, but when we do establish a quorum, we will entertain a motion in the Bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Turn over to you to present your second Bill.

Yes.

File item eight, AB 777 and whenever you're ready you may begin your Bill presentation.

Thank you. As they take a seat, I'll go ahead and get started. AB 77 aims to strengthen communication between utility companies and the California Department of Social Services during emergencies and disasters.

Timely, accurate data from utility companies is critical to ensure California can access federal food assistance programs such as CalFresh and Disaster CalFresh when our communities need them most. In early January, windstorms and wildfires devastated parts of Los Angeles and near my district. The Hearst fire left many households without power for days.

DSS acted quickly and many families received hot food waivers, automatic mass replacement of benefits, and access to disaster CalFresh. But some did not. And this isn't just a local issue, it is a statewide vulnerability.

We saw the same breakdown happen in Santa Clara County in June 2020, when DSS's request for federal food assistance was denied due to incomplete utility data. California is no stranger to natural disasters and with climate change, these emergencies are becoming more frequent and more severe.

This bill ensures that utility companies and DSS establish data sharing agreements to provide timely aggregate power outage data by zip code during disasters. This bill also requires each utility to designate a point of contact helping to streamline communication and ensure that no household is left behind or when a disaster strikes.

All data shared under this bill is subject to existing privacy laws and explicitly excludes any personally identifiable information. This bill protects privacy while making sure families get the help that they need in times of crisis.

Speaking in support of AB 777 today are Rebecca Gonzalez with Western Center on Law and Poverty and Andrew Shane with End Child Poverty California.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. You have two minutes to present on the bill. Whoever would like to start.

Good afternoon. Hello. My name is Rebecca Gonzalez and I'm a policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and a co sponsor of this bill. As we know, hunger is on the rise. This year California became the fourth largest economy in the world, yet 1 in 4 California households with children face food insecurity.

These numbers rival pandemic days. We also know hunger spikes after disasters when families are in greatest need. Earlier this year, the LA Regional food bank saw 135% increase in demand after the LA firestorms.

Food banks are there to help in times of disaster and crisis, but they cannot absorb all the need, especially now with cuts at the federal level. Federal nutrition programs like Disaster CalFresh are critical to meeting families and communities where they are.

Food banks have a long standing role as partners with the state and counties through their outreach network and getting word out about Disaster CalFresh. They also support CDSS and scanning and flagging where there are power outages that impact food access.

Good news is is that federal regulations don't require a firestorm of the LA magnitude to draw down assistance as long as power is out for four hours or more. But especially in major cases like LA, we need to make sure we're not leaving federal dollars on the table.

A key component of that is information from utilities necessary for CDSS to to submit requests to the USDA.

As noted in the analysis, this bill builds off previous legislation, but now with the increasing scope, severity and frequency of natural disasters, we need this legislation to make sure that the department is fully connected to all utilities so that we can have all the data in a timely manner.

We reached out to a few of those impacted by the recent firestorm and sharing quickly a few client stories. Karen received a call from a family who had lost a everything in the Altadena fire, their home, two vehicles and all their belongings. The household included a husband, wife and their children.

Karen assisted them with CalFresh application and connected them to nearby food pantries and other local resources. The family was approved for CalFresh and also received additional assistance from DPSS. Desiree met a single mother who also lost everything in the Altadena fire. Desiree provided her with information about disaster CalFresh assistance.

The following month, the client returned to let Desiree know that she had been approved and expressed deep gratitude. Unfortunately, not everyone is as lucky as the example cited above. People facing disasters or power outages which can result in spoiled food, are often not able to receive critical food assistance.

This bill will prevent people from falling through the cracks by ensuring data sharing to enable us to help more people in their most challenging time and to prevent individuals and families from going hungry. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Chair, Andrew Shane with End Child Poverty California. I'm going to thank you Ms. Rodriguez for bringing this bill forward. And quickly share the story of Patricia Romero Aguacevas. She couldn't be here today, but she has testified before this body before.

She worked for Bank of America for 29 and a half years and unfortunately was laid off with only 30 days notice.

After spending through her savings, she was forced to access CalFresh in order to afford groceries and, and with the PSPs, the Public Safety power shutoffs, she not only lost her food then she couldn't take her medicine which she relied on.

So in this case, thanks to the work by DSS, they were able to replace her food without her having to submit an individual request for replacement. And that's exactly what this Bill is trying to make sure happens every time.

And I can just build on the example that the SM Member gave, which is that in the Eaton fire, my Boss's district, our President and CEO Shmeeka Gaskins, even though she was not CalFresh eligible, when I saw that her zip code was not as part of a, part of the initial request, I started actually writing legislative language.

And I'm so glad that the member brought this bill forward because I knew that there was gaps in the system and as been described, that's all we're trying to do, we are not trying to share new or different data is just make sure that all utilities have a point of contact and the necessary agreements in place before disaster strikes because afterwards federal regulations require the request within 10 days.

And as we just saw in Los Angeles, not only were there two major firestorms, there was wind events, there was major rainstorms in Northern California. And it's just a lot to manage. And so this is the active preparation that we need to be doing now. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I will not take any members of the public wishing to express support for AB 777. If you wish to express support, please state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Kevin Eslin, Coalition California Welfare Rights Organization, strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kathy Mossberg, California Association of Food Banks. Proud, proud co sponsor in support.

Thank you.

Amanda Kirchner, County Welfare Directors Association in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members Roman Vogelsang with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of the Jacobs and Cushman San Diego Food Bank in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Unless there any other members of the public wishing to express support for AB 777 will now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 2777- 777. If you are in opposition to the bill, you could sit here if you'd like.

Okay. I think we'll be fairly short.

No problem.

Trent Smith, on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, apologize. We did submit a letter, but I don't know why it didn't get any analysis. We just had some concerns.

Just to be clear, municipally owned utilities are locally governed mainly by locally elected officials who want their constituents to get the type of services that we're talking about here. I think our concerns are what an MOU is going to include from a state agency. It sounds like in many cases the process works

now. We are willing to have some sort of a designee so it's easier. We're willing to provide the information on number of outages by zip code, but some of the language references as necessary to deem someone's eligibility. And that's a little scary to us because we don't know what that is. That's not our world.

We just need to, I think, narrow what it is you want to see in an agreement. And so perhaps some conversations with ourselves and the sponsors can, can work this out. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kiara Ross on behalf of the City of Burbank Water and Power, Emily, I would just echo the concerns that Mr. Smith just raised. Similar position. Burbank is very interested in helping out with the data, but we want to make sure we're getting the right data and we have the right pathway forward on this.

So we would ask to continue to work on that a bit. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 777? If so, if you can, please approach the microphone. State your name, organization and position on the Bill. Okay. Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the committee for discussion. Committee of 1.

Encourage the author to continue to engage with the representatives of California Municipal Utilities Association. Sound like they're not opposed to the bill, they just want to make it work for them because they're not an IOU. They're a different type of entity.

But I also think their participation is important as well to maximize eligibility and to make sure that people can access these benefits.

