Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

The Senate Human Services Committee will come to order. Good afternoon. We're holding our committee hearings here in the 0 Street Building. Ask all members of the committee to be President Room 2200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. We have 11 bills on today's agenda.

Three of those bills are on the proposed consent calendar. I need to go and present in, Privacy. So I'm going to go hopefully do that and don't miss my slots so I can get back here quickly. And in the, in my absence, turn this over to our Vice Chair, Senator Ochoa Bogh, to, to well, to run the hearing, in my absence. But we will start since I do see Senator Reyes, I'll ask you to come on up and get ready to go.

Welcome, Senator Reyes. Glad to see you here as being the first person for our first committee hearing of the year. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you for this opportunity to present SB 969, which ensures Californians with intellectual and developmental disabilities can continue to have the option to access services remotely based on their individual needs.

California has long recognized that individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities have the right to live more independent and productive lives. During the COVID nineteen pandemic, the Department of Developmental Services authorized remote services to, for critical supports like day day programs, independent living services, and behavioral therapy.

What started as an emergency response has proven to be highly effective, increasing independence, access, and participation for individuals and their families. However, this option is currently set to expire on 12/31/2026.

And DDS does not have clear statutory authority to continue it on a permanent basis. Additionally, there is no consistent process to ensure individuals and families are informed that remote services are available. SB 969 simply codifies the option for remote service delivery. It does not mandate its use.

This bill directs DDS to establish clear guidelines, ensure consistent communication with families, and maintain ongoing access to remote service options. SB 969 builds on a successful model and ensures we do not move backward.

It affirms California's commitment to inclusive, accessible, and person centered services. Joining me today in support are Emmalynn Chaubard, the director of government affairs for the California Disability Service Association, and Sarah Verity, member of Leadership at AbilityPath. Perfect.

Perfect. Welcome, Emmalyn and Sarah. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Senator Reyes, and good afternoon, Vice Chair Ochoa Bogh and members of the committee. My name is Sarah Verity, and I'm Vice President of Board Relations and Legislative Affairs at AbilityPath. I'm here today to speak in support of SB 969.

AbilityPath has been serving individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families for one hundred and six years. We have 13, soon to be 15 locations in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, Chair Becker's districts, and approximately 250 dedicated staff and interns serving 1,500 individuals each week.

That includes 30 individuals receiving services virtually through a robust interactive schedule designed to mirror our in person programming.

Our remote services include wellness and fitness activities, such as Zumba and personal health life, skills classes, like independent living skills, self care, gardening, and cuisines arts and culture offerings including drawing, music, and performing arts, and cognitive and social activities such as nature studies, trivia, and interactive games.

These classes are delivered through live video conferencing, allowing for real time engagement and instructor feedback. Remote services matter because they give people meaningful access in the way that works best for them.

For some participants, virtual programming allows them to continue attending when health issues, surgery, or recovery would otherwise keep them isolated at home.

For individuals with anxiety or sensory sensitivities, it provides a safe and supportive environment to build confidence and practice social skills. And for participants who don't have the stamina for a full in person day, remote services makes it possible to maintain continuity and participate more consistently.

Virtual services reduce exposure to illness for participants and for the families and caregivers they live with, many of whom may be medically vulnerable. Most importantly, virtual services preserve connection, routine continuity of services, and choice.

SB 969 helps ensure that remote services remain an option for the people who need them, and I respectfully urge your support. Thank you.

Welcome to the assembly.

Okay. Now it's on? Can you hear me?

I think so.

Test? There we go. Okay. Emmalynn Chaubard, on behalf of the bill sponsor, California Disability Services Association, as mentioned, SB 969 provides the option for individuals with IDD and their family to have remote services.

Unfortunately, as the legislature has removed many options for remote testimony, our witnesses are unable to share their experiences directly today, so I'll be uplifting their comments for you.

Natalia and her family received regional center services in the greater San Diego area. After moving to a remote location in the state, her mother shares how Natalia has stayed connected through remote services. Since our move, it's been very difficult to find services close to where we live.

There simply aren't providers in our area, so accessing in person services has become a real challenge for us. Because of remote services, Natalia has been able to continue receiving support from Options for All even after our move.

That continuity has meant everything for our family. She participates in art, exercises with Zumba videos, and has a lot of fun during her time. More importantly, she's staying connected, continuing to learn, and making progress towards her goals.

Pancho receives regional center services and chooses to attend his day program remotely because it allows him to feel safe and secure. I'm afraid to walk around my neighborhood because of immigration enforcement and that makes it hard for me to participate in services outside of my home.

Through remote services, I'm able to connect with my friends in a way that feels safe. We support each other, learn together, and help each other when something is difficult. I've learned important life skills like how to stay safe during an earthquake or fire and how to make better decisions. This program is the best part of my day. I never get bored and I'm always learning.

Although each person has a different reason for choosing remote services, they choose it because it fits their life best. The ability to access remotely adds meaningful choice in how individuals receive support and enhances the commitment to person centered services that are outlined under the Lanterman Act.

We urge support for SB 969 to ensure remote services remain an option for Californians with IDD and their families. Thank you.

Thank you very much, ma'am, for your for your both of you for your testimony. We're now gonna continue with any members of the public who would like to share their testimony in support of SB 969.

Good afternoon. Evan Fern with Disability Rights California in support.

Good afternoon, everybody. Christopher Arroyo with the State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support.

Good afternoon. My name is Elizabeth Gomez, director of the Integrated Community Collaborative, and we're here in support. Thank you.

Cendy Topete. Cendy Topete, part of ICC, Community Integrated in support.

Josefina Romo from ICC, Integrated Community Collaborative in support.

Maribel Ahumada, ICC cofounder and also in support of SB 869. Thank you.

[Spanish]

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Maria Lopez. I also a cofounder of ICC, and I support the bill the propose.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm a parent to a child, child with disability, and I'm also integrate, I'm from Integrated Community Collaboration. I'm here also supporting of this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Rubi Saldana. I'm a mother of three, clients regional center, and also, ICC cofounder. In support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Jacqueline Vargas. I have two children with disability, and I also support the bill from and also the Latino community. Thank you.

Hello. My name, hello, my name is Juan Martinez. I'm part of the ICC and I support the bill. Thank you.

[Spanish]

Hi. My name is Rosa Hernandez. I have, my son, he's autismo and [Spanish].

[Spanish]

Hello. My name is Maria Hernandez, and my daughter is 21. And I support, remote for, this bill.

[Spanish]

My name is Juan Cruz. I am a father of two. I support the law.

Dora Contreras, Integrated Community Collaborative, grandmother to a 33 year old intellectual disabled adult. And I'm here in support of this bill because he's able to sit and be able to join whatever I'm doing regarding this type of activity. Support the bill. Thank you.

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

Good afternoon. My name is Selena Estrada. I'm a mother of two, clients of the regional center, and I'm here to support this bill. And I come with, part of, Integrative Community Collaborative. Thank you.

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

Hi. My name is Carolina Arzate, ICC Integrator, and I'm here to support the bill.

[Spanish]

My name is Oscar Mercado. I am a self advocate and person served by the regional center system, and I support this bill. Thank you.

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

Hi. My name is Stephanie Cruz Lopez. My brother, he's autistic and is hard with the family too, so I come to my mom, with the pink, to get the pink. as I support the bill. Thank you so much.

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

Thank you to everyone who came today and testified on behalf of of in support of the bill, SB 969. We're now gonna continue with any witnesses in opposition to SB 969. Seeing none, we're gonna bring it back to the dias. Oh, Doctor Weber.

Thank you. I want to really thank the author for bringing this bill forward. The ability for these families to get the services they need from remote locations is extremely important.

I utilized the regional center in my area for my youngest for a while and, I'm very familiar with the importance, of all of the work that they do, especially with early intervention and the ability for families to be able to access this regardless of where they are in the state is extremely important.

I wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward and at the appropriate time I will move the bill.

Thank you, Doctor Weber.

[Spanish]

Thank you very much for bringing this bill forward. I am going to be supporting the bill today. So at the appropriate time, we'll be supporting the bill. Seeing that it's just the two of us, would you like to close, Senator Reyes?

Thank you. I do appreciate the comments. I also, if I may, also in Spanish. [Spanish] I want to thank all of you who came to give your support for this, this, this bill. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

At the appropriate time.

Thank you very much, Senator Reyes. We do not have, yet enough members, to form a quorum yet, so we're gonna be holding off on voting on the bills until we do have a quorum established. Thank you very much. And I see we have another author. Thank you very much for coming.

We do have an author, Senator Hurtado. Senator Hurtado, you'll be presenting SB 1025?

