Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

We can establish a quorum. We will begin as a subcommittee. We have 21 bills, on the agenda today. Seven of those are on the proposed, consent, calendar. Let's see.

Our first author in file order, would be, Blanco Rubio. Oh, no, Ramos. There you are. Thank you. Assemblymember Ramos.

I had not looked at her. I saw Aaron here Aaron's here early, but Assemblymember Ramos is up first. Yeah.

Well, thank you, mister chair, for adhering to the file order. Appreciate that. Today, I'm presenting AB 308, which directs the Department of Developmental Services to conduct a statewide evaluation of the safety training services offered through state regional centers. This bill comes in the wake of the Department of Justice SB 882 advisory board report, which aim to assess law enforcement interactions with individuals who have intellectual or developmental disabilities and mental health conditions.

The report made clear that California must move beyond crisis response and invest in prevention and preparedness for the care of our IDD population, as well as cross coordinating of support services to address their needs.

AB 308 aims to further assess the current state of our regional centers by reviewing their safety programs to ensure they appropriately account for communication barriers and sensory sensitivities. In an emergency, preventive services should be accessible to all. These services should include training for the de escalation of difficult situations. And most importantly, ensure law enforcement is not the default responder in a crisis. Families must be able to trust that their loved ones are protected from further trauma, hospitalization, or unnecessary involvement with the justice system.

With me today is Beth Burt, executive director for the autism society of the Inland Empire to provide testimony on this important issue.

Thank you. Welcome. You have two minutes.

Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair members. My name is Beth Burt. I am the executive director of the autism society. I also had the recent privilege of serving on the SB 882 advisory council on improving interactions between people with intellectual developmental disabilities and law enforcement. Most importantly, I'm a parent. I have a young man with autism and another young man with behavioral health challenges. And they and the thousands of families we serve are why I'm here today. More than one in four individuals that are served by regional centers, over a hundred and forty thousand are considered to have moderate to severe behavioral challenges.

That means they could be aggressive towards themselves, to others, and destroy property. These are not numbers. These are our families. These are our neighbors. These are our friends.

Let me share what is at stake. Ryan Gaynor was a 15 year old boy with autism in my community. During a behavioral health crisis, his family did what they were told to do, call 911. Unfortunately, the situation escalated and he was shot and killed in his front yard. Families across the front yard.

Families across the state are living with this fear every day. Who do I call for help? AB 308 can change that. It requires statewide evaluation of safety services and supports so we can understand what exists, where the gaps are, and what it'll take to build a consistent system of support. This matters because of the thousands of families we serve.

This matters because the information Harabedian available. Ryan and his family might had another choice. We are proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. I respectfully urge you to I vote on AB 308. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Okay. We'll now look to, anyone who'd like to add on in support, of this bill. Please step forward. Do we have, Opposition witnesses?

Any so, support, please. Go ahead.

Cesar Gonzalez Garcia with the California Rural Indian Health Board, and we support the bill. Thank you.

Veronica Bravo here with the Council on Developmental Disabilities here in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Julie Sherman, Director of Public Policy for the ARC and United Cerebral Policy California collaboration in support.

Okay. Excellent. Do the lead opposition witness or anyone's to comment in opposition? I'll take it back to the to the members. Any members, any questions, comments?

Happy to move the bill at the appropriate time.

Okay. I want to say from my own standpoint, I just want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. My brother-in-law is autistic and we really, you know, this is obviously been something that's, you know, we hear about the well publicized cases in the media, but we know that it's also much deeper than that. And there's many more interactions that that may not turn deadly, but are are still, you know, leave lasting scars. So we really appreciate you, bringing this forward today.

Why don't we go give us a moment. Let's establish a quorum.

Becker? Here. Becker, here. Ochoa Bogh? Here.

Achobog, here. Laird? Perez? Weber Pearson?

Here.

Weber Pearson, here.

Yeah. Okay. We do have a quorum. So with that, I invite you to close.

Well, thank you, mister chair and, senators, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Please hold the roll.

Becker?

Aye.

Becker, aye. Achobok? Aye. Achobok, aye. Laird?

Perez? Weber Pearson?

Aye.

Weber Pearson,

aye. Okay. That is 3 - 0. We'll keep that that on call. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Ramos.

Okay. We'll do the consent calendar while we have a quorum here. We have eight bills on the proposed consent calendar. Seven. Seven.

Hold on. What's what's one Sec. One give us one moment. We have seven bills on the proposed consent calendar file file items four, five, six, nine, ten, fifteen, and 16. Do I have a motion on the consent calendar?

Motion from

Motion. Doctor. Wilbur Pearson.

Consent calendar. Becker?

Becker, aye. Achobog? Aye. Achobog, aye. Laird, Perez, Webber Pearson?

Aye.

Aye. Weber Pearson, aye.

Alright. That's 3-0 on the consent calendar. We will also hold that open. Okay. Staying with file, file order.

I I see, assembly member Rodriguez. You go ahead. You'll have, file item two, AB 1049.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Becker and members of the committee. I want to start by thanking the committee for their thoughtful analysis. AB 1049 is a measure that removes a complicated rule called sponsor deeming from the eligibility determination process in the California food assistance program, commonly referred to as CFAP. CFAP is California's state funded food assistance program for people who are excluded from federal CalFresh benefits because of their immigration status.

At a time when federal actions are leaving more immigrant families without access to food assistance, California must make sure its own safety net programs are clear, accessible, and responsive to the needs of our communities. The current rule muddies the understanding of a person's real financial situation. An individual may look like they have access to resources on paper while they are struggling to afford food to feed their family. This rule also adds confusion and fear to the application process.

Families may be unsure whether applying for food assistance will affect their sponsor, their immigration status, or their family's safety.

AB 1049 addresses this gap by removing sponsor deeming from CFAP. This change allows eligible families to be evaluated based on the resources they actually have, not income they will never see. AB 1049 strengthens California's food safety net by making CFAP easier for families to access and easier for counties to administer. Today, I have with me Ezer Pimentuan from the Alameda County Community Food Bank and Lena Silver from Neighborhood Legal Services Los Angeles to provide testimony.

Okay. Welcome to both of you. Go ahead. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Izzar Pimentuan, senior policy advocate at Alameda County Community Food Bank based in Oakland and member of the statewide Food for All Coalition. Most people are aware of the work food banks perform distributing fresh produce and other healthy meals to the community.

But equally important is the work we do connecting our neighbors to critical nutrition programs like CalFresh and CFAP, the state funded equivalent to CalFresh, for Californians ineligible for the federal SNAP program due to their immigration status. The food bank has an interest in ensuring that our immigrant neighbors face fewer barriers to accessing the state funded equivalent to CalFresh, which currently imposes the burdensome sponsor deeming rule as part of its application process.

We urge the committee to advance AB 1049, which would eliminate this rule for CFAP. I would like to read a quote from one of the food bank's outreach associates about their experience guiding clients through the sponsor deeming process. Quote, there are challenges, especially with advocating with some eligibility workers, about which sponsor deeming exemption the client meets. It sometimes makes clients withdraw from the application process because of this.