I just want to call attention to the recent amendments that were made which in Section 8412, subdivision A, which in talking about the data sharing agreements that the public utilities have to establish for data sharing with CDSS specifically says that all the following requirements and prohibitions apply.

Providing data shall be limited to the aggregated customer outage data at the zip code level necessary to maximize food assistance in an emergency. That the data should only be used for the purposes specify in the section and under Section 18917.2, the welfare and Institutions Code, subject to applicable privacy laws.

I know some concerns have been expressed regarding the confidentiality of this information. Who is accessing this information particularly relevant given the political context? We're in the state. And so I really appreciate the amendments that really clarify that this is aggregated data. It's really only intended to implement this particular bill.

It's not going to be given to federal ICE or Federal Border Patrol. I know that was a concern that some people express that it will be subject to applicable privacy laws. So I appreciate you making those amendments to address those issues. I know that the IOUS they've expressed as well. And I will be supporting your bill today.

And I'll turn over you to close.

Yes, thank you. And as you can imagine from the bill I just presented, I'm very sensitive to privacy and protecting our most vulnerable communities. And so we have made those amendments. I want to thank the committee for all of their work on this bill and also I come from local government.

And we are more than open to further discussing the bill with our sponsors. This bill is about equity preparedness and ensuring that our safety net reaches every eligible family in every zip code during emergencies. And when the time comes, I respectfully request an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you to our witnesses and thank you everyone who testified on this bill. We'll make. We'll entertain a motion when we have a quorum.

Thank you. And thank you very much. We'll go next to our next bill author, Assemblymember Patel. And we'll go now to file item 16, AB 1074. Just. Just stay there. Yeah. And so I'll turn over to you, Assemblymember, to present on AB 1074.

Thank you. Chair and Members virtually listening perhaps. Today I present AB 1074, a critical step towards strengthening California's commitment to keeping families together. The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids program, also known as CalWORKS, provides cash aid, help finding work and other key services to very low income parents with children.

The CalWORKS reunification program allows this aid to continue to parents even if the children are removed from their home so that the family can work towards reunification. Without the aid, reunification is nearly impossible. Unfortunately, unintended barriers currently stand between the struggling parents and the assistance designed to help them rebuild their families.

Right now, families who urgently need reunification support can lose it even when one child remains at home. Even if another was removed. Parents can lose aid based on immunization requirement, which is no longer in their hands once they no longer have custody of their child.

And families must often navigate duplicative and occasionally conflicting reintegration and welfare to work requirements that provide extra burdens for already strained families. These bureaucratic hurdles don't just impede reunification, they they increase costs to the state. An average CalWORKS family of two kids receives $1,002 from the state per month.

Placing two children in foster care costs the state around $6,928, almost seven times as much. So to be clear, the status quo does not achieve the policy goals of the state to keep families together, nor is it fiscally responsible.

This is not due to the deliberate policy consideration, but simply unintended consequences of prior legis, unintended consequences that AB 1074 seeks to remedy. With that, I respectfully ask your aye vote today. Thank you.

Joining me today are the co-sponsors of the bill, Rebecca Gonzalez, a policy advocate from Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Kevin Aslanian from the Coalition for California Welfare Rights Organizations. We'll begin with Rebecca. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. You have two minutes to present.

Good afternoon again, Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and we are one of the coastal sponsors of AB 1074.

The goal of this bill is to provide clarifications to the CalWORKS Family Reunification Program, which was included in AB 135 of 2021, to remove barriers that prevent parents from continuing to receive cash aid and services while their children are temporarily placed outside the home in foster care or a home of a relative.

This allows the state to better achieve its goal of family reunification by promoting family stabilization in 2021. The 2021 law allowed the California Department of Social Services to issue guidance to the counties to implement the program.

In doing so, the agency restricted when a family can continue to receive assistance in ways which are inconsistent with the intent of the current statute, the Western Center engaged in administrative advocacy, and the Department resolved several concerns, but ultimately the areas addressed in AB1074 were identified as needing statute statutory clarification.

Briefly, the bill clarifies that not all children in the family need to be removed from the home before the family can receive reunification cash aid and child care when needed. 2.

Reunification aid can be continued when an eligible child joins a family, such as the birth of another child or in cases of partial reunification and parents are still meeting conditions to have the other children returned. 3.

For families who had the adult removed from the grant for failure to show proof of immunization, the bill would lift the sanction and restore the parent's aid once the child for whom verification was missing is removed. At that point, the family does not have physical or legal custody and cannot meet the immunization requirement. 4.

Clarifies that families remain eligible for their current CalWORKS benefit level even if the parent is not personally receiving aid. Families such as those with parents receiving SSI benefits are currently barred from receiving this aid. This also includes parents who have been timed out on aid or have been sanctioned. 5.

And lastly, implements a policy stating that parents must navigate only one set of requirements that that covers both reunification and welfare to work requirements in a unified plan rather than two separate plans. About 30 counties do this already.

Current policy allows counties to have two plans with potentially conflicting requirements that can result in reduction of CalWORKS aid as well as making it more difficult to meet these requirements. In summary, AB 1074 helps to fulfill the state's goal of reunifying CalWORKS families by removing unnecessary barriers.

These changes are necessary to fulfill the intent of the original law and will help to support these vulnerable families. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Yes, good afternoon. Kevin Aslanian, Coalition for California Welfare Rights Organizations. Thanks for bringing this bill forward. We're proud to be co-sponsor of the bill.

This bill is designed to sort of close some of the holes that the current law has because often when they remove the children, the parent may end up on GA and that only pays 200amonth or less, or often they end up homeless and then you can't reunify the family.

So the idea over here is to accelerate the reunification process and save a whole bunch of money. So we appreciate your aye vote. Thank you. Short and sweet.

Thank you. Okay, well, now take any testimony for anyone in support of AB 1074. If you wish to express support. If you can, please come forward and state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Amanda Kirchner, CWDA, in support.

Thank you. Is there any other Member of the public wishing to express support for AB 1074? Okay. If not, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition AB 1074, if there are any. I believe there is no registered opposition to the bill. Okay. Seeing no witnesses in opposition. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I agree.

I think it closes loopholes that will ensure that families can remain economically stable. And, you know, if people are ineligible for certain benefits and they're relying on those benefits to pay for their housing costs or food costs or other costs of living, people may end up becoming homeless.

And that will make it even more difficult for families to stay together. So I really thank you for bringing this bill forward and I'll be supporting your bill today and I'll turn over you to close.

Thank you. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Okay. Thank you. So when we have a quorum, we want to change a motion on the bill. But thank you very much, Assemblymember, for presenting. Thank you. Okay, we have I'm going to just name the authors and if your staff are listening, if you you can come down to the hearing room.

Assembly Member, AB 450 Assembly Member Jackson, AB 601. Assembly Member BA AB 1261 and 1318 Assembly Member Ahrens, AB 1314 and Assembly Member Sharpe-Collins, AB 1324. So those are the remaining bills we and I'll be presented on behalf of Senator Wicks when we have a quorum.