That is correct, Madam Chair.

Perfect. Welcome and, to our first meeting of the of the year. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I can't promise that I'll be bilingual here today. It will be very difficult for me to do that, but nonetheless, thank you so much for your time and your attention. Today, I'm here to present SB 1025, which establishes the Office of Food Security and Affordability. SB 1025 is about one simple idea, targeted coordination.

I want to be very clear, this bill does not take authority away from any department. Instead, it creates a central coordinating hub, so state departments can operate in alignment. Think of this office as a bridge, not a replacement, bringing together state departments, food banks, and community partners under one shared strategy. Right now, California's food programs are spread across multiple agencies that leads to missed opportunities for enrollment, duplicative efforts, and, most concerning, people falling through the cracks.

According to the California Association of Food Banks, over 8.8 million Californians are food insecure, even though we invest heavily in food programs.

And this tells us the issue is not effort, it is coordination. In Senate District 16, which includes many rural and agricultural communities in the Central Valley. We grow the food to feed the nation, yet families still struggle to put food on the table, and I've heard this struggle directly from my constituents. Our working families are having to choose between groceries and rent. Our seniors are unaware that they qualify for assistance, and are students relying on food banks to get through the week.

These are not failures of individual programs. These are gaps between systems that are not connected. SB 1025 creates a coordinating office that will align state departments and existing programs, expand outreach, so eligible families actually enroll, operate a 24-hour hunger hotline to connect people to resources, and support food banks with best practices and stronger emergency coordination. But this bill is also intentionally designed to reduce duplication, not create it. By improving coordination, we can make existing investments work better.

And, at the end of the day, no Californian, especially in a state as resource-rich as ours, should have to wonder where their next meal will come from.

SB 1025 ensures we're not just investing in programs, but connecting them into a system that works. And today, I have with me Kelly Lowery, Executive Director for Community Action Partnership of Kern, to testify as a sponsor of this bill.

Thank you very much, and welcome.

Thank you. Thanks. Members of the subcommittee, my name is Kelly Lowery, and I am the Executive Director of the CAPK Food Bank, located in Bakersfield, California. I wanna thank you for the opportunity to speak about this bill today. I come before you not only as a cosponsor of SB 1025, alongside Senator Hurtado, but as someone working on the front lines every day at a food bank on behalf of families who are navigating the realities of food insecurity in our communities.

In 2025, alongside our network of more than a 150 agency partners in Kern County, we distributed over 22.5 million pounds of food for Kern County families. The truth of the matter is this. The drivers of food insecurity are more complex and more intense than at any point in recent history. Rising costs of living, housing instability, workforce disruptions, and lingering impacts from the pandemic are converging in ways that are stretching households and the systems designed to support them.

What we're seeing on the ground is not a temporary strain. It's a sustained pressure.

At the same time, the relationship between the federal and state governments is shifting in ways that directly affects how food reaches our communities. Federal programs that have long served as the backbone of the emergency food system are evolving and in many ways contracting. The passage of HR 1 is the first phase of the Federal Government shifting responsibility for strategy and resources to address food insecurity to the state.

The system we rely on today was not meant and not built for this new reality.

I wanna be clear. The creation of the Office of Food Security is not a reflection of failure by any single entity, not a state department, and not community based organizations. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Across California, there's strong, committed work happening every single day, but it's happening in parallel. This moment calls for a different level of coordination.

It calls for bringing that good work together, aligning it, and building something new and greater than the sum of its parts. Our emergency food network has always been resilient, but it was designed to respond, not to anticipate. It was designed for crisis relief, not for long term structural alignment. What we need now is a three year strategic plan, and our current system is not built to do that.

That's why SB 1025 matters right now. This bill creates the structure to bring public agencies and community based organizations to the same table to align data resources and policy and to develop a coordinated forward looking strategy that reflects the current landscape. We cannot solve today's challenges with yesterday's framework. Strategic planning at this level is essential if we're going to build a system that is forward thinking, coordinated, and capable at meeting the scale of food insecurity our neighbors are experiencing today.

Our communities are asking for stability, for access, and for dignity, and SB 1025 is a step towards delivering that, not just for today, but for the long term. And I appreciate your time and consideration.

Thank you very much for your testimony. We'll now continue with any members in the public who would like to come up to the podium and express your support for SB 1025.

No one? Oh, okay. Well, do we have will not continue with any witness in opposition to SB1025?

Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the diocese. Any questions, comments? Senator, Senator Weber? Senator Doctor Weber?

It's okay. Thank you so much, vice chair. Wanna thank the author for bringing this up and your staff may have given some of my questions to my staff, but I haven't received them yet. So I I apologize. I will be asking a couple of questions.

So when you note that there are gaps in in this in this service, when I think of gaps, I think of the fact that there are things out there that are not being utilized or not being taken up. So, is it because of the lack of coordination that, like, food pantries are not dispensing all of the food that they have? Is that what we're talking about when you're referring to gaps? I'm I'm trying to understand. Of course.

I'll go ahead and and allow my my, sponsor bill to answer the question.

Sure. So there's a couple ways of looking at it. The first way is that we we know that when it comes to CalFresh, CalFresh is actually the the single greatest hunger fighting tool that the emergency food system has. For every one meal that we're able to provide at the food bank, CalFresh provides nine. And so strengthening CalFresh is a priority.

And we know also that eligibility, people that are eligible, there's a lot that come through the doors of our food bank and our distribution sites that are eligible for for CalFresh, but for one reason or another are not enrolled in CalFresh. So, looking for strategic ways to, enlist CBOs and and others to help with, increasing enrollment would be one of the first places to start in in developing a strategy like this. So I think that's one way of understanding a potential gap.

The other way of understanding is an overlapping of resources that, oftentimes there are, great people doing this work in silos or in parallel that are overlapping resources. And so some people are, potentially could be, overserved at the detriment of others who are underserved as a result of of that.

So in a in a time where resources maybe are stretched thin, it becomes more incumbent upon us to be more strategic about where the resources are being applied. And so that's why I really believe that having a convener, like, like a, director of the Office of Food Security and Affordability to be able to identify and and bring those, things to the same table would alleviate both the gaps and the overlaps.

Thank you for that. And I noticed in the bill that there, that you are proposing a twenty four hour hotline for food and security. And there are some organizations that currently do that, like two one one, that not only address food and security but can also screen individuals for other needs that they may have and they may have certain resources for.

So, I guess my my question is if individuals who are food insecure go to this hotline instead of some of the others that have a more, expansive reach in terms of other services. Is that a potential concern?

I'll just say, and I'll let my sponsor add, that the goal is not to The goal is not to The goal is to make sure that it works for everybody. Right? Not to, sidestep anybody particularly, but, the goal is to make sure that it functions for all. Right? So, not necessarily taking it away from what works best for folks.

This is something that, really, it's about sharing, information, resources, and what you know, how best we could utilize, the funds, especially as it become more limited.

Yeah. And I would only add that, what we know right now is that across the state, there are different tools being used in this way, and some are being used very effectively, and some maybe aren't as effective. I'm a proponent of two one one as a community action agency, in current. We operate a two one one and and do connect neighbors to other resources, and it's very, very effective.

And so I don't think that this bill calls for, just sort of a one size fits all kind of approach.

I think it calls for just ensuring that there's, that there's, access to this information that's made readily available to everybody regardless of where they live, that they should have the same level of access. So if if we identify that one thing works exceptional in one area, that we would look for ways to, replicate that in areas where it's not.

Thank you. And then my final question, because the, I think from what I'm hearing, the premise of this bill is that what we have right now is not working. In in what ways would we be monitoring this new office to say that it is working or it's not working? Because I didn't necessarily see any follow-up metrics or anything in the actual bill.

Kelly, would you like to answer?

Yeah. Absolutely. So, ultimately, what we want to do as practitioners on the ground that are doing this work every day is not just find ways to serve the line better, but to make the line shorter, and the Office of Food Security and Affordability does that. It not only looks for best practices to bring state agencies and CBOs together to more efficiently move resources to serve people who are experiencing food insecurity better, but it also looks at the drivers and the variables of what's causing food insecurity.

So, it would it would make a scenario where, the Director of Food and Food Security and Affordability would actually engage with other departments that right now maybe don't even traditionally interact, with the issue of food security.

Folks that are dealing with housing, folks that are dealing with other, issues around the state that are the drivers of food insecurity.

And so I think that's the, the main thing that I would I would want to kind of illustrate is that, as I said in my comments, there's a lot of people doing a lot of great work and it's almost like the, like like imagine a symphony where, you have you have very talented musicians that are all playing great music, but imagine a scenario where each one of those that are playing music, they're all playing Beethoven, but maybe they're playing different pieces of Beethoven.