There is often a lot of back and forth and hard to sometimes show how they are no longer in contact, for example, with their sponsors, Or the sponsor deeming asks for a lot of paperwork from the sponsor, like bank statements and assets, which can be hard to obtain, end quote.

Because of its complexity, the the sponsor deeming rule can cause confusion about eligibility during the enrollment process and lead to low in income immigrant families being wrongfully denied benefits that they are perfectly eligible for. At a time when our immigrant neighbors are facing persistent attacks from the Federal Government, state leaders must do everything they can to streamline access to CFAP for our immigrant neighbors. For these reasons, Alameda County Community Food Bank respectfully urges your aye vote on AB 1049. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Lena Silver, and I'm the Director of Policy and Administrative Advocacy at Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County. Our office regularly encounters green card holders who are going hungry because of sponsor deeming requirements. California should remove these requirements from CFAP for three reasons. First, it has a chilling effect.

Eligibility workers often force sponsored green card holders to provide their sponsor's information, which is then remitted to USCIS even when they are exempt. Applicants are afraid that they or their sponsor will get in trouble with the government, so they withdraw their applications. Second, sponsor deeming rules are complex and eligibility workers frequently make errors. They fail to screen for the many exemptions based on indigence, being a domestic violence survivor, living with a sponsor, being admitted in the fourth or fifth years, or having sufficient work quarters.

Third, AB 1049 will reduce administrative burdens in the face of unprecedented workloads due to HR 1.

A worker simply must check whether an applicant has their green card for fewer than five years and then skip these complex assessments. Eliminating sponsor deeming would have helped, our client, Mr. L, a 70 year old monolingual Mandarin speaker. He has no income and he struggles with diabetes. He had his green card for one year when he applied for CalFresh.

His sponsors are an acquaintance no longer in The U. S. And his son who was unhoused. His application was denied because he could not provide sufficient information about his sponsors. The county worker failed to assess him for the indigence exception, which is a very common error.

He was left hungry, but if AB 1049 had been in place, he would have been eligible for expedited benefits. At a time when immigrant access to basic needs is more precarious than ever before, this is a simple change that will prevent hunger in California. Thank you.

Thank you. And now we'll look to others that want to, add on and support.

Chair Senator, Dean Grafila with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of Los Angeles County in support of AB 1049.

Yesenia Rabancho with End Child Poverty California in strong support.

Cal is still with the California Community Foundation in support. Thank you.

Simran Carr with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Anageli Martin with the California Food Assistance Program, proud cosponsors, and also here on behalf of CHITLA and California Penn Ethnic Health Network in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kathy Mossberg on on behalf of the California Association of Food Banks in support.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Jonathan Munoz on behalf of First Life Los Angeles in strong support and with the Adiata for our leadership.

Cloyce Aetern with the Coalition of California and Welfare Rights Organization in strong support.

Jackie Mendelson with Nourish California, proud cosponsor of this bill, in strong support, and also on behalf of the California Food and Farming Network in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a lead opposition witness or anyone wants to wait in opposition? Seeing none, we'll take it back to members. Any comments?

I would, mister chair. Thank you.

Vice chair.

So, you know, I I have a hard time sometimes trying to balance between so much administrative requirements and walking in through those loopholes along with responsible accountability as far as ensuring that people don't take advantage of the system.

You know, in light of the many reports that we've had in regards to fraudulent efforts by nefarious folks out, you know, we're always gonna have folks that are have intent and and abuse are the system that is so incredibly generous that we have both at the state and the federal level in the past. One of the biggest concerns that we've had, in the past that we were trying to, in my opinion, try and do assess and try to address is folks taking advantage of our systems.

When it comes to food assistance, we have an incredibly generous system where we, you know, there's so many levels of people and organizations coming in and trying to address hunger in our state. I appreciate Senator Hurtado effort, you know, once again creating another layer of trying to have everybody come in under one umbrella so that people can have access to everything that's currently available because there's so many so many angles that we're trying to address hunger.

So many levels. I'm a little not little. I'm actually hesitant to support anything that takes away some accountability as far as trying to show that you do have a need or that there is a need. Though I appreciate the example and and my heart breaks for that gentleman that went without because he didn't have the right paperwork to be able to I I feel for that for for situations like that.

But had the county done its job as far as assessing and and and right rightly placing him where he needed to be, would he have been able to get the help that he needed?

So that is the question that I had. So it was more of an enforcement county to be able to enforce and do its job right that we failed him. Because otherwise, he he should have had the the help that he needed. Yes? Yes.

Mic is off. There we go. Yeah, in this particular situation, yes. This is a complex rule that is hard to address in two minutes, which is kind of why we're here, but, one of the primary exemptions that are often assessed too late is the indigence exception, which basically, if your current income is less than 130% of the federal power line, which is most people apply for this benefit, the sponsor deeming process shouldn't move forward and there's no need to contact the sponsor.

But with there are so many eligibility rules in CFAP and in CalFresh, and this is, again, one of the more complex ones, and the order of operation is very confusing.

So we do often see that the problem is that the county the county worker process or the difficulty of this rule. That being said, it's almost always that we're seeing this happen. I've been doing this for eleven years now, and it's very rare that a sponsor deeming assessment, once it gets for office, as we look through it, that that sponsor deeming should actually apply. Just kind of like this is do the least harm to prevent hunger, knowing that many, many people are eligible for these exceptions.

Also, I'll point out it's only for the first three years of admission under the current law, then it then this rule drops away in years four and five, and then it comes back with federal eligibility after five years of admission because of something called the five year bar, which, thanks to CFAP, we don't have in those first, first five years.

So, the administrative burden is very high. It's common that people are eligible for the exemption but are inappropriately assessed. And then if it's not that, though, it's the chilling effect of it being asked on the application of often county workers asking for information about the sponsor before they're assessing for exemptions.

Yeah, I think and then, you know, speaking to, to questions of fraud, I've like I said, I've been doing this for eleven years, and the biggest threat, the fraud threat to our safety net is still, EBT theft. It's external, nefarious actors that are threatening and taking, you know, millions from our state every month, honestly.

It's extremely rare that we see, fraud accusations that are based in that actual actual intent and not in actually these very complex rules that are difficult for people to understand and navigate in terms of reporting.

And that's on the administrative side, right?

Yeah. It's the whole ecosystem, but yes, That would be on the administrative side too and the barriers people have to reporting at this point.

So I I'm I'm just gonna make just one comment because I I like I said, I I in general, I have a really hard time trying to balance the accountability part of it with the administrative, which usually when we talk about government systems, they're incredibly burdensome.

Correct.

Incredibly burdensome. Having said that, question, and as far as the administrative part of it, as a tool And and and I know we're probably gonna see this more as we're have been having conversations and programs that are being impacted by error per se, or fraud on on that end.

But would it be helpful, to use and have AI tools to help assist on the administrative side, to help navigate the rules, that we currently have in order to protect the system, but still be able to be efficient and effective in the work that they do moving forward, especially when we talk about protecting a system.