So we will call a five minute recess until we have another author present and then we'll proceed with our bill presentations. Thank you, Sam.

And we do not have a quorum, so we are meeting as a Subcommitee, but we are having presentations from authors on bills. And so we will now proceed to file item 17, AB 1261, by Assembly Member Bonta. And then we have AB 1318. You'd like to take 1318, first Assemblymember okay, great.

So we'll take up file item 18, AB 1318, by Assemblymember Bonta, and I'll turn over you, Assemblymember, Chair Person of the bill.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee. I am proud to present AB 1318, which clarifies that nonprofit organizations with either federal or state tax exempt status are eligible for public funding. Nonprofit is currently defined through California law as an organization that has federal tax exemption exempt Status under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code.

California also has its own definition of nonprofit for state tax exemption in the Revenue and Taxation Code. Unfortunately, recent federal legislation has targeted the tax exempt status of nonprofits serving vulnerable populations like immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Additionally, executive orders and messaging from the Trump Administration have mirrored this strategy and rhetoric.

But this issue goes far beyond immigration. We've seen similar efforts to suppress environmental nonprofits advocating for climate action, civil rights organizations challenging government overreach, and health based nonprofits, especially those serving LGBTQ communities, facing politically motivated scrutiny.

These actions threaten to chill free expression, undermine critical community services, and weaponize the tax code against organizations that provide housing, health care, education, and legal aid to the people who need it most. AB 1318 ensures that these organizations, so long as they meet either the federal or state definition of nonprofit, remain eligible for public funds in California.

I respectfully ask your aye vote and with me today to testify on behalf of this measure is Jennifer Fearing from the California Association of Nonprofits.

Great. Thank you very much. Welcome. You have two minutes to present on the bill.

Jennifer Fearing. I am the Sacramento Advocate for California Association of Nonprofits and we are a statewide policy alliance of 10,000 member organizations. Cal Nonprofits is pleased to sponsor AB 1318 because it protects nonprofit eligibility for contract and grant opportunities by allowing either state tax exempt status or federal to fulfill eligibility as a qualified nonprofit organization.

It's sad that this intervention to amend state code is even necessary, but we can't sit idly by while politically motivated legislation proposed by congressional leaders or executive actions by the Trump Administration target nonprofits and threaten revocation of their federal 501 status.

By including state tax exempt status as an expanded definition of a qualified nonprofit organization, AB 1318 ensures that nonprofits will remain eligible for state funding even if their missions and causes do not align with the priorities of the current federal Administration.

The nonprofit sector provides critical services to your constituents with community focused solutions as an indispensable partner to the government. Therefore, California can and should deter federal efforts to jeopardize nonprofit operations, autonomy and basic Democratic values.

We appreciate Assemblywoman Bonta's leadership to ensure that nonprofit or organizations remain eligible for state funding even if their federal tax status is attacked. I'd like to also add that my clients, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Community Alliance with Family Farmers and the Occidental Arts and Ecology center, are also pleased to support this bill and urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll take any testimony for Members of the public wishing to express support for AB13 18. If you can please come forward and state your name. Organization.

Monica Madrid, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA. In strong support. Thank you.

Selena Liu Raphael, representing the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in strong support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott, here on behalf of the City of Alameda in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tracy Krusenberg, on behalf of Media Alliance. Thank you.

In support?

In support.

Okay. George Crab on behalf of ACLU California Action, in support. Thank you.

Lan Lay, on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, A.J. Socal, in strong support.

Thank you. Christopher Sanchez, on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, Caracen, in strong support.

Kevin Aslanian, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other Members of the public wishing to express support for AB13 18? So please come forward. Okay. If not, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 1318. Is there anyone wishing to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay.

Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee of one. And just thank you to my colleague from Alameda County for bringing this important bill forward, which is so critical to serve organizations in the East Bay and throughout the state of California that are doing the important work of serving our immigrant and refugee communities.

And it's incredible that we even have to introduce legislation like this because of the federal Administration weaponizing and, you know, engaging in punitive action against community based organizations, tax exempt organizations that are doing this important work. So I really appreciate you framing this for it. This is really timely and important and I strongly support the Bill.

And I'll turn over you to close.

Thank you, Senator. Before joining the Legislature, I worked in the nonprofit sector for 25 years actually, and had the privilege of working in philanthropy on behalf of so many organizations to make sure that they could get funded.

And so when we were in a position of recognizing that the Trump Administration would try to figure out how to undercut, undermine and forsake our nonprofit infrastructure, which is so critical, I often call it the fourth arm of our government to be able to ensure that we could provide essential services to so many and advocacy who do so on shoestring budgets without the human capital giving them often the salaries and compensation that they so deserve, it felt very important to be able to bring forward this measure.

With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. When we establish quorum, we'll entertain a motion on the bill. And once again, thank you very much for bringing this forward. I will be recommending an eye on this bill. And so with that, we could proceed to your next bill, which is file item 17, AB 1261.

If there are any principal witnesses, if you can, please join us here at the table and I'll turn it over to you. Assemblymember to present on AB 1261.

Well, good afternoon again, Chair and Members. I authored AB 1261 because it is unacceptable that there are children who are arriving here in California alone and then have to face a daunting immigration system alone. The immigration legal system is complex, even for an adult to navigate, and without an attorney, these children are at a severe disadvantage.

In 2023, only 56% of unaccompanied children had legal representation, and the difference in outcomes is stark. A 2021 report revealed that 90% of unrepresented minors were or ordered removed.

By contrast, according to the Vera Institute, unaccompanied children with legal representation at some point during their cases were more than seven times more likely than unrepresented unaccompanied children to receive an outcome that allowed them to remain in the United States. Focusing here in California, California alone received over 10,800 unaccompanied minors in fiscal year 2024.

Recent actions by the Federal Administration, such as canceling a contract that provided legal services to 26,000 children, ending protections at sensitive locations such as schools and hospitals, and an effort to prioritize, through ICE memos, unaccompanied minors for detention, have heightened the need for children to have access to representation.

Committee Members, I think we can all agree that children should have never have to face court alone. Ensuring children have access to representation helps ensure children have their fair day in court. In this moment in time, it's time we stepped up for them. With that, we have today testifying on behalf of Jael Dantas, representing Alameda County.

Great. Thank you very much. You have two minutes to present on the Bill.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jael Dantas with Full Moon Strategies, on behalf of Alameda County, here to express and voice our strong support to AB 1261. We also would like to appreciate Assemblymember Bonta to introduce such important measure. Alameda County is home to many immigrant families, including unaccompanied, undocumented minors who arrive in California fleeting violence, instability, exploitation.

Once here, they often find themselves in immigration proceedings alone and without any legal support needed to navigate a very incredible, complex system. Currently, neither federal or state law guarantees legal counsel for these minors.

AB 1261 directly addresses to this gap by requiring the California Department of Social Services to contract with the qualified nonprofit legal services organizations or public defenders to provide legal representation to unaccompanied minor in federal custody or residing with a sponsor in California. In Alameda County, we believe that no child should have faced court alone.