And maybe they're all playing it really well, but we're not playing it in concert together. And the Office of Food Security and Affordability is essentially creating a framework that that puts, a, conductor, that's able to bring together the pieces to be able to to, make something work the way it's supposed to.

Thank you. The one suggestion that I would have, I I will be supporting the bill today. But in the past, we will often maybe establish an office, give funding to something, but we'd never go back and check if it's actually doing what we intended it to do. Yeah. And that was really my question.

What, methods will we put in place? What reports will we require to say that when we started, we had this percentage of food insecurity. And now, because of these things, because we are working, we are collaborating, we have now reduced that in half or in 75%. So that we know that if if this is established, because it's it's a big undertaking to establish another office, that we know that we're going down the right road.

And if we need to pivot and fix something or change something, we know it early on instead of five, ten, fifteen years down the line.

Yeah.

That's my question. So that's that's what I would recommend. But thank you, Senator.

Then we'll take And

and if I can, I'm sorry. I I was going to answer that question more succinctly, and I apologize. I I got a little sidetracked thinking about the orchestra there. But what I was gonna say is that one of the main elements of the creation of the Office of Food Security and Affordability would be to create a three year strategic plan that would have very measurable metrics and KPIs, but the, but the number one, the number one of them being a reduction of food insecurity.

We shouldn't take pride in the fact that we distribute lots of food and that we serve a lot of people.

We should be measuring by are the lines getting shorter? And if they're not, then what is it that we're missing? And and I think those are the conversations that aren't necessarily being had right now that with the creation of this will start to be Harabedian and you'll see the needle moving in the right direction.

Thank you. I like that. So maybe if we can make sure we we have language in there to ensure that that

the strategic plan is being created and that there's a report out Legislature or whoever Yeah. To ensure that what the purpose is is actually getting done. Thank you.

Thank you.

And I do have a couple of comments and oh, Senator Laird, I apologize. I I forgot your issue.

Well, no. I I know you don't usually look to your right.

I always look to the right.

What do you mean?

Yes. Destroying the reelection. Nothing else. Thank you. And I'm sorry because I missed the opening statements and you may have addressed this.

But we learned during the pandemic that when the congregate meals shut down at schools and senior centers and childcare and other place, it was us putting all this extra money into food banks to cover the gaps. And I know you are championing the money for food banks this year and and I suspect you see that. But it seems to me that makes the case for this.

And I don't wanna I hope you don't get lost in the the three year strategic plan and everything else because when I was cabinet secretary doing a strategic plan was a recipe for me jumping off the top of a building. Because it would just be a laundry list of what people wanted rather than sometimes being addressing the question of what we're trying to fix.

And and in this case, I think it's things falling through the cracks with all the different silos of the way people get food. And I hope that's what this addresses. I think it's a very good concept. And I know we have a quorum, but I don't know if it's been called yet because at the appropriate time, I would move the bill.

Yes. We have not. Actually, great reminder right now, since we do have three members here, let's establish quorum, please.

[Roll call]

We have a And we have a quorum, so it'll be the first bill to get voted. So is that all Yes. Okay. Thank you. And I do you know, it's interesting because I I this is my sixth year here in the Senate, and I think I've seen quite a bit of history in the legislature starting new oversight, departments and efforts towards that end to ensure that what we currently have is working in place.

So we've seen this in different spaces. This is not the first one we see it in housing, dealing with homelessness. So we've we've seen quite a bit of those.

And my my hesitation is always that we have so many departments, so many agencies in our state, that my first instinct is to start, asking for accountability measures for the different state agencies and departments, audit auditing those, those entities to ensure that they are fulfilling the purpose of why they were created before we start establishing new and and more more programs or agencies or department. That's my hesitation with this bill.

I think in principle, I completely agree with you is is to address those gaps that are are occurring. But my first question would be, wouldn't it be best and you're probably gonna say no because otherwise, you would not be bringing this bill forward. But wouldn't it be a a good practice to start looking and and studying what we currently have before we move forward with an additional agency, an oversight agency?

Would you like me to answer? Sure. So I would just say that, I I think that this agency could be and do just that. You know, I I know that I've shared many conversations over the last, couple of years with many of of of my colleagues about the importance of food security to me, to my district, but really what food security means not just for my district, but for the state of California and for this nation.

I've always said food security is national security, and, that's one of the people that's the main reason why I'm pushing for this, because I've always believed that every individual, no matter what their background or, you know, where they come from, it has deserves to have access to food.

And, we know that there's been many challenges over the you know, over since 2020, but, even more so. Right? That we clearly need to address and we haven't. And when you when we don't address those and we don't address them with urgency, they really begin to break apart the foundation of our of our nation, of our communities. And and we know what food insecurity, food ins you know, can create in in countries and regions when people don't have access to it.

It's it's it's an important, issue. And I think that it's time that California, step up, create this office, and, make it work, and be an example for the nation. Again, food security is a national security issue and and and it I think it's long overdue to make this happen.

Which is going back Yeah. No problem with the principle of of what we're trying to do here, which is, you know, address food insecurity. But as mentioned earlier by by our witness is that we do have an incredibly generous state with many, many departments that are addressing food insecurity.

So once again, going back to the question is, should we start first in studying the current programs that we are that we are supporting in our state to ensure that they're doing best practices, that they are actually fulfilling their objectives of meeting that that food insecurity before we start creating another agency, another entity. That's that's where I'm I'm struggling with is, I don't know, I feel we need to figure out what we currently have before we move forward with something new.

So that that's probably my biggest biggest concern with with with the bill Because I I hate to see more and more entities created without addressing what we currently have in place and then meeting meeting those needs. That's that's I think my biggest concern is just here goes one more entity to address what the state has so generously been supporting in various ways through different entities. That's my biggest concern that I have. So but we do have a would you like to close Senator or go?

No. I appreciate the comments, the feedback, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And we have a motion by Senator Laird. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item five, s B1025. The motion is do passed to Governmental Organization Committee. [Roll call]

And we're gonna keep that on call for our absent members, but you have the votes to pass.

Thank you.

Thank you. Oh, we do have an author in the room, Senator Gonzales.

Madam, Chair.

Yes?

While the author is moving to the podium, I would move the three consent items. Item 1, Item 4, and Item 6.

So efficient, Senator Laird. This is what institutional knowledge and experience brings to the dias.

When you see me getting up and leaving while everybody's waiting for the calls being lifted, you'll remember this moment.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Consent calendar. Motion is to be adopted. [Rollcall]

Thank you very much. And we'll keep that on call for our absent members as well. And welcome, Senator Gonzales. You may proceed when you're ready.

And good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. I'm here to present SB 1052, which will authorize the State Council on Developmental Disabilities to make contingent appointments of authorized representatives to support people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in case of an emergency. People with intellectual and developmental disabilities who are served by regional centers often rely on family members who are involved or close friends to help them navigate services and express their desires.

If their family member is suddenly unable to provide support, they would be left without representation in regional center matters, which could result in gaps in essential services or individuals ending up in conservatorships, which are much more restrictive and strip away many of a person's legal rights.

And as the Federal Government conducts immigration raids on top of it all in our communities, more families are concerned about how family separation could impact their loved ones with disabilities. And SB 1052 addresses all of these fears by allowing the State Council to appoint a vetted backup representative when requested, likely another family member or close friend who could step in if needed.

Testifying in support today, I have Aaron Carruthers, the Executive Director of the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, as well as Josefina Romo of the Integrated Community Collaborative. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Gonzales. And after witnesses, welcome. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Josefina Romo. I am an immigrant, a person with disability, and a mother of two. One of my children, who has autism, is served by the regional center, North Bay Regional Center.

I am also an advocate with the Integrated Community Collaborative, ICC. Last year, I experienced a serious health episode. For several days, I could not take calls or manage paperwork. Not only was I very sick, but very worried and stressfully wondering. If I am not reachable, who will make sure my son's IPP meetings happen?

Who will ensure his services continue without interruption? This worry and concern is not mine alone. It's also a reality for many immigrant households across our state. In the communities we advocate and families are navigating not only complex disability systems, but also deep fear, fear of sudden separation, fear of immigration enforcement, and fear of system they do not fully understand or trust.

When a parent is suddenly unavailable, whether due to the tension, illness, or crisis, there is often no one formally recognized to step in and make decisions for their child with a disability.