I don't know that I could speak to that so broadly. I think there's always a role for it for using technology to advance our, access to benefit system, whether that be to reduce administrative burden to help us with our error rate

That is a huge threat. So I'll kind of leave that there, but in terms of sponsor deeming, I don't know if it really apply it could really be applied there. This is about, forcing someone who's likely exempt to contact their sponsor, to send their information to USCAS. People often don't understand the difference between USCAS, which just is immigration, application processing and immigration enforcement, ICE and DHS, that we see workers taking liberties and telling people, do are you sure you wanna apply for this benefit?

Yeah.

Because I'm gonna send your sponsor's information to USAS, and you and your sponsor are gonna get in trouble, and you could get deported.

We've heard these stories. There's a lot of conflation. We're trying to remove any fear about immigration enforcement and benefit access, which then has ripple effects in the community in terms of rumors people hear. If you're a green card holder don't apply for benefits, you and your sponsor will get in trouble, regardless of your sponsor's current capacity to to support you or or to be even in contact with you oftentimes.

So, it's just so confounding, and I'll say, too, in terms of any, folks trying to take advantage, historically, we have huge underutilization of public benefits in immigrant communities.

There are so many reasons for that, but sponsor deeming is a major one, misconceptions about it, conflation of it with the public charge rule, and with privacy and safety in using public benefits and how that can interact with immigration enforcement. So reducing one more barrier for people who need food to live, is, is why this bill is being brought today.

Okay. I see no other comments. I I wanna thank you for the bill. And we'll be supporting it today as you note, and as noted in the analysis, the sponsor is not a federal requirement to access CFAP. And, I do think it was all streamlining.

I also appreciate the specific example. This one

is very helpful. We have a specific example. Even this one case just lets us sort of understand, the implications much better. So, probably supporting this debt the bill today. Would you like to close?

Yes. I just wanna, thank the Senator, for her comments and miss Silver for responding. I think even the exchange kind of elevates how unnecessary and confusing this rule is and why it's a barrier for so many families in need of assistance.

Also, I think just, I wanna recognize as an assembly member who grew up facing food insecurity and represents a community that has many mixed status, family members, and has had the most ICE actions last year than any other place That when people go hungry, they're not trying to go through administrative barriers to get food to gain any sort of system. They're trying to feed their children.

And I think it's so important, especially in the climate right now, when perhaps there are food banks that are accessible to some communities. In places like my community, getting in line that wraps around the block when there's a fear that someone might take you is not an option. And so ensuring that we're removing barriers where we can and not adding to the administrative burden that people have to do while they're truly evaluating eligibility is what this is about.

Ten forty nine ensures that eligible immigrant families are not blocked from food assistance. With that, I just wanna recognize and thank how many sponsors and supporters we have of this bill.

You heard from some of them today, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Please go to the roll. Oh, do we have a motion? Do we have a motion?

No. A motion from, doctor Weber?

File item two, AB 1049. Motion is to pass to Appropriations Committee. Becker?

Becker, aye. Achobog? Laird? No. Oh, Achobog?

Aye.

Right. No. Laird? Perez? Weber Pearson?

Aye.

Weber Pearson, aye.

Okay. There's two to one. We will leave that bill on call.

Thank you.

Okay. I have to step out for a moment. I'm gonna give this over to our, vice chair. We will continue for now to proceed in a file order unless someone would like to, have a couple members who have been waiting patiently. But next up in file order would be Assemblymember Jackson for AB 1201.

Thank you very much, mister chair, miss, vice chair, committee members. I will be as quick as possible to avert the side eye from my colleagues. I

Too late.

Okay. No problem. Pleased to present AB 1201, which narrows the scope of when a parent's past violent felony conviction can be used to deny them. Finally, family reunification services. Currently, a parent who was previously convicted of any violent felony, even one with no connection to their child or family, can have can have reunification services denied to them.

AB 1201 ensures that this disqualification only applies when it's actually relevant, when the violent felony was committed against a child or against someone with whom the parent shared a child at the time of the offense. With me today to testify in support is Fadel, Chagoya with All of Us or None and Amanda Kirschner with the County Welfare Directors Association of California.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Fidao Chigoy, and I'm currently an organizer and project manager with Riverside All of Us or None at Starting Over Inc. Starting Over Inc is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping formerly incarcerated individuals secure housing, employment, and expunging their criminal records. I hold a certificate of rehabilitation and a master's degree in clinical mental health counseling from the University of Redlands.

I'm speaking to you today because I am a formerly incarcerated parent who lost my rights as a parent. My daughter Zoe, my first child was born in 2016 when I was 39 years old. By then, I had been out of prison for six years and off parole for four. I had worked tirelessly to create a stable life, securing steady employment, stable housing, and reliable transportation. During childbirth, Zoe's mother tested positive for opiates because of Tylenol with codeine that was prescribed by a dentist.

And having previously lost parental rights to her other children, this triggered the involvement of San Bernardino County's Children and Family Services who looked at my past criminal record and said I should not have an opportunity to even reunify with my child due to welfare institution code section three six one point five b 12, the bypass provision. My parental rights were terminated.

And in 2019, Zoe was adopted out with a 119 other children in San Bernardino County even though my prior criminal history had no bearing on whether I would good be a good parent or not. If this change in law proposed by AB 1201 existed at the time of my case, I would have an opportunity of getting reunification services with my daughter.

I am here for you to consider making sure that many parents like me who have felonies unrelated to their ability to be a parent and in many cases have

paid their debt to society a fair chance of getting their children back. For these reasons, I express my support for AB 121. Thank you, chair members.

Welcome, Amanda.

Good afternoon. Amanda Kirschner on behalf of County Welfare Directors Association. We are proudly here in support on this bill. First, I wanna say that we are sincerely thankful to the author, the staff, and the sponsors for working with us over the past year to reach an agreement on this language. It was a long process, and this is a culmination of work that I'm just very proud of, and how we've gotten here. When a family enters the child welfare system, our mandate is the safety of the child. But our goal

is reunification with the But our goal is reunification with the family. Our goal sometimes does not align with the penal code that defines the violent felonies and the bypass provision. Complete counseling, substance use treatment, housing supports, parenting classes, among many other things. But unfortunately, our WIC code and our definition of violent felonies often provide that those families get very little chance in order to do so.

And importantly limits and narrows this to allow for violent felonies to not be a prohibition unless they've been against a child or a parent or a guardian where there was a child who was sure.

Important. What we want to make sure is that this change is narrow but important to ensure that parents who have a violent felony in their past, but who have not harmed a child, can participate in our reunification services. It also makes sure when the children are brought into our child welfare system, they are not immediately reunified with the parents. They still have to receive the services, and they have to be deemed So this isn't an immediate, reunification.

They still have to go through their case plan and have approval.

We feel like AB 1201 furthers the work that we are doing to ensure child safety. And for those reasons, we ask for your support.

Thank you so much. We'll now continue with any witnesses in support here in, room where are we? 12 2200. 2200. Sorry.