These minors are among the most vulnerable population in our communities. So, it's our responsibility to ensure that they receive a fair chance at due process and a protection under the law. AB 1261 responds to this urgent need. These are children fleeting trauma and they shouldn't not be expected to face deportation procedures on their own.

Guaranteeing them legal counsel upholds our state's values on due process and ensuring dignity for every single child in our state. With that, we urge for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll now take any members of the public wishing to express support for AB 1261. If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the Bill.

Yeah, Kevin Asdan, Coalition California Welfare Rights Organization. Strong support. Thank you.

Nick Stewart Oaton, California Public Defender Association, in strong support.

Nicole Wardleman, with the Children's Partnership, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott, on behalf of the City of Alameda, also in support.

Good afternoon. Lily McKay, on behalf of First Five California, in support. Thank you.

Selena Lou Raphael, representing the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in strong support.

Great. Thank you very much. Unless there are any of the members of the public wishing to express support for AB 1261, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition. Are there any members of the public wishing to express opposition to AB 1261? Okay, seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee.

And I really appreciate this Bill as well, Assemblymember Bonta, which is, I think, addressing a really critical need to make sure that unaccompanied minors have legal representation.

We had a Bill that we just discussed about half an hour ago by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez, which would codify policies for childcare programs and ensure that courts can appoint a guardian, in the case the families are separated. And I think this kind of builds off that work to make sure that unaccompanied, undocumented minors have legal representation.

We've done a lot of work over the past several years to expand legal representation for people who are facing deportation. I think we need more resources to help support kids and families who are impacted, and this Bill is extremely important. I really thank you for bringing this forward and I'll turn it back over to close.

Thank you so much, Senator. And I very much appreciate your leadership in ensuring that we are able to provide essential care and protections for our immigrant community. It's now needed more than ever.

And I want to thank you in supporting this Bill and so many others that are also a part of the Legislative Latino Caucus Priority Package, as this one is. This Bill is really about fairness for our children so they can unlock access to critical protections like special immigrant juvenile status and asylum. It's so critical right now.

I vowed to come into the Legislature and have a children-first perspective, and this Bill is in keeping with that promise and commitment I made to so many of the children I had the honor of working with before I came to the Legislature. And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We will entertain a motion when we establish a quorum. But I thank you very much, Assemblymember, for this important Bill. And one of the things I'd raised to Assemblymember Rodriguez was consideration of urgency. I know that we're having that conversation right now around some of these bills, but this is really important.

I hope this moves forward expeditiously through the process. I'll certainly advocate to leadership that it does, because we need this now more than ever. So, thank you.

Appreciate that. Thank you.

So, we will move now to file item 20, AB 1324 by Assemblymember Sharp-Collins, who I see is here. And then, if Assemblymember Ahrens or Jackson or Carillo are able to join us, we can go to their bills next. Assemblymember, you may present your Bill.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I am proud to present Assembly Bill 1324, a Bill that reimagines CalWORKS to reflect the realities of today's workforce and uplift the working families who keep our, our economy moving yet continue to face systemic barriers. This Bill is about economic justice.

Right now, CalWORKS recipients can lose their benefits simply for working more than 100 hours a month. To me, that makes no sense. And so, with that, I'm saying that if you're working full time and you're still struggling, you deserve support. You do not deserve to have an actual penalty.

AB 1324 eliminates this outdated cap and recognizes that working more hours should not disqualify someone from receiving assistance if you are still income eligible. We're also acknowledging how work looks today. Many families are surviving through self-employment through gig works and other nontraditional jobs.

This Bill updates CalWORKS to reflect those realities by recognizing that those work hours are truly valid. These parents are working hard and should be treated with the same dignity as anyone else within the workforce. Assembly Bill 1324 also protects workers exercising their right to organize.

No one should have to choose between feeding their children and joining a legal strike. This Bill ensures that CalWORKS benefits are not taken away from striking workers who are fighting for better pay and working conditions. So, let's remember who this program was created to actually serve.

CalWORKS supports over 659,000 California children, most of whom live in households led by Black and Latina mothers. These are families who have historically been excluded from opportunities and disproportionately impacted by punitive welfare rules. Assembly Bill 1324 focusing on long term solutions.

It also strengthens CalWORKS by promoting access to quality employment and training that leads to real careers, not just low wage, short term work that keeps family in poverty. It also clarifies work activity requirements so recipients can understand what qualifies and then, that way, they'll have a lot more pathways to be able to actually be stable.

Finally, the Bill includes a feasibility study and that study would actually help to ensure ongoing improvements to the program, particularly for communities that have been historically underserved.

So, Assembly Bill 1324 brings fairness, it brings compassion and common sense to one of our most critical safety net programs, and it ensures families aren't pushed from—they're not punished for—working too much and also working for themselves or working for their rights.

With that, I do respectfully ask for your aye vote, and here with me to testify in support of the Bill today is Tiffany Whitman—Whiten—Senior Government Relations Advocate for SEIU California and Kevin Aslanian, Executive Director for Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Members. Tiffany Whiten, with SEIU California, representing over 750,000 workers across California. Our workforce includes people who provide services and care to families and children who receive CalWORKS assistance.

Whether the eligibility worker that determine eligibility for aid, the job skills staff that help them develop their welfare to work plans, or the childcare providers that care for the children as they attend school or work, the success of the CalWORKS families is central to the success of SEIU workers.

And our workforce has the great fortune to see up close and personal how these government programs support families escape poverty. And SEIU workers know better than most that there is no anti-poverty benefit more powerful than a good job with benefits and a chance to have a union.

That is why we are so proud to co sponsor AB 1324. AB 1324 removes rules in the CalWORKS program that undermines the work that undermines work as a path out of poverty, like the rule banning aid to families that work more than 100 hours a week, the rule that only counts hours worked toward a work requirement if the person earned minimum wage, and AB 1324 also ends the ban on workers from getting aid if they don't cross a picket line.

Working at a unionized job site increases the likelihood that a worker can earn enough wages and benefits to leave public assistance altogether.

And that's ultimately what we all want. A low income family shouldn't be punished with deepened poverty while receiving assistance. AB 1324 undoes bias against CalWORKS workers and makes several changes to the CalWORKS program that better serves families and better serves its purpose of helping low income families achieve financial security through work.

For these reasons, we are in strong support and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My name is Kevin Aslanian and I'm with the Coalition California Welfare Rights Organizations. I want to thank the Assemblywoman for bringing this Bill. It's a long time coming. The Bill basically is designed to remove barriers that beneficiaries of CalWORKS are facing and getting employment and jobs that will keep to get them off of welfare.

The classic example is this hundred hour rule and the way that came up is that staff was meeting with counties and the counties were complaining that when a person applies they work over 100 hours, we deny the application but next month they come in and no longer are they working over 100 hours, so we grant the application.

That's inefficient and it's a waste of taxpayer dollars. And for those reasons we urgent aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Are there any members of the public wishing to express support for AB 1324? If so, please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the Bill.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzalez, with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, proud co-sponsor and supporter. Thank you.