I want to share a couple of brief stories. A father whose support was detained unexpectedly, his teenage son, who has significant developmental needs, was unexpectedly left in the care of a neighbor. The Regional Center could not move forward with decisions because there was no authorized representative in place. Services were delayed, critical supports were paused, and a young man person already vulnerable and confused, was left without stability during one of the most traumatic moments of his life. Sorry.

With another family, a mother was suddenly hospitalized. Her daughter, a young adult in a self-determination program, had no one recognized to support her budget decisions or communicate with providers. We passed it before support was reestablished. The system did not fail because people did not care. It failed because there was no clear pathways to someone to step in when it mattered most.

These are not isolated incidents. These are patterns. Assigning a representation is not about replacing families. It is about protecting them. It is about ensuring continuity, dignity, and stability when life becomes uncertain.

It gives families peace of mind knowing that if something happens, their loved ones would be safe and with the help they need. Our journey is hard and challenging, and we cannot control when a crisis comes. But we can decide whether families face it alone. I respectfully ask for your support of SB 1052 so that no child, no individual with a disability, is left without a voice when it matters most. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. My name is Aaron Carruthers. I am the child of parents with developmental and other disabilities.

Is it on? Okay, just wanna make sure your microphone was on.

How is it now?

I think so.

Thank you. I'm a child of parents with developmental and other disabilities. I'm a person with disabilities. I'm a parent of a young man with disabilities. I'm also the Executive Director of California's State Council on Developmental Disabilities.

The State Council is an independent state department created to listen to people with developmental disabilities and their families and find solutions together. One common question we often hear, and sometimes it's whispered, is, what happens to me, my family member, if something happens to me? This is any parent's greatest fear. It's particularly true of those with children with developmental disabilities.

Adding to this question, during a recent visit to an ICC cafecito, I heard Josefina's story along with hundreds others who have a new and greater reason to believe this fear could come true.

I left that night wondering how can a state council help, and it really was one of those middle-of-the-night moments when I realized I've got a current authority in law that can come to be in play here. Under current law, I, as Executive Director, can appoint an authorized representative when a person has no parent, guardian, or conservator. An authorized representative stands beside the person, not in place of them, and that person always has the right to accept or decline the help.

Senate Bill 1052 would strengthen this tool. It authorizes a contingent authorized representative.

This is really just a trusted backup who's named in advance. So if the primary supporter is unavailable, services don't collapse. Advocacy doesn't collapse. The bill also adds some safeguards to current law, puts in standards for when representation is needed, investigation with consent, and time-limited appointments with renewals. This bill also clarifies good cause.

So it's clear when we can remove somebody as an authorized representative. All of this is free to service to families, and it gives peace of mind to families to be able to plan ahead, really for the unthinkable. So I respectfully ask your consideration in making clear that my current authority can be used for today's threats to families with developmental disabilities.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any witnesses in support of SB 1052 here in Room 2200. Please approach the podium. And just as a reminder, it's a me too. So you're named, the organization that you represent, and your support or opposition on the bill.

Good afternoon. Evan Fern with Disability Rights California. In support.

Hi. My name is Carolina Arzate, ICC Integradora, and I'm here to support.

My name is Maria Granados. I support.

[Spanish]

My name is Maria Lopez, and I am Co-Founder of ICC. And also, we are here supporting with the State Council supporting the bill. And thank you, Senator, for being here supporting the bill. Thank you.

Hi. I'm Juan Martinez, and I'm gonna support the bill. So none of those ICE agent animals are trying to take away my family.

Okay. Thank you. We do just ask just for your name and organization, and position. Thank you.

Rubi Saldana, ICC Integradora, Co-Founder, mother of three. In support. Thank you.

My name is Jacqueline Casas. In support of the bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Jacqueline Vargas. I'm with ICC, and I support the bill. Thank you.

[Spanish]

Maribel Olmeda, Co-Founder of the ICC, mother of a special needs child, and I am here strongly supporting SB 1052. Thank you.

My name is Juan Cruz, and I'm here in support of SB 1052.

Good afternoon. My name is Fabiola Cruz. I'm a mother to two children with disabilities, also an Integrator from Integrated Community Collaborative. I'm here to fully support SB 1052, and thank you for giving us a platform to support this bill.

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

Hello. My name is Maria Hernandez, and I'm here to support SB 1052 so they could help our kids because we really need your help. Thank you.

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

Good afternoon. My name is Elizabeth Gomez. I am a mother of two young adults served by the Regional Center System. I'm also the Director of the Integrated Community Collaborative, and I'm here to support Senator Gonzales SB 1052. Thank you for listening to us today.

Thank you.

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

Dora Contreras, grandmother to a 33-year-old adult, and I want to thank especially Aaron Carruthers for attending our cafecito and listening to our needs. And thank you, Senator, for writing the bill. That is so much needed.

Good afternoon. My name is Selena Estrada. I'm a mother of two children, who have autism here from part of East LA Regional Center, and also here for the families that couldn't come from all the way over there. I wanted to say thank you to Senator Gonzales, to state council for creating this bill that means a lot to us because, as a mother, my biggest concern is what's gonna happen to my kids if I'm not here. So, I'm here today, but tomorrow, who knows? And so, I just wanna say thank you to everybody here, listening, and thank you.

Oscar Mercados. I'm an individual with autism served by the Regional Center, a Self-Advocate with the Integrated Community Collaborative, and most importantly, the son of a Hispanic immigrant in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Ted Jackson, CEO of the Marin Center for Independent Living and Matrix Parent Network. We serve 1,534 families in the North Bay with children with disabilities in support of this bill.

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

Hi. My name is Stephanie Cruz Lopez. My brother here is Autistic, and I support the SB 1052. Thank you.

My name is Juan Francisco Perez, and I support SB 1052.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for being here.

My name is Andrea, and I'm his PA, and I support SB 1052.

[Spanish]

Good afternoon. Emmalynn Chaubard with California Disability Services Association. In strong support.

Good afternoon. Tony Anderson with the Association of Regional Center Agencies, in support.

Good afternoon. Jordan Lindsay with the Arc of California, a proud Co-Sponsor of the bill. We thank the State Council and the assembly one for bringing this important issue forward. Thanks very much.

Thank you. Okay. Opposition witnesses. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Seeing none.

Do we have any opposition comments? Alright. We'll take it back to the members then. Would anyone like have any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I understand the intent of the bill. I have a couple of concerns, and then maybe a question of maybe a different approach to addressing the issue. I think my biggest concern, well, let me ask first. Currently, what is the approval process for someone who is an authorized representative?

Authorized representative.

Authorized representative.

Yes, an authorized representative. What's the proper term?

Authorized representative. What is currently the the renewal approval process for them?

And I can absolutely let Executive Director Carruthers answer.

Thank you, Senator. The request is received by our office. We have multiple ways people can request it. By phone, there's a portal talking to our offices. We receive this request.

We write them up. We have a standard format for information that we're looking for. Our staff then speaks to the person who's requesting it. If it's not the person with developmental disabilities themselves, then to the family members, to all involved. Depending upon the facts of the case, there may be others we're speaking to.

That information is then compiled into a recommendation, which is then reviewed by legal, sent to me for final decision.

Okay. And what is currently the time period for between the request, the evaluation, and the assignment?

Thirty days.

Thirty days. Okay. Which I think is pretty reasonable. I think that my biggest concerns is the logistics behind what this is actually going to be implementing. And part of it is the renewal process, the annual renewal process.

So right now, how long do you have before you have to renew your permit or your authorization?

Once a year is our current practice.

Okay. So this is not changing what current practice is?

Correct. The Senator's Bill puts current practice into law.

Okay. Alright. So that's more helpful. And then. I think. Okay. Where did I go? Sorry.

Okay. So if it doesn't changes, then the next part of my question does not relate. But I'll let you know what that concern was. Is the fact that, say, because it's, in my understanding, I did not know that it was, already required to do it annually. But my concern was, if it was required annually, what would that look like as far as the delay for authorizing?

Because the workload would be so much more expansive than what we currently have. But it's the same, so it doesn't matter. It's not relative to that. So good for that.

I can reassure that we track them on a timeline, make sure that we're doing our work ahead of that being cut off. So there is not a gap in coverage if there's a desire for the authorization to continue.

Okay. And then, has there been any considerations as far sorry, to the author. I apologize. Has there been any consideration in requiring people to do the authorization to be done at a time when they request a termination or a removal of a new authorized person?

At the same time, I will, of course, defer to the expert here, exactly.

My apologies if you could clarify the question.

So, has there been any consideration as far as maybe doing, instead of having to do it annually, having folks with IDD to retain their authorized representative until they request a change or termination, rather than doing it annually. Just so it's not so cumbersome.