I'm in tw0 c0mmittees at the at the at the time. S0 I'm kind 0f trying t0 facilitate where I'm at right n0w. S0 we'll c0ntinue with any, witnesses in Supp0rt 0f AB 120 12 o one here in Room 2200.

Thank you. Jay Vasquez on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice. Strong support. Thank you.

And just as a reminder, it's your name, your position, and your the organization that you're with.

Policy director. Thank you.

Adrienne Shilton, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Symphony Barbie on behalf of the ACLU Cal Action and Strong Support. Thank you.

Simran Carr with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Support.

Yes, Senor Rabancha with End Child Poverty in California in support.

Amethyst Yates, assistant director of the Family Reunification Equity and Empowerment Project in strong support.

Doctor. Wendy Blanco, and, with Peace Over Violence, in strong support.

Anne Court, Policy Attorney, on behalf of Children's Law Center of California, in support.

Julie Hanigan, policy director with Dependency Legal Services in support.

Kristen Power Alliance for Children's Rights in support.

Thank you so much. We're not continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 1201 here in Room 2200. Seeing none, we'll continue with any witnesses from the public in opposition. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais for any comments or questions. None.

Okay. So thank you for bringing this bill forward. I appreciate the testimony.

But I do have some questions. It's hard. It's hard to balance that of assistant with the county was involved in trying to mitigate the these this, this, this bill with some of the concerns for the children because it is the goal of, trying to reunite the, the children with with their parents. I do have some concerns, as far as, dealing with the felony, especially with the violent felonies.

Could you, for the record, explain if there are any exceptions to the, clear, I think the biggest concern that I have is not necessarily that the parent may harm the child per se, especially when it comes to the amendment that you had.

That you made sure that it was limited to filing felony conviction situation involving that it wasn't against the child or an individual who shared the child with the parent or guardian at the time of the crime is an improvement.

But my concern is more about, say, if the parent was involved in human trafficking or drug trafficking, it's the element around it and the folks around that, those components that in in in my mind, I'm afraid that it would expose the child to those those elements that would not be conducive to their well-being. It's more of the environment, not necessarily that you would be directly impacting the child. Do you have any thoughts and concerns on that on those concerns?

First, let me first state madam chair that this is a complicated issue because we're dealing with humans, which just means it's messy.

Yeah.

And, it's also important to recognize that this was a two year bill, because we wanted to get to a place where we can make sure that we address as many concerns as possible. And I want to thank the the counties and the advocates for working together to find a place forward. What I think is the most important to recognize is number one, these are people who serve their time to society.

But then also to making sure that right now, all we're really doing is eliminating the automatic decision making that's going on. So that when a person creates a violent felony, by law, the judge doesn't even have any say in the matter.

They automatically are denied any reunification services. So we're getting the automatic part out and letting the judge make their own decision case by case to even give them an opportunity to go through the process of reunification. But I think that's the most important part. And so if a judge says we are now looking at you, we're you're we're investigating what you've done since you've paid your debt to society. If if a judge still deems that this person should not go be able to go

through a you reunification process, then the judge can make that decision. But even if they do, the witnesses have described all the things that they have to go through to before they even have the ability to reunify. So this is just about giving families the support that they need to get in a position where they can reunify. And if they are still not after going through all of that, the judge can still say yes or no.

We do not believe it is okay for you to be reunified with your child.

Okay.

So there's a lot of steps and a lot of observation, a lot of following along the way to ensure that they are displaying all the things that are necessary to provide a safe and nurturing household, so that a child can continue to be on a pathway to thrive.

Do we know, within the conversations that the judge has in evaluating whether or not a person is saved to be reunited with their child, do they take in consideration the environment, the crime, and where they're going to live that's around because that's my that's that's one of the biggest when I decided public safety was one of the biggest concerns that I had was the question of whether or not someone who was released should be placed in their home, in their neighborhood, or placed somewhere else.

And I always had the debate as to, okay, if they go home, then they have that family you hope that they would have that family support, but you still have the nefarious environment in which they got caught.

If you're not I'll ask CWA to talk about those and any home inspections that may happen and those type of things.

Absolutely. So, typically in our process, what happens when a child is removed because of a safety concern, we have hearings to get jurisdiction over the child. They're placed with a foster family. Sometimes that's kin, as we've talked about a lot in this committee. Sometimes it's one of our typical resource families.

And then the parents start their process of services and reunification based on the case plan that's assigned to them. Started at the beginning. And so that can be supervised or unsupervised. And so to your concern that, when they are reunifying and meeting with the children and there might be other elements going on in the home or safety concerns around of that, what our social workers do is they mitigate that during the visitation. And so if a parent is deemed to be unsupervised visitation.

They might have what we would call observed visitation, where they need to have someone in the home, but they don't have to have someone right there next to them the entire time. Or they could have supervised visitation, which oftentimes begins at one of our county facilities. It's only for a couple of hours every month, and the social worker is always there.

So it's so when supervised visitation is happening at that highest level, the child is not interacting with that parent anywhere outside of sort of county control. We have different ways of mitigating and stepping that down.

Sometimes we may have supervised visitation after a few months where it could be in the home, but they're being supervised by the resource family or, the relative who is in charge of the child as their caretaker. But a lot of times what we start at, if there's any question of safety or concern, is that highest level of supervised visitation. And so we mitigate from there on down.

To your concern about sort of any other sort of safety concerns around parents and previous activities, what we do also is we require parents to go through any number of different counseling services. So depending on what it was, you know, if there and it's based off of what the current fear or safety risk is.

So if it's substance abuse, we require testing, we require attending counseling classes. If there's issues around safety because of physical violence, maybe it's anger management and domestic violence classes. Right? So what we do is we try and build around a safety net as much as possible between visitation, supervision, and also canceling services to help parents realize mistakes have been made and how we can move them out of that.

I think what can be frustrating, especially, here in this situation particularly was that at the very beginning, they were just deemed unsafe because of this previous felony, and were never given an opportunity to go through any of that process.

And so it doesn't matter what their felony was, how long ago it was, if they've completely rehabilitated. We just look at it and say, you have a violent felony as defined by the penal code, which lists out all the different violent felonies. And you meet one, so you don't get reunification services and are bypassed. And we find that that can lead to some really unfortunate results, where an otherwise safe parent will lose rights to their child.

Have there been any case examples of where this has failed in the past.

Can you be more specific? Which part

has failed? Oh, sorry. In in the sense that a parent was reunited in these sort of and I know you're trying to change the system right now. So I'm assuming we haven't had any parents with felonies that have actually moved forward.

I just I would I would hate to be in support of a of a legis piece of legislation that would have failures and a child is Harabedian and the reason being is that just right now we had very broad discussions with regards to the parole process and what has happened in releasing folks that are still having ideation of hurting children in their place.

But the the folks that are in the parole system, you know, assessing these these folks are looking at the system and the protocols, the framework that is used to evaluate. So I'm just I'm I'm a little hesitant, only because it failed on that end, and we could have a process and a framework right now that is followed to ensure that, parents have, you know, that that fit the criteria are reunited and then something happens to the child.