Andrew Shane, End Child Poverty California, co-sponsor, in support.

Thank you.

Eric Paredes, with the California Faculty Association, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1324? Okay, if not, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition. Are there any witnesses in opposition, AB 1324? Okay. Seeing no one wishing to express opposition, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Thank you very much for this Bill.

I will be supporting it today and I turn over to you to close.

Thank you so much, Chair. Assembly Bill 1324, it is honestly to me a meaningful step towards justice, dignity, and equity for all California working families. This Bill acknowledges that our safety net must evolve to meet the realities of today's workers. The family who rely on CalWORKS, they aren't asking for a handout.

They're asking for a fair shot at a better future for their children. So, Assembly Bill 1324 truly helped to make the future possible for so many. And with that Chair, just thank you so much, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We do not have a quorum yet, but at the time we establish quorum, we're going to get a motion on the Bill. Thank you very much for being here today and presenting. I'm going to call a five minute recess.

I need to go vote in the Senate Energy Committee and I'll return and we can proceed with the Bill presentations. Thank you. And hopefully, at that time, we'll have a quorum.

On human services Bill hearing.

So we are back in session and we'll proceed now to file item 19, AB 1314 by Assembly Member Ahrens. If there are any principal witnesses who can, please join us here at the table. And good afternoon, Assembly Member. Whenever you're ready, you may present on your bill.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. California law allows the Department of Social Services to license transitional housing placement programs that provide housing and support services to former foster youth, helping them develop the skills necessary for independent living.

In California, the number of 18 to 20 year olds re entering foster care increased by 105% between 2022 and 2024. In 2010, AB 12 was enacted to enhance support for foster care youth by raising the age limit for eligibility to 21 years old.

This change aims to provide these young individuals with additional time and resources to transition into adulthood. AB 1314 improves placement opportunities for foster youth and transitional housing by requiring counties to align their contracts with state licensing standards.

It is crucial that we support our youth during these defining moments in their lives and provide them with the resources that they need to thrive rather than barriers. With me today is Celeste Wiley, who represents the youth with lived experience as a voice, and Thomas Lee, the CEO of First Place for Youth.

Great. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. You have two minutes to present on this bill.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Celeste Walley. I'm a young person with lived experience in the foster care system. Also professionally identify as a foster youth advocate for the Foster Care Community. We're wearing both those hats.

I'm here today to voice my strong support for AB 1314, a bill that aims to bring consistency, fairness and equity for how transitional housing programs are offered to foster youth across California. If you asked me to describe the experience of being a foster youth, I would describe it as hard.

And if you asked me to describe the experience of being a foster youth who needed housing, I would describe it as really, really hard. And if you asked me to describe the housing systems I have access to as a foster youth, I would describe them as fragmented and inequitable.

And when we asked the same question to over 150 foster youth across California, we consistently heard the same descriptions. Especially when you consider the fact that counties can create their own additional restrictions on top of what the state already requires.

Youth often describe feeling forced to choose between meeting housing requirements or maintaining other priorities like their job, education or mental health. Arbitrary expectations, rigid daily check ins, mandatory case management or life skill courses that don't take into account a youth's existing responsibilities like school work, caregiving or simply healing from trauma.

We also found that counties with less restrictive contracts actually ended up housing more youth. That's not a coincidence. It's a reflection of the importance of flexibility, communication and respect for self determination and service design. I want to be clear, AB 1314 is not about taking services away from youth who need them.

It's about creating choices, giving young people a say in what supports they participate, participate in and how, because every young person deserves the same, does not need the same level of oversight and certainly not at the cost of their autonomy.

This bill is about creating a floor, not a ceiling, for what foster youth can expect when they seek transitional housing support. It would ensure that individual counties follow consistent state guidelines rather than imposing inconsistent, often burdensome local policies that push young people and service providers out.

Young people in foster care deserve housing stability and they also deserve housing support systems that are flexible, youth centered and built on partnership, not compliance. I urge your support for AB 1314. Thank you for listening and your time.

Good afternoon Chair and Members of the Committee. I am Thomas Lee, Chief Executive Officer for First Place for Youth.

On behalf of First Place, I'm here to express strong support for Assembly Bill 1314 as this bill will require counties to follow existing state standards and licensing requirements to reduce the creation of unneeded barriers and burdensome restrictions in county contracts across the state. First Place operates a licensed transitional housing placement program for non minor dependents.

We serving over 1600 youth in six counties across the State of California. Our mission is to help foster youth build the skills they need to become independent, self sufficient adults. We do this by starting with our youth by providing housing and then matching and wrapping around youth centered case management as well focusing on education and employment support.

For us, this is not theoretical. We've been doing this for over 27 years. We're required to meet the rigorous standards set by the State of California. Standards specifically designed to ensure that youth in our care receive safe, high quality support. Unfortunately, some counties impose additional arbitrary requirements that go well beyond what the state mandates.

These excessive constraints not only create unnecessary administrative burdens, but also undermine our ability to to effectively serve youth who rely on us in one particular county. They require an inordinate number of inspections before a youth is able to move in, as well as biannual inspections while they're in our care.

County social workers are tasked to look for a certain number of place settings and utensils and specific food items on the shelves. These inspections are required in every unit before a youth moves in which delays a young person from entering a program and often puts them at risk for homelessness.

Another county mandates that our staff make daily contact with youth participants who are in fact legal adults between the ages of 18 and 21. This requirement directly contradicts the purpose of the non minor dependent program which is to help young adults build the skills needed for independent living in the least restrictive setting.

Treating them as if they are still minors by enforcing daily contact undermines best practices for development. Moreover, it reduces youth interest in programs like ours as well as demand for transitional housing because of the group home like nature, we are already witnessing under utilization by youth across the state.

In Los Angeles County alone, only 17% of youth foster youth are actually taking advantage of these programs. Across the state, the average is 37%. We have seen no evidence in our 27 years through our own data and outcomes that these arbitrary mandates help strengthen our broader child welfare system and achieve our target impact.

What does make a difference is when our team has the flexibility, time and resources and meaningful relationships to provide individualized support to each and every one of our youth.

At first place for youth, we believe in creating the conditions for change by allowing counties to continually interpret state standards leads to unnecessary barriers that strain providers ability to operate effectively and to deliberately put more time to work with youth.

In sum, this bill will help align th our non minor dependent programs across every county and create more opportunities to create the capacity in our organizations to better serve youth. For these reasons we are proud to Support Assembly Bill 1314 and we respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any Members of public wishing to express support for AB13 14? If you would like to express support. If you can please approach the microphone and state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Selena Lou Raphael representing the California alliance of Child and Family Services. Proud co-sponsor. Strong support.

Thank you. Kevin Clark with Good River Partners and a former foster youth in strong support.

Thank you Kim Lewis on behalf of The Spiranet in support.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public wishing to express support for AB13 14? Okay. Seeing no other members, the public wishing to express support will now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 1314 and you will have two minutes to present on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair member Chantel Johnson representing the Youth Law Center. I'd like to begin by thanking Assembly Member Ahrens for championing this issue and taking bold action on behalf of young people who are too often unheard.