Under this legislation, I think we would need to. It would require us to do something annually. So if that something is checking back in with a person, if it's reconducting another. I wanna get to the spirit of your question, which is really administrative ease.

Yeah. And that's my thing. To me, administrative legal, you know, bureaucracy always makes getting anything done difficult and expensive. So I'm just thinking of how do you streamline it so it's not so cumbersome, expensive. And especially for those that are applying, it just seems really redundant to do it annually. Just seems like a lot of work.

Yeah. Let's talk because I wanna see what can be done to relieve the administrative burden on families. They're already working on so much. And if this is already granted, really, it's we wanna make sure that the person still wants it. Circumstances haven't changed.

Everything's accurate. And there hasn't been any conflicts that have been developed. That's what we look for at the annual renewal.

And how, so it's thirty days before you get the approval done. But how long does it take for families to actually compile and address it and meet with you to get that approval?

That's all within the thirty days.

Oh, within thirty days.

Initially. And then we will start at month ten to make sure we don't go past twelve.

Okay. So if you indulge me, I wanna just explain in Spanish. So we have a lot of Spanish-speaking witnesses. I wanna explain what my question, my concern was.

[Spanish]

Thank you.

Senator, I took that time to just review the way the language is written specifically. And it states that it can be renewed annually. It doesn't specify the process, which I think allows for the administrative flexibility that you'd be seeking to make sure the burden is light on the families.

And we can certainly work on that more with more additional, you know, obviously, with information and some precedent that he may have, you know, at his direction now, which is his current authority. So we'd love to learn more, but I appreciate that. Ensuring that families have less of the administrative burden and just getting a faster representation, for sure. Thank you.

Alright. Any other comments? Questions? Well, I'm very supportive of the bill. I thank all the people who came, such a long way to testify and be here with us. Would you like to close?

I just wanna say thank you so much to Executive Director Carruthers and Miss Romo. This is an incredible bill. I can't tell you how many families have come to me from Regional Centers and the ICC families who have said thank you, thank you, thank you so much. And I'm just so very grateful that you absolutely did listen to these families, and this is their bill. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Okay. Senator Laird moves the bill. Why don't you call the roll and give us a motion?

File Item 7, SB 1052. The motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay. The dispute is zero. We'll keep that one on call. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Senator Gonzalez, we have your second bill.

Absolutely. Thank you, mister chair and members. I'm here to present SB1077, which will prepare California for potential future government shutdowns by requiring that the California Department of Social Services create a communications and contingency plan for disruptions to CalFresh benefits. As we all know, on October 1, the Federal Government shut down for forty three whole days, leaving over 5,000,000 Californians without access to their full CalFresh benefits for the month of November, a very scary time for our California families.

And California was also left without options to fill the gap.

Had the state wanted to appropriate funds to replace SNAP benefits, before low income individuals were directly harmed, it could have could not have done so, as the state simply does not have the infrastructure and capacity to act. So we obviously cannot afford this, and we want to ensure that our California families are Fed and that we do have the infrastructure to get it done quickly. With me to testify in support is Josh Wright from the California Association of Food Banks.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote on a SB1077.

Okay. Please go ahead. Shrant, you have two minutes.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Last year, California was affected by the longest federal shutdown in history. Among the impacts, the shutdown delayed the issuance of food benefits people on CalFresh, which is our state's most important anti hunger program. Millions of Californians rely on CalFresh, and for every meal that a food bank provides, CalFresh provides nine. When it became clear that the Federal Government would not issue benefits on time, widespread fear ensued.

The UC Nutrition Policy Institute conducted a study of food banks during the shutdown. Multiple sites studied had people show up between three and 6AM for distribution that started at 10AM because people were worried that the food would run out. Some sites had to make substitutions to ensure that all, people that came were served. We also pulled our food banks to better understand what they experienced after the shutdown was over. 92% of food banks reported that their average service numbers increased during the shutdown.

Our food banks reported significant increases in people seeking out food assistance. For example, one food bank reported a 330% increase in people using the food finder on their website. Another food bank reported that their call volume doubled week over week from 63 to 460 calls per week. While in while in this instance, California was able to act quickly to restore benefits, sixty percent of CalFresh recipients still experience a delay, and any delay has negative impacts on physical and mental health.

This shutdown demonstrates how important it is for California to increase our resilience against federal actions that harm the most vulnerable in our state.

SB1077 will ensure that Californians who rely on CalFresh have the food that they need by creating a mechanism for the Department of Social Services to rapidly issue benefits during a shutdown and will mitigate the panic over benefits loss by, requiring a strategic communications plan to ensure people know that their families will continue to be Fed regardless of what the Federal government does. CIFB is proud to support SB1077, and we urge your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Good afternoon, Mister Chair. Darby Kernan on behalf of End Child Poverty California in support.

Hi. Cloyce Turner with Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We will get our letter in where it's not there yet in support.

Alright. Any opposition witnesses? How about, opposition comments? Alright. With that, we'll take it back to the Members. Senator Weber?

Thank you, Chair. Really wanna thank Senator Gonzales, for bringing this bill forward. I don't think any of us could have imagined a time where people were not able to access their benefits, But really appreciate the fact that you are forward thinking to realize that this unfortunately may be something that happened again in the the this year and next year and to ensure that we in California are prepared for it for our residents' sake.

And so we'll move the bill. We'd love to be a co author. And once again, thank you so much for bringing this forward.

Yeah. Vice Chair? Yes.

Thank you, Mister Chair. So couple of questions as well. So I know we've the bill reflects on the twenty twenty five Federal Government shutdown for the lack of assistance. Two questions, I think, for me. Number one, what did California do when, the previous administration under Biden, we had a shutdown?

What what do we do back then?

I don't believe there was a delay in CalFresh benefits during that previous administration.

It wasn't it was too short of a period?

This one because it was so long, we ended up having a delay of six days for six days.

Okay. So it wasn't that long before that. No. Okay.

The other question and I that's as far as I go back. I didn't go back to any more delays prior to

Yeah. And this is, you know, agnostic to whoever is in Position. You know, in the Federal Government. We just wanna ensure that people are being fed. And forty three days is a long, long time.

But six days to go without benefits, without any fresh food is very long.

And so my my question then, falls onto what we currently have. So here, we're trying to to add another program. Why wouldn't we just work on Right? We're doing Is that what I understand? Another program?

Not necessarily. I mean, the program already exists. They had communicated via text, for the forty three day shutdown that had happened last year. We want to ensure that it's codified, that you that the the department actually has a robust communications plan that could include a web page. If people don't have smartphones and they don't have text messages, maybe there's another language that we forgot about that we need to include.

There could be so many other, issues, but it needs to be a robust communications plan. So, so elected officials understand, so the community understands, so everybody is on, hopefully, the same page as to what the shutdown means and and how long it may or may not take to take to get their benefits.

And then secondary to that in this bill, we require some sort of, like, step forward to create the infrastructure so that if, you know Again, it's it's very limited right now because of the Federal Government, that has the infrastructure to be able to, you know, implement and actually give the benefits to people. We wanna ensure that there's a state, program and system in place.

So that way, we can do that if there is a federal, shutdown and we're not barred from providing fresh food to our our families.

Okay. So for clarification purposes, because I completely understand the the goal, but according to my notes here, it says that it requires that California Department of Social Services to develop a secondary emergency food assistance program for CalFresh recipients using state resources to ensure that they're not in lapse in coverage in the event of a Federal Government shutdown. So I think that's where my my question was lying is developing a secondary emergency food assistance program versus just maybe doubling what we currently have under CalFresh.

you're saying kind of the same thing, but I will defer to our,

I think

But do you understand where yes.

I understand what you're saying.

I I think the issue is this is a CalFresh is a federal program that the state administers. If there's a shutdown and there's an inability for the Federal Government to issue the to pass the money under the state to be able to issue the benefits, there is no state tool currently to be able to just turn on even if we want to. We wanna have that discussion and turn on a way to get benefits out.

And so that I think we're trying to make sure that there's a tool that we have as a resource so that if there's another shutdown that goes, you know, God forbid, long enough to impact people's food benefits, the state has the the capacity, the technological capacity to be able to issue the benefits in that interim period.

Oh. It doesn't not intended I'm sorry. Not intended to replace CalFresh. It's not a a additional program as much as a just a tool that's ready to augment in the in event of a need.

So what we currently have, just making sure that it it's that the state can, one, allocate funding for it, I'm assuming?

Yes. Allocate? Well, to be able to distribute to the EBT cards is is more of the issue. The state a state funded distribution system.