I that's that's where I'm a little nervous on on on something like this. But I do I I get that. Are there any felonies that are exempt from qualifying for this evaluation for parents?

So the only felonies that apply are the ones that are specifically listed in the penal code as violent felonies. So I I don't have that list in front of me, but it includes the things that you would suspect, like murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault. There's also some white collar crimes on there, so that they get the strike. I believe embezzlement is included.

But broadly, that list is a remnant of the three strike conversation and does not necessarily match one to one with what you might broadly consider a violent felony.

Okay. Any other comments, questions? Doctor Weber? No? Okay.

Okay. We have a motion by, Senator Weber. Would you like to close Sure. Doctor Jackson?

You know, one of the first things you're trained in as a social worker is understanding that at at the end of the day, whenever possible, the best place for a child to be is with their family and a support system. And if you can't do that, you wanna put them with a relative. And the more a child is away from their family, that also creates harm.

And so whenever possible, we want to try to put as many supports around a family as possible to ensure that that home becomes, again, the best place for a child to be. And again, we're only talking about the opportunity to be reunified with their child.

And right now, there is absolutely no opportunity at all. And yes, we have examples when someone is not a 100% rehabilitated and then they continue to maybe do harm to others. But we also have numerous examples when people actually are rehabilitated and they are ready to make to provide a loving and nurturing environment for their child. And so we just don't wanna close the door and create a cookie cutter approach for everyone.

But understand that this will be done circumstance by circumstance, achievement by achievement, but also mistake by mistake.

So that we can make sure, that as many people, many children are unified with their families as possible. So with that, we're willing to we believe that every child should have an opportunity to do so, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, doctor Jackson.

We're on call? Okay. We don't have enough. We don't have a quorum.

We're on call.

I thought we did establish a quorum. We can still vote. Oh, okay. Yeah. We

we did no. That's alright. We did establish a quorum, so we're gonna go ahead and and and take a vote call, and then we'll leave it open for our members. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

File item three, AB 121. Motion is do passed to judiciary committee. Becker, Achobog.

Not voting.

Okay. Laird, Perez, Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Okay.

We'll put that on call.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. Doctor Jackson. We have Rubio. Okay. So we'll continue with file item number seven, AB 2429 with Assembly Member Rubio.

Oh, sorry. Did not see you there. Oh, he has seen you. Oh, he okay. Alright. So we we

He owes me.

Yeah. He owes

so we have so Assemblymember Solace will be will be presenting his bill in lieu of Assemblymember Rubio. Thank you, Senator Assemblymember Rubio for the courtesy. Assembly member is it Colosa? No. So let's say So

let's say Little different.

Yes. Give me one second. You are parlola number 17.

Thank you, madam.

Parlola number 17AB2379 by Assembly member. Please proceed when you're ready, sir.

Thank you, madam chair. And, again, thank you to my amazing seed mate for letting me present first. We have a lot of childcare providers that need to get to work after as well. So with that, thank you to the chair and to committee members for the opportunity to present AB 2379, protecting family childcare providers' constitutional rights. I'm grateful for the chair and the committee staff for their hard work and thoughtful analysis on the bill.

Child care homes are essential to California's childcare system, especially for working class and immigrant families. AB 2379 ensures license and license exempt family childcare providers are informed of their constitutional rights when confronted by immigration enforcement. The bill requires the Department of Social Services to notify providers of their Fourth Amendment protections and to coordinate accessible, multilingual training. The training will ensure providers understand the rights regarding searches, seizures, arrests, and detentions of their homes.

By enduring these providers' constitutional rights, the bill helps keep the childcare's doors open and safe from, intimidation, misinformation, and lawful searches or arrest by law enforcement, including federal immigration authorities.

AB 2379 builds an existing sensitive location protections by ensuring family childcare providers have the information and tools they need to provide themselves and the children of their care. This bill is a Latino caucus priority. It's co sponsored by childcare providers United, SCAU California, United Domestic Workers, and AFSCME Local thirty nine thirty. I am joined today by childcare provider, Wendy Moran, who will and also have Edgar Guerra from SAU California available for any technical questions. Thank you, madam chair.

And we will continue with our witnesses. Please proceed when you're ready. Miss Morale.

Good afternoon. My good afternoon. My name is Wendy Moran, and I'm a childcare provider and proud of member of Local ninety nine. For seventeen years, I care for children and families in the South Central Los Angeles. My childcare program is more my childcare program is more than a business.

It's a safe, trusted space for where children learn, grow, and feel safe. Today, many providers and families are living with fear and uncertain. Because family childcare programs operate in our house, it's critical that providers understand their rights and responsibilities so we can protect ourselves, their children, and our care, and families who depend on us. AB 2,379 will ensure that family childcare providers across California have access to consistent statewide Know Your Rights trainings regarding of where they live or what language they speak.

This training will help providers to stay informed, prepared, and focus on what matters the most, keeping children safe.

I respectfully ask for you to support AB 2379, Every family childcare provider deserves access to information and tools they need to serve they need to serve children and families with confidence. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for your for your testimony, ma'am.

Just, here for any technical questions. Okay. Thank you, Senator.

Perfect. So now we're gonna continue with any witnesses in support of AB 2379 here, in Room 2200.

Madam chair members, Cathy Van Austin, the Association of American Association of University Women of California in support. Thank you.

Good evening, madam chair members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in strong support. Thank you.

Hello. I'm Theo Augustine. I'm a family childcare provider for eighteen years in Santa Clara County. And I am I am asking you to stand with us in voting yes on AB 2379.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody. Charlene Neill from Sacramento, family childcare provider for twenty eight years. And I'm asking you to stand in support with us for AB 1981.

Twenty three seventy nine. Sorry.

I'm so sorry. Twenty three seventy nine. It's the key.

We got you. We got you.

Hi. Good afternoon, mister chair. My name is Samsam Khalif, and I'm a CCBU member of childcare provider, and I'm from San Diego County. I have been childcare in more more than fifteen years, and I'm here to support and I'm here to support AB 2379 and asking you to stand with us on voting yes on 2379, please.

Thank you, ma'am.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Karen Stout here

on behalf of UnidosUS. Appreciate the app appreciate the author and in support. Thank you.

My name is Manju, and I'm childcare provider, with CCPU. I have been doing, childcare almost twenty five years. I am requesting you to please, vote for us a v two three seven nine. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jessica Magdaleno. I'm a family childcare provider from Orange County. I have been serving children and families for more than twenty five years. I am here today to strong support of AB 2379.

And I'm and I'm respectfully ask you for your yes for this bill.

Thank you.

I'm Aurora Reyes, a family childcare educator from Los Angeles County. I'm asking that you guys support bill AB 2379. And I support it too. Thank you, ma'am.

Chair, Senator Dina Fila with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of the County Of Los Angeles in support of AB 2379.

Thank you.

Maeva RHNAult, VP of advocacy and policy with Cadango in support of AB 2379. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Jonathan Munoz on behalf of First Life Los Angeles in strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Yesenia Rabancho with End Child Poverty in California in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now continue with any witnesses in opposition. Any main opposition witnesses for AB 2379 here in '20. Sorry, I haven't done this in a while. My mouth is trying to get accustomed again.