The intent behind AB 1314 to expand traditional housing capacity and to ensure foster youth can access that housing and have the flexibility to make decisions like having roommates. That foster Independence is a goal that we all share. For youth, exiting foster care housing is often the only thing standing between stability and homelessness.

I've seen it in my own life as a former foster youth with the youth I've advocated for, and I've seen it in my own home recently as a foster parent and a relative caregiver. A bed and a roof and supportive services are not luxuries. They are the foundation of transition age youth future.

And when a young person doesn't have stable housing, every other goal education, employment, health quickly crumble. Stable supportive housing is the cornerstone of everything else and without it, a young person's future is built on sand. That is why we respectfully oppose 1314 in its current form because it threatens to make things harder, not easier for the youth.

We are all trying to support as written. The bill would try transitional transitional housing placement program contracting requirements to regulations that are still incomplete, still under revision, and in some cases not even fully drafted.

It would prohibit counties from requiring more than the housing providers than the minimum state licensing standards even when local needs or conditions demand more. This is not just a technical concern, it's a real threat to quality and oversight. The minimum licensing standards were never intended to be a ceiling.

They are a floor and they are a starting point. Counties must retain flexibility to ensure higher quality programs that meet the specific and diverse needs of their youth in their counties. AB 1314 would prevent them from doing that.

Advocates, families and youth have spent hundreds of hours reviewing and commenting on these regulations believing that they were shaping a strong minimum standard. Moreover, there is no state legal requirement that counties use contracts to place youth in transitional housing programs and many counties do not.

When they choose to do so, it's often to raise the bar to include higher expectations for youth services, trauma informed care or educational supports. Taking away this tool removes the incentive for providers to innovate and improve and that's a step backwards.

If this bill becomes law before regulations are finalized, it could severely limit stakeholder input, including youth input, and shift the focus from developing strong standards to simply complying with new restrictions. We agree with the situations that the testimony and support gave.

The Youth Law center respectfully recommends that AB 1314 be held so there is more time for the current regulations to be completed and for policy developed in a way that truly strengthen, not weaken, the support available for transition age youth.

I have with me some some of the regulations where it would create a new ceiling and happy to share of them if possible if needed. Thank you for your time.

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

Thank you. My name is Julie Mccormick and I'm here on behalf of the Children's Law center of California, the largest children's legal services organization in the nation. We Advocate for nearly 19,000 children and youth in the Los Angeles, Sacramento and Placer County foster care systems.

And we too appreciate Assemblymember Erin's intent to expand access to transitional housing for foster youth. We do share that goal, but we must respectfully oppose AB 1314. As Chantal has already stated, this bill would tie THPP contracting to state regulations that are still evolving. This is more than a technical issue.

It risks lowering the quality of housing programs as we represent youth in multiple counties. We've heard from our youth in Sacramento county have different needs than our youth in LA County and they did bring these concerns to us.

Counties often use these contracts to raise the bar and to demand trauma informed care, educational support and other essential services. Unfortunately, AB 13 as it's currently written would remove that tool. We are concerned that passing this bill before regulations are finalized would shortcut meaningful stakeholder input, including our youth voices at a critical stage.

We are just asking that the Committee Hold AB 1314 to allow the regulatory process that, as Chantal mentioned, so many stakeholders have invested many, many hours in and just ensure that the policy changes truly strengthen, not weaken the supports for our transition age youth. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any Members of the public wishing to express opposition to Assembly Bill 1314? If so, please come forward to see any organization business on the bill. Okay. Seeing no other witnesses in support, I'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Assembly, I want to give you the opportunity.

You heard the comments of the opposition. One of you would like to respond.

Thank you. Certainly respect the work that the opposition is doing. I just happen to disagree with their analysis. Would have really appreciated feedback earlier on in this process. This bill has been moving forward for several months and we only just got their opposition on Friday.

And so I will be moving, you know, respectfully asking that we move forward on this bill and would like to move it over to my witnesses if they wanted to add any clarifying comments to what was said in the opposition.

No, thank you.

Yeah, I also have a Q and A in response to their opposition statements if the Committee would like to see that as well.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee on AB 1314. Senator Durazo, I was going to ask.

The same thing that you did. It seems like there's one thing the opposition said was with regards to regulations that are being put together at this time and whether or not it makes sense to include those or refer to them. Include them in your judgment.

Well, you know, this opposition certainly states that waiting on current rulemaking processes until they're completed is necessary. But I respectfully disagree. I think that ultimately that we have to do something to get youth into housing and waiting another year is not helping them, not helping the former.

As a former foster youth, I know how critical and important it is to help the foster youth that I've met with in Santa Clara County and throughout California. And I just think we respectfully disagree on, on how we are approaching how to solve this issue.

Senator d', Uso, please. Okay. Unless there are any other questions or comments, I'll turn over the author to close. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay. Thank you. We don't have a quorum yet, so when we establish quorum, we will entertain a motion. But thank you to the witnesses and thank you, Assembly Member, for presenting today.

Thank you so much. Okay, we have, I think, two more bills, three more bills. AB 450 by Assem Caro, AB 601 by Assembly Member Jackson, and then I will be presenting AB593 by Assembly Member Wix, which unless an author appears momentarily, I may just hand the gavel to you. Why don't we do that?

So I'm going to hand the gavel to Senator Dorazo and I will be presenting for Assembly Member Wicks.

Okay.

Senator, again, you may start.

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. AB 593 clarifies exemptions from data sharing restrictions permitted under state law for the narrow purpose of improving CalFresh Administration. Last year, Assemblemember Wicks authored AB518 requiring the Department of Social Services develop a methodology to determine the state's CalFresh participation rate and identify characteristics of residents who are eligible but not receiving benefits.

The law established by that Bill set in motion an ongoing process designed to enhance access to healthy food amongst California's most vulnerable communities. AB518's intent was to utilize the existing state data in a tailored manner to improve strategies that will maximize enrollment in CalFresh while safeguarding the confidentiality, privacy and security of Californians personally identifiable information.

In a letter written to the Assembly Journal, Assemblymember Wicks committed to collaborate with the Newsom Administration this year on further legislation to clarify the scope of the Bill and to address those issues around privacy.

The legislation before you today, AB593, reflects this commitment, helping to ensure the extent of Intra Governmental State data sharing does not extend beyond the borders of what is necessary.

I think given what's been happening in our state over the past several months, it's extremely important that we ensure that this data only be used for the purposes so outlined and that we have strong privacy and data sharing restrictions to ensure the security and confidentiality of that information. That's what this Bill intends to do.

And if we may recall, we had a informational hearing at the beginning of this year on the State of hunger in California that particularly talked about, I think we're at 80% CalFresh participation, but we're not quite at the full eligibility, albeit the big ugly Bill I think creates significant challenges with respect to the ability for us to continue to Fund and to expand eligibility.