So it's still but it would require the state coming in with the funding and then having the ability to put it onto those debit cards that would otherwise be federally, structurally sent over there. Is that correct?

Yes. Yes.

Of an appropriation by the state. Absolutely. But we again, we don't want any family to go hungry. Yeah. That's the that's the issue here.

I mean, to go a whole week without food is a long time.

No. No. And I and I understand that. I was just trying to figure out because another I was trying to understand the logistics behind what the goal was when I read that there was a to develop a secondary emergency food assistance program. My thought was why do we need to develop a second one when we could just probably just directly fund CalFresh itself?

This bill would require. Yes.

Okay.

Yeah. The direct.

So Right.

Thank you. Thank you. And I think I think those were my two questions or my concerns in it. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Okay. Anyone else? Well, we have a motion from Senator Weber. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Did we hear from supporters? We did. Didn't we? Yeah.

I'm just I'm sorry.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

I'm going back and forth here. I'm I'm in two different committees in my head, so my apologies.

Because we had so many in the former one.

I know.

My, well, thank you so much. I just wanna say thank you and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. We wanna make sure California families are Fed throughout shutdowns.

Well, thank you. I I wanna I wanna also, add my thanks for your bringing this bill forward. It was a, a really scary time for for our state. And I remember my my team on their own the kids came up with idea of doing an emergency food drive because they were so concerned about people who were gonna be left without the without CalFresh. And so for, a number of weeks, our district office was turned into a a food storage and food distribution.

But it was really wonderful to see the community rally. But, hopefully, we do we'll not have to go through that again with your bill. So I will be supporting the bill today. Will you please read the motion and and call the roll? Thanks.

Title item eight, SB1077. Motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Okay. So it's 40. We'll keep it on call. Thank you, Senator Gonzales. Next up, I see Senator McNerney.

You have file item nine, SB1201.

Go ahead. Good afternoon, Chair Becker, vice chair Ochoa Bogue, distinguished members of the committee. I'm here today to present SB1201, the No Hungry Heroes Act, clearly aimed at veterans or to benefit veterans. I wanna thank the committee staff for their work and HR1, and I won't call it a name. HR1, enacted a very large and very harmful cut to food assistance nationwide.

These federal cuts specifically targeted vulnerable veterans. Veterans who are currently homeless, veterans who are raising children, veterans awaiting disability determinations from the veterans administration. Veterans rely on CalFresh to feed their families and often face higher poverty and lower unemployment because of health challenges such as post traumatic stress disorder or brain injuries.

SB1201 helps protect veterans from these cuts by directing the state to request federal workers of excuse me, federal waivers to exclude job search costs of income and to ease work requirements for vulnerable veterans. SB1201 also ensures that every veteran who applies for benefits is connected to the county veteran service officer that's relevant.

With me, in testimony, I have, two two testifiers. Roberto Alvarez on behalf of the California Association of Veterans Service Officers, and Josh Wright on behalf of the California Association of Food Banks.

Alright. Excellent. You both have two minutes.

And Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share why this bill is vital for California's veterans and their families. My name is Roberto Alvarez. I'm a member of the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers, and I'm an army veteran myself. So our members serve veterans across the state, and we see firsthand how difficult the transition to civilian life can be. When military service builds exceptional leadership, resilience, and versatility, those qualities do not always translate into the specific credentials that employers demand.

As a result, transitioning out of a uniform frequently does not always lead to immediate employment. Previously, veterans had CalFresh exemptions that reflected the reality of this complex transition. Recent federal changes to SNAP eliminated those exemptions creating an untenable situation for service members, especially those with the young families. Additionally, for unhoused veterans newly the newly discharged or those awaiting disability determinations, their pathways requires additional support.

SB1201 would allow the state to seek federal waivers to ensure these vulnerable veterans as well as those with children are not unfairly penalized.

Furthermore, under current guidelines, out of pocket cost include incurred during job search like travel or professional certification fees are counted as available income. This calculation ignores the reality that these funds are unavailable for basic necessities like food and housing. Critically, SB1201 mandates direct referrals to, county veteran service officers for additional assistance by ensuring all veterans applying to CalFresh across different agencies, are connected to CVSOs.

It would allow a proactive approach to help some of the jurisdictional barriers that, veterans face when trying to engage benefits and services. As CBS shows, one of our greatest strengths is our understanding of the veteran community.

Many of us have served or come from military families, giving us the cultural understanding to meet their specific needs. Thank you.

Last year on July 4, Congress passed HR1, which included the largest cuts to the SNAP program known in California as CalFresh in the program's over sixty year history. It cannot be overstated how important the CalFresh program is. Over 5,000,000 Californians rely on the food benefits they receive from CalFresh every month, and food banks cannot make up the difference. For every meal our food banks provide, CalFresh provides nine. These federal cuts impact people that are particularly vulnerable to food insecurity, including abuse and trafficking survivors, families with

children, former foster youth, survivors, families with children, former foster youth, and veterans. HR1 added a three month time limit on veterans, which requires them to report twenty hours of work per week or lose benefits after those three months. These requirements apply even if a veteran has children in their home, and there are no exceptions if the veteran is unhoused, has a less than 100% disability diagnosis, or is recently discharged. In California, over 100,000 veteran families rely on the vital food benefits that CalFresh provides.

Recognizing the unique challenges that veterans face after service, s p twelve o one does three things.

One, it requests a federal waiver to exempt veterans from the CalFresh time limits if they are homeless, newly discharged, awaiting a disability determination, or if they have children. Two, it requires counties to give veterans who apply, for benefits a direct referral to county veteran service officers who are best prepared to serve Americans who have served. And three, it ensures that the money that veterans spend on job searching does not count against them being able to receive food assistance.

Taking away food never helps anyone find a job, keep a job, or get more hours at a job. And making veterans hungry will never make us a better country.

The California Association of Food Banks has asked Congress to repeal HR1 food cuts to veterans and their families, and you should too. Until they do, the least we can do is make sure that we are all in California protecting our veterans who are who are at risk of going hungry. For those reasons, we are proud to support SB1201, and we urge your aye vote.

Well, thank you both. Do we have any other witnesses in support?

Darby Kernan on behalf of End child poverty California in support. Thank you.

Mister Chair, Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California on behalf of our county workers and our workers at VSOs, in strong support. Thank you so much.

Cloyce Turner on behalf of the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Association, also an ex, of a veteran, in strong support.

Thank you for your service. Okay. Do you have any opposition witnesses? Any opposition comments? Alright.

Turn it back to the Members. Any comments, Ajay? We have a motion, from Senator Laird. I wanna thank you for bringing this forward as well. And, this is something we need to correct and I appreciate just being on top of it and and just see if we can act swiftly to go ahead and get these waivers to get this done.

So thank you. Be supporting the bill today.

I would like to close. Well, again, I I thank the committee for, hearing this bill. I thank the witnesses, for speaking up this morning or this afternoon. HR1, is hurting our veterans among others. At least we can take this step to make sure that veterans have access to food and their families.

And with that, I'll ask for an aye vote.

Okay. I have a motion for Senator Laird. Please call the roll.

File item nine. SB1201, motion is do passed to Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. [Roll call]

Alright. That is 330. We'll keep it on call. Thank you. I think we'll go with, Senator Laird next.

You have, SB1261. Go ahead when ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and, members. This bill ensures aging and disability resource connections or ADRCs in the acronym jargon, a statewide may continue operating during major transitions affecting aging services. These, agencies serve as a no wrong door system to connect people with the resources they need regardless of age or disability. State law requires every ADRC to have both an area agency on aging and independent living center as core partners.

Under current law, these changes would force the ADRCs serving the three counties in my home area, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura, to close even though community members still depend on their services every day.

This bill allows to an ADRC to continue operating, excuse me, for at least one year and up to two years if its area agency on aging or independent living center can no longer serve in its operator role. This transition period ensures essential services remain uninterrupted while a replacement partner is designated. Once a new partner's in place, full joint operation of the ADRC will be reestablished.

While this bill is spurred by a situation that is in my district, it would actually apply statewide to anyone that had this kind of problem or this kind of experience. The bill has no registered opposition.

With me here to testify is Jennifer Griffin, executive director of Access Central Coast and Christina Mills, executive director of the California Association of Area Agencies on Aging at the appropriate time, I would respectfully request an iPhone.

Okay. Well, thank you both for being here and you each have two minutes.

Thank you.

Good Good afternoon, Chairman Becker and members. My name is Christina Mills. I'm the executive director of the California Association of Area Agencies on Aging, the 33 area agencies on aging across our state. I'm here in strong support of SB 1261, which C4A is a proud sponsor of. This bill is about continuation of support services.