Do you have any witnesses in opposition? See none. Anyone from the general public that would like to speak in opposition to this bill? Great. We'll bring it back to the dias.

Any comments, questions? We have a motion by Senator, Doctor. Weber. I just want to say that I am extremely grateful for this. I am a huge advocate for constitutional literacy.

I've carried a bill, died in committee, couldn't move forward. I think it's incredibly important to understand what our constitution states, both The US and the state constitution. And in this case, I'm I'm grateful that you're I think, you know, as as as members who are working in in just working, you should know your rights on on protection.

I do wanna give a great shout out to, my district attorney in the county of San Bernardino, Jason Anderson, who actually, did a, seminar, has been doing seminars on constitutional rights for students, for minors. And and how, you know, how do we act, what what their rights are when they are stopped by, you know, by a police officer, you know, what to do, what not to do, what the rights are.

And I think it's incredibly brilliant. And he did this on his own. And I thought, what a great idea to empower our youth where with awareness of their constitutional rights. So I'm in absolute full support of, constitutional literacy. Thank you so much for for moving this or introducing this bill.

Would you like to close?

Thank you, madam chair. Thank you for the opportunity to present this bill. I think our childcare providers feel the need to have this reinforcement of knowing the rights. So I think your words are exactly what the bill is. So with that, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very very much. And well, our our chair is back. So I'm gonna transfer up via so Madam Secretary, please call call the rule.

File item 17, AB 2,379. Motion is do passed to public safety committee. Becker?

Aye.

Becker, aye. Achobok? Aye. Achobok, aye. Laird, Perez, Weber Pearson?

Weber Pearson, aye.

Aye.

Okay. That vote is three two zero. We'll keep it on call. Thank you, Assemblymember Solace. And thank you, to our vice chair, for filling in, while I was out.

And we'll next up, I see several of our blockroom is still waiting. This is before. Thank you for waiting very patiently. And you've won bill on consent and you're here to present, AB 2,429.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. Thank you for the allow me to present AB 2429 today. AB 2429 strengthens California Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation or ECMHC programmed by removing barriers that can limit participation while maintaining the integrity of this proven, evidence based model. ECMHC supports children's social emotional development by pairing trained mental health consultants with educate with educators to create healthier classroom environments and address challenges before they escalate.

It is one of the most effective tools for supporting young children, strengthening educate educator capacity, and reducing preschool expulsions. However, feedback from providers and consultants across the state indicate that some of these requirements are creating barriers and dis disincentivizing programs from implementing these, this model. These requirements can create unnecessary administrative burdens, limit flexibility, and ultimately discourage programs from part programs from participating. AB 2429 makes two targeted changes.

First, it makes administration of the ACE ACEs screening tool optional rather than required if for every, child in the classroom receiving consultation services.

This preserves access to the tool for programs that choose to use it while providing flexibility for those that do not have the capacity to administer it, universally. Second, it reduces the required number of classroom observations from two per year to one per year, allowing consultants and educators to determine together what level of observation is most appropriate for their setting. These changes reduce unnecessary administrative burdens and allow consultants to focus their time where it matters the most, supporting children, educators, and, families.

Most importantly, AB 2429 reinforces the core principles of effective consultation that support should be responsive, relationship based, and tailored by to the unique needs of each classroom. With me today to testify, I have, Maeve RHNAud, VP of Advocacy and Policy at Cadango, and Celeste Farmer, Director of Mental Health at Cadango.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you both. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. I'm Maeva RHNAud, and I'm with Cadango. And as a childcare and preschool program, we are very proud to sponsor, AB 2429 and ask for your aye vote because this critical piece of legislation is about strengthening access to early childhood mental health consultation for California State Preschool, General Childcare, and Family Childcare Home Education Networks. Research tells us that a child's brain develops rapidly from zero to five.

Exposure to trauma, chronic stress, or unaddressed behavioral issues during the period, during this period can have lifelong consequences, affecting their ability to learn from relationships and thrive. Early childhood mental health consultation gives the adults that supports this these children the tools they need to create an optimal environment for children to grow. Previous legislation established an adjustment factor for programs to utilize funding to implement early childhood mental health, consultation in their programs, with an associated with associated requirements to adhere to its quality.

Cadango, we have a robust early childhood mental health consultation program, including, my director of mental health here with me today. We have two clinical supervisors, 17 consultants who divide their time amongst our 53 California state preschool programs and general childcare sites, and our FEDCHEN networks.

Now our priorities are formed our policy priorities are informed by critical feedback from our ECE workforce and our families. And so the changes that we are proposing is deeply rooted in what we have heard from them and what, assembly member Rubio shared. And so making ACE's screener optional and reducing required observation from two per year to one per year are directly informed from the feedback that we had as, from our our staff as well as 36 other providers across the state.

So with these changes, more state preschool, general childcare, and family child family childcare home education network providers will be able to utilize the adjustment factor to implement early childhood consultation services.

Great. So Thank you. We do wrap move on to the next.

Oh, wonderful. Good afternoon, chair and esteemed members. I'm Celeste Farmer, the director of mental health at Kadena. I've been a licensed marriage and family therapist in California since 2015. I have experienced both as a mental health consultant providing in in early early learning settings, as well as a supervisor and leader, and now director.

In my experience, increasing providers ability to utilize mental health consultation has a huge potential to make a difference in lives of so many children and families. From my experience, early childhood mental health consultation builds adults confidence and competence to meet social emotional needs of children, manage behaviors, and create a positive social emotional climate program wide. In order to have this impact, what I have found is most most critical to have in place is attunement to the individualized needs of programs, teachers, and children.

The changes in AB 2429 support high quality early childhood mental health consultation by supporting that attunement and individualized focus and allowing consultants who work with many classrooms, teachers, directors, and face time constraints to have more flexibility in the activities they implement for each classroom based on expressed needs of that group of children, teachers, and families.

Additionally, by making the adverse childhood experience Experience Screener optional, consultants can choose when it makes sense to utilize that tool based on the parent bandwidth, whether the screener is already conducted in other settings, such as pediatric visits, and how conducive it is in given situations to build a strength based positive relationship with parents.

This is a critical piece of legislation that will strengthen access to early childhood mental health consultation services in California, state preschool, general childcare, and family childcare home education networks. Thank you so much for your time. I strongly urge you to vote aye on AB 2429 for healthy teachers and children and families.

Okay. Thank you both. And will anyone else would like to add on in support, of this bill? Okay. Do we have any opposition, any lead opposition, or anyone's opposition?

I see none. We'll take it back to the committee. Any comments? No? I will, for my own part, just thank you.

I do have a a bunch of new angles opening up in my district. So thanks for the work of your whole team, but also that there's thirty thirty six other partners, that are on this. And, as you mentioned that you've that are supportive, here. So, seems like, an important kind of common sense practical measure. I will be supporting you here today.

Thank you. I respectfully ask for

Would you like to close?