But we will continue that commitment here in California. But one of the things that was raised in that conversation, I know that the chair certainly knows as well, is the fact that we're not doing as good enough of a job of making sure that all the different state agencies are working together to make people aware of these benefits.

People are maximizing the eligibility, these benefits that the core of is what this Bill intends to do. And so with that I respectfully ask for the. For your aye vote at the appropriate time and I. There is no witness in support.

Okay. No. No principal witness. Anybody here in support of AB593? Okay. Seeing none. Is there anyone in opposition to AB 593? Please come up.

Okay.

Is that on? I think so, yes. You are all right? You are. Good afternoon, Chair.

Good afternoon.

And members. Whichever way this works. Yes. Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy. We are a statewide coalition that advocates for safeguards and guardrails in the interests of privacy protection, civil rights and community control.

Firstly, by proxy, we would like to thank Assemblymember Wicks for all of the changes that she has taken with this bill, because there are quite a few and we are grateful. There is one thing left. We would like to ask that CDCR, the California Department of Corrections, be removed from the bill. Two reasons.

The first is last year you all passed SB 1254 from Senator Becker, which was very explicitly done to set up a process to pre enroll people getting out of prison into- into CalFresh. That bill is now, what, six months old. And so there's a question here of sort of having two processes going on simultaneously.

Second reason, which I think is even more important right now, is CalFresh, like Medicaid, is a state federal partnership, meaning that there is data sharing that goes on between the state and the locals. We've already seen that the USDA has made a demand for state level SNAP data, even though it's still kind of tied up in court.

And the problem here is that one of the things that we know that the Department of Homeland Security is really most interested in, in terms of all of the information that they can get from California, is the list of people coming out of jail.

That has been something that has been, you know, argued about and discussed for quite a while. And we feel like there may be a situation where California can't necessarily keep information away from the feds if it becomes sort of part of the SNAP information system. So that's our concern.

And again, since we think SB 1254 is already working on this, we feel like including it here is simply A, not necessary and B, introduces a certain amount of danger into the system. Thank you. That we should avoid if we can. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Thank you. Anybody else in opposition? Okay. Seeing none. We have one other, senator. Seeing none. I don't know, Senator, if you would like to address that or just want to take it back to the.

Yeah, I can't make any commitments on behalf of the assemblymember with respect to whether to remove CDCR. I know that that's Oakland Privacy's request, but I'll just note Senate Bill 54 allows CDCR to share information with ICE. That's the current law in California.

Setting that aside, there have been many attempts, including the legislation that was referenced by Senator Becker. To try to pre enroll and make sure people as they're leaving our carceral system in California are eligible for CalFresh and other benefits.

I would argue that removing CDCR from this bill would probably make it more difficult for us to achieve that, but I'm sure the author will take that in consideration if this bill moves forward. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Okay. That's it. When--

We have a quorum.

We have quorum. Alright. Do you want to come up and do that? Do you want me to do that?

I can do that.

Okay. I didn't get to do anything with this. Took it away from me before I started.

Okay. We have established a quorums. Like to ask the committee assistant to please call the roll.

[roll call]

Okay, thank you very much. We're going to go next to Assemblymember Carrillo and then we have one more bill, Assembly Bill 601. And so why don't we just complete the bill presentations, then we can entertain motions on the bills.

So we'll proceed now to file item 4, AB 450 by Senator Juan Carrillo and I'll turn over to the assemblymember to present on your bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 450. First. I will be accepting the Committee's amendments and thank the Committee for their work on this Bill.

AB 450 would establish a task force within the Department of Aging and develop policy recommendations on how it can better support immigrant adults who are 55 years or older, an often overlooked, yet deeply integral, population in our communities.

This task force will bring together subject matter experts and key stakeholders to examine the challenges aging immigrants Californians face, like housing stability, affordability, access to health and social services, and the long-term pressures of caregiving. The insights and recommendations developed through this process will be reflected in the 2028 Master Plan of Aging.

California is home to over 11 million immigrants, making up to about 28% of the state's residents. By 2040, California is projected to have 3.4 million more older adults aged 65 and over and 1.7 fewer residents less than 65 years old.

It is important to ensure that as Californians age, they are able to continue to have access to support and have resources needed to thrive as they age out of their workforce, and that includes our immigrant population. The increasing diversity across the state requires culturally and linguistically appropriate services to meet the community's needs.

We must adapt to the increasing population and care needs for aging Californians throughout the state to meet the needs of a fast growing aging adult group. As an immigrant myself and as someone who cares for my mother, I understand that this level of care is long term and gets increasingly difficult over time.

Driving down the hill and back from Palmdale to my mother's house to spend time with her and she has a small part of providing support and care for her as she ages and driving down the hill is what we say in Palmdale as we go down to LA.

So many immigrant older adults are without the security that comes from retirement benefits, health coverage, or long term support systems. Many continue to work long past retirement age, whether in rural or urban areas and just to get by. Immigrants have been and continue to be at the forefront when California needs the most, from essential frontline work to rebuild after disasters.

This Bill is a modest but meaningful first step toward honoring our commitment to the people who have given so much to our state. Joining me today in support is Veronica Robles, SHIRLA Member from the Antel Valley. Thank you.

Hi, sorry, Monica Madrid. I'm Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA. I'm a State Policy Advocate and CHIRLA's proud to co-sponsor—or sorry, to sponsor—AB 450. We'd like to thank Assemblymember Juan Carrillo for his continued leadership on this issue.

California has roughly 11 million immigrants who make California their home, making up 28% of our state's population. There are around 2.5 million undocumented immigrants in California and about 293,000 are over the age of 55, including my mother. Many of these undocumented older adults have been working and paying taxes in the state for decades.

In 2022, undocumented California has paid up to 8.5 billion in state taxes, yet many immigrant older adults are forced to work past retire retirement age just to be able to pay their bills.

I know several undocumented older adults in South Sacramento who are struggling to pay their rent and are forced to continue working tough jobs like construction and even traveling from Sacramento to the Central Valley to go work on farms. These are our neighbors who raised their families in California and contributed to our economy.

My grandfather, who was a US citizen, worked as a gardener until he was 85 years old, just to put food on the table. While undocumented and older adults may have access to crucial services like Medi Cal and Calfresh, there's still other services they do not have access to.

In fact, immigrant older adults often struggle with language access, lack of access to retirement programs, issues with navigating the complex digital system, and starting in January of 2026, they can lose access to Medi Cal or not be able to apply for Medi Cal, based on their status. We're asking for compassion, equity, and support for this particularly vulnerable community.

Please vote yes on AB 450. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any members of the public wishing to express support for AB 450? If you can please approach the microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the Bill.

Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Verde Group, on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California and CARECEN, the Central American Resource Center, in strong support.

Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

My name is Alexandra Estrella with CHIRLA, proud co-sponsor in support. Also, on behalf of End Childhood Poverty California, in support.

Thank you.

Amanda Kirchner, County Welfare Directors, in support.

Thank you very much. Unless there are any other members of public wishing to express support, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 450. Is there anyone wishing to express opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments, or a motion. Senator Durazo.