Aging and Disability Resource Centers, ADRCs, serve as a critical entry point into community based, cost effective, long term services and supports. They provide trusted person centered information and assistance to help people remain safely in their homes and communities. For many, ADRCs are where everything begins, where navigation truly starts. They help individuals and families navigate how to bring a loved one home from institutional settings, whether a hospital, a nursing facility, or even incarceration.

They connect older adults to home delivered meals, health care counseling, and so so much more.

They support people with disabilities who often fall between the cracks and help them avoid costly institutional care. These services are not only the right supports, they are the building blocks for California's no wrong door system. But under current law, when an ADRC partner undergoes a transition, the ADRC designation can be lost. When that happens, services don't just pause, they will disappear. SB 1261 provides a simple practical fix.

It ensures continuity of ADRC services during transitions, so individuals do not lose access to their critical entry points of care. This bill does not create a new program. It simply preserves what already is working. At a time when California's older adult population is growing, we cannot afford disruptions and access to the vital supports and services we need for older adults and people with disabilities to thrive. SB 1261 ensures that the door stays open.

On behalf of C4A, I respectfully thank you in advance for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Jennifer Griffin. I am the executive director of Access Central Coast, the independent living center serving Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo Counties. And I am here in support strong support of SB 1261. On the Central Coast, we have two ADRCs. One in Ventura County and the other serving Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.

And both have faced the risk of losing their designation. In Ventura County, we are grateful that the Board of Supervisors paused revocation of the Area Agency on Aging, giving us about a year to continue operating. But without a policy solution like SB 1261, that pause only delays disruption. It does not solve the underlying issue. In Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties, the situation is more urgent.

Without this bill, the existing ADRC partnership, its relationships, the infrastructure, and trust will be terminated, forcing any future ADRC to start from scratch. That means real people in need waiting while a system rebuilds, not because it's failed, but because current law does not allow continuity through transition. Access. They lose guidance when bringing a loved one home from a hospital or avoiding unnecessary institutionalization. They lose a trusted partner to help navigate complex systems and make informed choices about their care and independence.

SB 1261 is a practical fix. It allows ADRCs to remain intact during transitions, so communities are not forced to rebuild and individuals do not fall through the cracks. Without it, we are being asked to maintain continuity in a system that does not allow for it. On behalf of Access Central Coast and ADRC partnerships across California, I respectfully ask for your support of SB 1261. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support?

Good afternoon, senators. Dan Oakenfuss with the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers. We are cosponsors, and we're here in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ted Jackson. I'm the public policy chair at California Foundation for Independent Living Centers and CEO of Marin Center for Independent Living. Our ADRC one door Marin serves 1,700 people in addition to what we serve at the ILCs and the AAA successfully, and I don't know what we would do if we would lose that partnership in full support.

Our program is, very impacted by what's happening in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara County AAA, where it's completely failed, and services are really in a mess right now. So thank you for your support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. Elizabeth Espinoza here today on behalf of the County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jason Sullivan Halpern, California Long Term Care Ombudsman Association in strong Support.

Good afternoon. Brandy [unintelligible] for independent living and a core partner in the Yolo And Sacramento ADRC is in very strong support. Thank you.

Andrew Mendoza on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association in support.

Susanna Meyer, on behalf of Empowered Aging, strong support.

Good afternoon. Charmaine Brent with Empowered Aging and in very strong support.

Alright. Do we have any opposition lead witnesses? Any opposition me too's? I see none. Let's bring it back to the committee.

Any thoughts, questions? Well, thank you. I will be, supporting the bill today. As you mentioned, we do have a significantly aging, population here in this state, and we do need to make sure that, as the Senator said, that, you know, we don't have those kinds of gaps in the service, and we have to make sure we have to get the continuity of these essential services. So I will be supporting the bill, today.

Do we have a motion? Senator Weber moves the bill. Please call the roll.

Oh, we have a close. I would ask for

My vote. Okay. Since I see the way this is going. Yeah.

Yes.

File item 10, SB1261. Motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Okay. 30, and we'll keep it on call. Thank you.

Our next bill will be file item 11, SB 1110 by Senator Becker.

Good morning. Good afternoon now. Okay. I was prepared for both here. Pleased to present SB 1110.

I would like to thank the committee and staff for working on this bill. The nearly 1,800,000 children in California eligible for affordable childcare but not enrolled. The families behind that number, working parents navigating complex systems, children who would benefit from quality early learning, are the reason that this bill exists. As California transitions to enrollment based funding on 07/01/2026, we need to assure the anticipated transition strengthens the childcare system. This bill builds a more stable and robust childcare subsidy system.

It's based on a solid infrastructure and resource for consistent services to childcare providers. Currently, alternative payment programs do the hands on work of enrolling families, managing cases, and connecting parents to providers. But current law lumps that work together with back office overhead under a single cap that has not kept pace with reality. This bill creates a transparent funding structure that recognizes the difference between administrative overhead and direct family services and ensures that even the smallest community based agencies have the resources to keep serving families.

This bill originally, also required a direct contract care center to be reimbursed based on an 85% enrollment threshold.

We, are aware now that we need to align the bill with the 2025 budget, so we will be removing that provision, from the bill, going forward. So I plan to address that before the bill gets to the Senate floor. The approach that takes, is focused on necessary administrative fixes in responsible manners. I said the bill is a work in progress. I do intend on addressing those concerns.

And with me today to testify, we have, Donna Sieringer from the California Child Care Resource Center and Alicia Hatfield from Every Child California.

Thank you, Senator. You will each have two minutes for your presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members, and thank you to Senator Becker. My name is Donna Sneeringer and I'm the president of the Child Care Resource Center. My organization is a community based nonprofit. We provide child care services Northern Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties in Southern California. We administer a wide array of programs aligned with our mission to cultivate child, family, and community well-being.

For over fifty years, we've administered contracts with the state of California to provide subsidies to our to families in our community, and we currently serve over 60,000 children. Across the state, these contracts offer the state a cost effective and expedient delivery system to provide childcare to hundreds of thousands of children. Along with our fellow contractors across the state, we have partnered to deliver services and offer support to families as they navigate their childcare needs.

Immediately prior to and during the Great Recession starting in about 2006, there were significant reductions made to our reimbursement for services. Many of these reductions happened with a false understanding of program services offered.

Our reimbursement was framed simply as administrative rate, which was misconstrued to only mean indirect. When in reality, the work of the program includes significant direct client services to families, including enrollment case management, support in selecting and changing care for their children, and in supporting the holistic needs of families. In the sixteen years since these reductions were made, the work we do and the environment in which we operate has completely changed. Labor costs have increased 106%. California increased the minimum wage since 2010 from $8 per hour to $16.50.

California now has a union in childcare where they agree to and negotiate different terms. California has seen dramatic increase in cost of insurance, including our umbrella liability and general liability insurance. Cyber insurance didn't exist, and now we are required to carry significant coverage. And we have had to really lean into learning about HIPAA and FERPA and all the things to protect the data of our clients. And we have had increased program integrity measures.

So during the pandemic, our organizations were called upon to swiftly deliver relief and one time payment to providers. Since that time, the state has entered into multiple agreements which require us to make additional payments per child in a care cost plus stipend.

Thank you. Thank you.

Can I add just the three things it'll do?

You're thirty seconds over.

Thirty seconds. Okay. This bill will ensure...

No you're thirty seconds over already.

Oh, okay. Well, it would ensure better staffing and better planning and a stronger business structure, so we thank you for your time and thank you, Senator Becker.

Thank you, you may begin.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Alicia Castaneda Hatfield, senior legislative and government relations advisor for Every Child California, a statewide nonprofit representing 2,500 publicly funded early care and education programs across California. This bill was informed by a critical truth that the cost of operating a high quality childcare center is not driven by attendance and does not experience static enrollment. Regardless of short term fluctuations, programs must maintain staff, classrooms, and safe operations daily. Before the pandemic, California's reimbursement structure was attendance driven and deeply unstable.

Even small attendance disruptions caused by family wellness issues, work schedule changes, or eligibility resulted in immediate revenue loss. Programs absorb that instability through money saving mechanisms that aren't sustainable and frankly didn't feel right because they're not how the field wanted to show up for communities. During the COVID pandemic, hold harmless was a tool utilized to preserve the state funded early learning centers. This kept programs open, staff employed, and service available to families during the pandemic.

Now, as the state puts down the use of this tool, programs have not had the chance to restabilize the way that we envisioned.