Okay. And I've read you two bills on consent, not one bill on consent. So, two bills on consent. This is your third bill. Please call the roll.

an I vote.

I'll do the motion.

Move the back.

Okay. Move motion from doctor Weber Pearson.

File item seven, AB 2429. Motion is to pass to education committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye.

Achobog, Laird, Perez, Weber Pearson?

Weber Pearson, aye.

Aye.

Right. That's 2 to 0. We'll stay on call.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you both. Alright. Let's get back to the file order.

Doctor Sharpe Collins.

Doctor Sharpe Collins is here.

Doctor Sharpe Collins is here.

Thank you. You have AB 1755. Yes.

Go

ahead when ready.

Thank you. Alright. Good afternoon, chair and members. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 1755, which is a women's caucus priority. This bill is one that aims to eliminate the one hundred hour work penalty, which is an outdated policy from the nineteen fifties.

Today, if a family works over one hundred hours within a month, they are they are automatically disqualified from receiving CalWORKs. This rule is rooted in false and harmful ideas that low income families should be able to survive on a part time work. That logic was wrong then, and it is definitely still wrong now, especially when we live inside a state with one of the highest cost of living within the nation.

California is one of the only four states that still that is still, truly enforcing this progressive rule alongside Kentucky, Mississippi, and also South Dakota. Beyond being an being an an unjust rule, this policy is is honestly physically shortsighted.

When families lose CalWORKs assistance abruptly, they are more likely to face housing instability, rely on emergency services, and also cycle through more costly systems such as homelessness services, child welfare, and also crisis health crisis health care. Those interventions cost the state far more than providing stable and modest support upfront through CalWORKs. At a time when families are struggling with rising rent, childcare costs, and economic uncertainty, we should not be enforcing policies that deepen poverty and increase long term public cost.

So with me to help testify in regards to this particular bill, I have, Rebecca Gonzales, which is a policy advocate for Western Center on Law and Poverty, but also I have Amanda Kirchner, director of the legislative advocacy for the County Warfarin Directors Association.

Okay. Thank you, Doctor. Collins. Thank you both. You each have two minutes.

Great. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Rebecca Gonzales, and I'm a policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We are a cosponsor of AB 1755 as part of the Reimagine CalWORKs Coalition, which also includes SEIU, County Welfare Directors Association, and Child Poverty, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Parent Voices, and the California Partnership End Domestic Violence. It's time we stop punishing CalWORKs working families.

This bill would strike current law, which provides that a primary wage earning parent in a two parent family must work less than a hundred hours per month for the family to be eligible for CalWORKs, even if they otherwise are needy and income eligible for CalWORKs.

The hundred hour rule policy assumes that working an average of twenty five hours a week can generate enough income for a parent to provide for their family and further assumes the family's income is above the eligibility threshold in CalWORKs known as the minimum basic standard of adequate care. This old welfare rule known as the work penalty was adopted after the welfare reform era of the nineteen nineties.

It was based on assumptions about sufficiency of income from hours worked, which can be incorrect and which have served no good purpose but to punish hardworking families, discourage work, and harm children who are poor. As stated by the author, California is an outlier by still having this policy.

It is inhumane to subject impoverished families to this bureaucratic rule when good government dictates that we treat them fairly, give them the services and supports they need, and judge them based on facts about their economic sufficiency. More importantly, policies like these put families at risk of homelessness. It is for these reasons, the Western Center on Law and Poverty is pleased to cosponsor this bill, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Amanda Kirsch on behalf of County Welfare Directors Association. We are here in support on AB 1755. It's a common sense change that's going to help us reduce administrative work for counties and our clients. Our CalWORKs clients already must meet l, income eligibility requirements regardless of how many hours they work each month. Often our clients are in low paying jobs and often rely on seasonal or gig work to supplement as well, which means that their monthly hours can vary widely.

AB 1755 eliminates the requirements that CalWORKs families work less than a hundred hours a month, But it does not in any way impact the overall income requirements. And it makes sure that we can continue to have, maintain program integrity. It reduces administrative burden for our clients and for our county eligibility. And so we are dry vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Others in support. To others in support, please approach the mic.

Molina Menictis on behalf of the Lieutenant Governor, Eleni Kounalakis in support.

Okay. Great.

Hi. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatric Pediatrics California in support.

K.

Cloyce Aetern with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations. Proud sponsors and strong support.

Dean Rafael with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of the County Of Los Angeles in support of a speech of seventeen fifty five.

Yesenia Rebancho with End Child Poverty California. Proud cosponsors and support.

Okay. Thank you all. Any opposition? Opposition comments? No?

We'll take it back to the, committee. Move the bill. We have a motion from doctor Robert Pearson. I just wanna thank you, for the, bill. We want people to be working.

Right? We don't wanna penalize, people for, working. We don't wanna, and, because we already have the income eligibility, we I agree that we do not need this, this hundred hour rule. Thank you for bringing it up. And, with that motion, what would you like to close first?

I just want to remind everyone that this is, again, a women's caucus priority, and I respectfully ask for a nine vote.

Okay. Please call the roll.

File item eight, AB 1755. Motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker?

Aye.

Becker, aye. Ochopo, Laird, Perez, Weber Pearson?

Aye.

Weber Pearson, aye. Thank you.

Okay. Judith, you're up. We will keep that on call.

Thank you.

Well, in file item order, we have Assemblymember, Aghir Curry. Patrick Arons has been waiting for probably about an hour. Would you be willing to let him go? Okay. So you defer to the majority leader.

Oh, boy. Okay. Excellent. Oh, my goodness. Hey, everybody's I always have the numbers.

Everybody's happy. Everybody's happy. I'll try

to make this short for you, Pat.

Alright, majority leader. Thank you.

Please,

go ahead when ready.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Child care is the backbone for our families, our communities, and the economy here in California. It helps parents get to work, keeps our economy moving, ensures children are safely cared for. But too many families still cannot find care they can afford or find care at all. At the same time, childcare providers remain underpaid with reimbursement rates that do not reflect the true cost of care.

In previous budget years, the administration committed to fixing this by transitioning to a new rate system that reflects the real costs. But we are still waiting, and we're waiting, and that system has not yet been implemented. Current law requires CDSS to provide updates on this transition, but only through July 2027, regardless of whether implementation is complete. That creates an accountability gap, leaving families and providers without clear visibility into how and when these rates will be set.

This bill requires s SCDSS to implement a rate system that reflects regional costs and key factors like age of children served, extended hours, transportation, and special needs care.

It requires the department to implement the new rates within ninety days of reaching an agreement with providers and to give quarterly updates until the new system is fully implemented. As new federal work requirements under HR 1 take effect, we need a stable and affordable child care for our families to stay employed and maintain economic stability. This bill makes sure that the state follows through on its promise to implementing a fair rate system based on the true cost of care.

With me today, I have childcare providers Charlotte Neal and Duha Du Dehautina. Deo.

Deo, Augustine. Thank you very much.

You each have two minutes. Go ahead. Okay.