I want to thank the author very much. I know how personally important this is, but we all have our individual stories about our parents and grandparents and what they've done for this nation, for this state, and this is the least recognition that we could give to them. So, I proudly move your Bill.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments on AB 450?

I do.

Okay. Vice Chair Ochoa Bogh.

I am running a little behind today. I'm trying to find the Bill. Is that it? Okay, I—so I have a couple of questions and comments on here and it, let me see here. So, let me go over these. Okay, so it's my understanding that this Bill is asking for just recommendations and studies on that end.

But I believe, and correct me if I'm mistaken, but the language directs the CDA and the DSS to oversee a stakeholder process to support the development of the findings and recommendations on how to best support older and aging immigrants.

And I'm assuming because we already have this process of trying to make recommendations for our aging population, this is adding the undocumented folks that are in our state, in order to make recommendations—or findings and recommendations—based on those findings for services for the undocumented in our state.

So, the intent language does expand on that by declaring that it is important that policies be inclusive of older aging immigrants, regardless of their immigration status.

And once again, because we already have it, it's literally just adding the undocumented folks who have lived and work and contributed to California, but who may, as a result of their immigration status, be unable to access critical social services to assist older adults.

So, the intent is having to support in place for the aging undocumented population because denying them won't—I'm sorry, denying them access doesn't eliminate the need, it just allows the need to escalate. And I completely understand that.

But we also have to look at the root problem, which, as you have heard me speak on many of the issues in California, we do a lot of band aids, but we're not actually addressing the root of the problem, which, in this case, is the fact that they haven't been able to go through the immigration process and get their immigration status legal in our state.

So, and the concern that I have right now is that as a state, we're not actually fulfilling our obligations to residents who have—who are—actual California residents with a legal status to live here. We're not meeting those needs yet. And financially, we're strapped on those issues.

Adding the undocumented, even though some of them have been working, we don't know there's no requirement as like, okay, you've worked here for 15, 20, years, therefore you're going to qualify for these, for these services, such as other folks that would be longtime residents in California.

There's some concerns on that end that we don't have a requirement to say, okay, you've been here working towards working, contributing, and there's a minimum requirement here. It could be someone that could have easily been able to come into the state a month ago, six months ago, or yesterday, on that end.

So, I have concerns about that, especially considering how we are now.

So, just kind of curious, in your—and I understand the intent of the Bill—but within this context of not having enough resources to meet the current demands of our current aging population, how would you justify adding our undocumented without any requirements of length of time contributing to the finances?

How would you justify that to the rest of Californians who are paying into the system for a long period of time?

Well, to that point, I think that those like me that came to this country to work, there's ways to easily prove how long you've been working and contributing to the economy, right?

Yes. For you, yes. But for those that—the Bill and the studies don't require any, any time considerations as to how long you've been here working. For the rest of Californians, there's ways of, well, you've been here your whole life, but in the case that you're including everybody that's aging.

I was using my example in general because when people come here and work, they do open bank accounts, they do have leases. There's ways that they can prove that they've been here for a certain amount of time. As far as what those parameters are going to be, those would have to be worked out. The program is already existing.

And those that have been here for decades, again, they would be able to prove that they've been here for whatever, X amount of years, that is—to your point, if someone comes in last week or next month, it'll be easy to prove that they have not been here that long.

But your Bill?

Yeah, I'm just giving you examples on what trying to answer your question. The problem's already in existence, correct? So they would have to come up with some way to find out what those mechanisms are going to be to be able for them to qualify for receiving the aid. To your point, we don't have enough resources, enough money.

There's never going to be enough money. However, those immigrants have been contributing for decades, whether through sales tax, through income tax that they're unable to get back, which, again, I'm going to use as an example, as many of them that are here—when we are employed, we pay income taxes.

No, and I get that point. So, I'm sorry to interrupt, but that is not my question. My question is in this, in this Bill, in this directive, there's no requirement as to say people who have been serving or working in our economy for X amount of year, there's no requirement. It's just open ended.

And I think that is the question that a lot of Californians would have is the fact that the way that this is framed, anyone could qualify for these programs and there's no requirement saying, you know, for those that have been contributing for 10, 20, 30, years, there's no time frame on that end.

So, how do we—how do you—bring this forward to Californians who have been playing here for a lifetime and contributing here to the system. So, that's—that is the question.

Let me answer the question. And I, I do want us to move forward. We have another author waiting to present. This Bill is not creating new programs, you know, guaranteeing eligibility of programs. It's to establish a stakeholder process to develop findings and recommendations.

I imagine the issues you're raising, Madam Vice Chair, will be addressed and discussed as part of that process. But we're not, we're not establishing a new program or new statute. It's creating a stakeholder process to develop findings or recommendations on best support older and aging immigrants, regardless of their immigration status.

And I think the issues you're raising are certainly valid and things that should certainly be considered as part of that stakeholder process, but it's creating a stakeholder process. That's what this Bill does.

No, and I, and I completely understand with the—almost reflect that. I get that. But there is no directive onto the definition of those that are undocumented and how long they've lived here. It just is undocumented, period, open ended.

And that's my concern is that unless we give a directive as to those undocumented that have been serving and working here for X amount of years, it will leave it open ended.

And I think many Californians, when they see this, they will be very, very concerned about wait a minute, we don't have our own seniors who have been working a lifetime.

And that's my point is that for the record, this probably should be a directive that should be considered in the conversations in the directive in the these are stakeholders because otherwise, for some of us, we won't be able to support this in justifying to our constituents that well, these are people who have been here for X amount of years and you just have it open ended that is undocumented and that's going to be mis—I don't want to misinterpret it—it's going to be, it's going to be challenging for folks to, to be able to support that.

Well, I'll just say, by the Chair's comments, the task force will have to figure that out, come up with some parameters for them to be able to identify if they qualify or not, since the program already exists. But again.

Madam Vice Chair.

With the...I'm just going to finalize with that. Unless you have certain stakeholders at that, because it's going to be very hard to, to carry that forward within the stakeholders because of the optics and that's where I'm going. I'm not going to be able to support the Bill.

I get the intent, and I understand where you're going, but I think with the specific language, I think it's going to be misread by many Californians, especially with our shortfall and budget and they're not going to understand.

When they're going to hear undocumented, they're going to hear people who just arrived, you know, a week ago, a month ago, or next month. And I think that's going to be the hardest part about selling this particular, especially when we have a deficit in our state.

I think it would be to everybody's benefit if there was clarity in that language as to the definition of the undocumented who have been working here for X amount of years. I think that would be incredibly helpful in California.

Also, I wanted to add that the Bill is actually for all immigrants, regardless of their immigration status. So, it's not just.

Thank you.

It's not just undocumented. And also wanted to add to, these are just.

Yeah. Just to ensure we can continue with the discussion—orally manner. Unless there's a question for you, it's Committee's deliberations at this time. I appreciate the clarification.

I'll also refer people to pages 4, 5, and 6 of the Committee Analysis to talk about the California Master Plan for Aging, to talk about the work of the California Department of Aging. There's a lot that the state's doing.