With new conditions that have been introduced creating more volatility and challenging programs that programs are navigating. Today, programs are managing changes brought on by the expansion of universal transitional kindergarten.Operating and material costs rising wildly and family mobility issues, including disruptions tied to broader enforcement and community conditions, as well as ongoing persistent workforce shortages and mid year enrollment shifts.

These are structural conditions that have become part of the operating environment, which is why contract earning stabilization issues have become a priority. This bill is a stability mechanism, not a funding enhancement. It helps preserve access for families, reduces disruption for children, and gives programs a more realistic chance to remain open and staffed for the communities they rely on.

We also recognize that there is work to continue on this bill, and we look forward to continuing the work with the author and stakeholders for the amendments we need to move forward.

Thank you so much. We will now hear from any others in the audience. I would like to speak in support. Please just state your name, your organization, and your position.

Good afternoon, chair. Committee members I'm Blake Johnson on behalf of Child Action, a proud cosponsor here in support.

Thank you.

Mackenzie Richardson with Thriving Families California Foundation, cosponsor in strong support.

Thank you.

Maéva Renaud with Kidango in strong support.

Thank you.

Hello, Sophia Quach on behalf of Children's Paradise in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Nicole Moroles on behalf of Children Now in support.

Thank you.

Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Thank you. Seeing no further individuals coming to the mic, we will now allow for any lead witnesses in opposition. If there are any lead witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Seeing none, if there's any others that would like to register their opposition, please come to the mic. State your name, your organization, and your position.

Seeing none, I will now move it back to the committee. Senator Laird.

I just make a brief comment, because the original version of this bill had the section that was referred to by the author where I know the budget committee had some concerns about how it related to the budget deal on this issue last year and you have removed that section. So I just want to acknowledge it and at the appropriate time I will be happy to support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments, would you like to close?

No. Yeah. Thank you to, all those who weighed in and, it's really important to get this destabilization, I think, as was mentioned. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Becker. Do I see a motion? Move by Senator Laird. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item 11, SB 1110. Motion is do passed to education committee. Becker?

Becker, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Laird? Laird, aye. Perez?

Aye.

Perez, aye. Weber Pierson? Aye. Weber Pierson, aye.

That's four zero. The bill is on call.

Mister chair? Mister chair? I know we have one author, but we have one bill that was presented before we had a quorum. And and that is item number two by Senator Reyes, and I would move that bill. Like I said, I would support the motion of Senator Weber Pierce.

Senator Weber?

Do you want me to call the roll?

Yes. Let's call the roll on that with the motion from Senator Weber.

File item two. Motion is due oh, sorry. File item two, SB 969. Motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker?

Becker, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Laird? Laird, aye.

Perez?

Aye.

Perez, Aye. Weber Pierson?

Weber Pearson, Aye.

Aye.

And, I'm gonna present the final bill from Senator Menjivar.

We will now move to file item number three, SB 991 by Senator Menjivar, which will be presented by Senator Becker. You may begin when you are ready.

Thank you. Happy to present this bill on behalf of Senator Menjivar. Currently, if, one was to look up a specific residential care facility and there's a violation associated with it, it would be categorized broadly as a violation of resident's rights rather than a specific type of abuse. So we can't tell if a facility had a rat infestation or if staff were found to have scammed an elder resident into writing a a $30,000 check.

A resident having bed sores would be categorized the same as resident getting assaulted.

That's why SB991 is important because it'll ensure that we are promoting elder abuse accountability and residential care facilities for the elderly. By using categories found in existing statute, we are asking to clearly define types of abuse such as physical abuse, abandonment, abduction, financial abuse, isolation, mental suffering, neglect, just to name a few. By doing so, we can improve how standardized, how substantiated reports of abuse and neglect are categorized by CSS and their public facing licensing enforcement database.

Because the current umbrella category doesn't, for example, allow for family members looking for facility to clearly know what type of violations are occurring, It doesn't allow policy makers to address matters if we don't know the specific form of violation. Testifying in support of this bill, Krista, Barnett, Executive Director of Senior Advocacy Services, and Karen Jones, the Executive Director of Long Term Care Ombudsman Services in San Luis BISPO County.

Thank you. You will each have two minutes for your presentation.

Thank you. My name is Karen Jones. I'm the Executive Director of Long Term Care Ombudsman Services of San Luis BISPO County. I'm also representing the California Long Term Care Association and also known as CALCOA. Several years ago in San Luis Obispo County in a residential care facility for the elderly that is licensed by Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, a facility staff person walked into a resident's private room and found a male staff person sexually assaulting a resident.

The resident was highly intelligent, fully competent, but had a medical condition that left her unable to talk or move her body. The licensing agency cited the facility for violating the resident's rights. Weeks earlier, at another residential facility for the elderly, a staff person was observed failing to wear a mask. This was during COVID. That facility was also cited for a resident's rights violation.

I cannot say it loudly enough that sexual assault and failing to wear a mask are not the same level of harm, but that is what the current community care licensing information system implies. Unfortunately, these were not limited one time incidents. Over the past several years, San Luis Obispo County has experienced multiple situations where residents in residential care facilities for the elderly and licensed by Community Care Licensing were cited for residents rights violations that were abused.

This includes a hospice nurse who discovered one of her patients at a six bed facility tied by bed sheets to all four limbs to the bed posts. The staff admitted they had tied her.

The daughter of a resident in another facility found her dad's arms tied with garbage bags to the wheelchair arms. Those facility staff also admitted to tying their dad to his to the wheelchair. And then more recently, an ombudsman walked into a care facility, residential facility for the elderly, and found a resident tied with a gate belt, which is a type of belt to the recliner. These are absolutely abuse and not appropriate.

In response to these incidents, I had several meetings with the licensing agency to discuss the reasons they were citing abuse as rights violations rather than the more obvious issue, which was abuse.

What I was told was that they did not have a regulation or a law that they could cite as abuse. The nearest option would be the penal code and they do not cite criminal law. The ombudsman program is very familiar with coding complaints and outcomes. We have our own information system that provides a number for everything that can happen in a facility. For instance, physical abuse is A1, while the resident's rights violations are D9.

This is the national ombudsman reporting system. Every four years, that system is reviewed and updated to make sure it's statistically valid. Each takes

Five seconds.

Oh, dear. Okay. Well, we have our own system. We know what it takes to make them better and this bill makes it better. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Krista Barnett. It doesn't look like Oh, sorry. Sorry. No, I think he turned it off. My name is Krista Barnett and I'm here on behalf of Senior Advocacy Services that provides long term care ombudsman services in Sonoma County and also the California Long Term Care Ombudsman Association.

Every day, our program works directly with residents of residential care facilities, also known as assisted living, and we respond to those complaints of neglect, abuse, and exploitation. We see firsthand how difficult it is for the residents and their families to understand what is actually happening when something goes wrong. Under current law, Department of Social Services substantiates abuse, as Karen mentioned, that a violation is a resident's rights violation. We know that's technically accurate, but it does not tell the full story. It doesn't make that distinction and that specificity matters.

For families trying to choose a safe place for a loved one, a public database the public database does not provide meaningful insight into the patterns of harm. For policymakers and regulators, it limits the ability for us to identify trends and target interventions. For advocates like us, it makes it harder to hold the systems accountable for future harm. SB991 offers a straightforward, common sense solution.

It simply requires that when abuse is substantiated, it's categorized as abuse by community care licensing according to the existing definitions already established.

Importantly, this bill does not change the definition of abuse, raise the standard of proof, or increase penalties. It does not create new violation. It only improves how existing findings are classified and shared. This is about transparency, it's about giving families clear, accurate information, and it's about ensuring that the data we rely on to oversee these facilities truly reflects the experiences of residents. In a state where our older adult population is rapidly growing, we must do better to ensure accountability in long term care settings.

Clear and accurate reporting is a critical step towards that goal. On behalf of those residents we serve, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB991. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you so much. If there's anyone else in the audience that would like to register their support, please come to the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your position. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Evan Fern with Disability Rights California in support.

Good afternoon. Jason Sullivan Hawburn. I'm the director of the California Long Term Care Ombudsman Association. I'm also acting as a proxy for Consumer Attorneys of California. I just wanna say that, this bill does not, the current the current system does not do justice to the experiences of victims and it does not provide the state with data which would with which we can use to prevent abuse.

Thank you.

Megan Barve with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Elise Bremer, the San Mateo County Ombudsman, program and executive director of Age Up in strong support.

Thank you.

Andrew Mendoza on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association in support.

Thank you.

Faye Gordon, California's State Long Term Care Ombudsman in strong support of this common sense bill to improve needed transparency in long term care facilities. Thank you.

Thank you.