Welcome. Hello. My name is Charlotte Neal. Hello, chair members. And I am a family child care provider in Sacramento County.

I'm also a proud member of U D W ASMI, Local three thousand nine hundred and thirty, CCPU. I've been doing this work for twenty eight years. I'm a second generation per child care provider, so this work is in my blood. I love my job, and I love the children and the families that I serve. But loving this work does not make it any easier to care for 18 children in my program under a system that refuses to value what we do.

And that is why I'm here today, not just for myself, but for every single provider who is barely holding on and for every family who depends on us so their children can grow, learn, and be safe. Let me be very clear about what it means if I cannot afford to keep my doors open. Fourteenth, 18 families, 18 will be thrown into crisis overnight. I am a twenty four hour child care provider.

They will be scrambling to find another provider, and we all know they will not find another subsidized option.

They will miss work. They will lose wages. They will lose hours, and some will lose their jobs. We've seen this happen before all throughout our state. So when we talk about child care, we are not just talking about service.

We are talking about the backbone of California's workforce. We are talking about the stability of entire communities. And right now, the backbone is cracking. That stability is slipping. And that is not California any of California of us should accept.

Not after everything providers give to this state in every single day. That is why we are fighting for AB 1981, the true cost of care act, because we are done surviving on an outdated subsidy rate system. We are done being told to make it work while we subsidize the state with our unpaid labor. We are done pretending that passion can replace fair pay. AB 1981 is not just a bill, but it is a lifeline.

It creates a clear, accountable process for setting fair, up to date reimbursement rates that actually reflect the true cost of care. Because without that, we cannot stay open. Families cannot stay working. Children cannot get the quality care that they deserve. I am here today because I refuse to let this system fail, the families that I serve.

I refuse to let it fail the providers who give their hearts, their homes, their lives to this work. And I refuse to let it fail, their children who depend on us. So I urge you to support AB 1981. Let's build a California where providers can stay open and children can have a safe place to learn while their parents work. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Please go ahead. Hello.

I'm Deo Augustine. I'm a childcare provider for eighteen years in San Jose, California, and I'm a proud member of CCPU, SEIU Local five twenty one. I see firsthand how heavily working families in my community struggle with the crushing cost of living. But right now, the state's reimbursement system is crushing the providers too. What California pays pay us does not reflect the true cost of care.

Everything has gone up, except for our rates. Nutritious meals cost significantly more at grocery store. Skyrocketing gas prices and auto insurance premiums to safely transport children to school are rising. Maintaining proper staff to child ratios to ensure safety and quality attention cost more than ever. Yet, we struggle even to meet the minimum wage.

Because reimbursement rates fall behind, California's entire childcare system faces constant destabilization. This reality hurts our children, hurts working families, and forces dedicated to close their hope their doors. That is why we are here today with a direct urgent ask. We demand that you protect our workforce and change the budget to include the true cost of care. You must support AB 1981, the true cost of care act.

AB 1981 establishes a clear, accountable, and transparent process to set fair to up to date subsidy rates. Do not let further budget delays break the promise already made to our families. Fund the true cost of care, pass AB 1981, and stabilize California's childcare workforce today. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you to both of you. We'll now take, others in support. Please step forward to the mic. I sense we have a big group.

Good afternoon, mister chair. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in strong support. Thank you.

Ethan Nagel on behalf of the city of Glendale in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, sir chair. My name is Samsam Khalifa. I have been family childcare, provider San Diego more than fifteen years, and I'm also, proud of member UDW Local thirty nine thirty. I'm here today to support AB 1981.

Okay. Thank you.

Dean Grafila with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of the County Of Los Angeles in support of AB 1981.

It was a good year. It was a

good year. I'm sorry.

I wasn't alive, but I'll I'll take your word for it. Good afternoon, chair members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Unidos US in support. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Blake in support.

Yeah. Alright. Thanks, Mike. Right here.

Good afternoon, chair and committee members of Blake Johnson. I'm up for Child Action here in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chair. Edgar Guerra with SEIU California, proud cosponsor. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I am Manju. I am childcare provider, proud member of CCPU from Santa Clara County, District 2. I am here to support 1981, to support. Please, requesting it.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Wendy Moran. I'm provider provider from Los Angeles County. I'm a childcare provider for seventeen years. I'm here to support AB in 1981.

Please vote for AB 1981. Thank you.

Hello. Aurora Reyes, a proud member of CCPU, family child care educator for 19 years in Los Angeles County. I'm asking that you guys support AB 19 '81.

Hello. My name is Jessica Magdaleno. I am a family childcare provider from Orange County. I've been doing this job for twenty five years. I'm also proud member of CCPU and I'm here today to in support of AB 81 because family I'm sorry, nineteen eighty one.

Because family childcare homes are essential and part of California childcare system. I respectfully ask four adjust adjust to vote on a v nineteen eighty one.

Okay. Yesenia Raupancho with NTel poverty California and strong support.

Okay. Well, after all that, who wants to rise in opposition to this bill? Is anyone in opposition? I see none. I'll be back.

Let me just say from my own standpoint, really appreciate this, and you and your passion leadership, as majority leader on the childcare. You know, I was on the childcare partnerships council of San Mateo County before elected, and what I was very proud. My first year was 2021 when we worked on rate reform.

And I was really proud and really encouraged by that but obviously the job is not finished yet and we have work to do to make it sustainable for all of you who are putting your heart and soul, into, into the children that you look after, but we have to make it work. We have to it has to be, able to that you can live and, and and and afford to do this.

So, I appreciate it. Unfortunately, we have a couple other committees going and we have some other people out, right now. So, we will we'd not be able to vote on this right at the moment because we don't have a motion. I'm confident to say that this bill is gonna pass, but we'll have to wait to take a vote. But I wanna thank all of you who came up here, especially those from Santa Clara County, and but everyone who came up to support today.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I would just like to make one comment.

Yes. Please go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Please go ahead and close.

Sorry.

I That's right. The childcare provider United, SEIU, California State Council, United Domestic Workers asked me, the local 33930, They've never ever left working for the kids. They have been loyal. And I intend to help them get this across the line. And I want to thank all of them who have come today because it means so much to us.

They've made long trips to get up here and to make to do this for our children. So with that, when the time's correct, I would like to, respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Good. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you all. Okay. I'm gonna make a request. You can go out of file order for some of our errands who's been been waiting here patiently for a long time, if that's okay with you, Assemblymember Schultz. Okay.

Go ahead. As long as you guys are okay. But some of our errands has been here from the from the beginning of the committee, but he's been waiting patiently. I'm sure you're being productive there. Timmer Schultz, you have a B2478.

I sure do, mister chair. Thank you. And I have a carrot cake in my office for mister Aaron's when he's all done. Wow. Oh, I'm fresh out of chocolate, but I got carrot cake for you.

I I asked for some too, but that might be

for you, I'll make an exception.

Bribing bribing the, the Thank you,

mister chair. I'll try to be brief. I am pleased to present AB 2478, which will strengthen our state's commitment to keeping children with their families and extended kin whenever possible. As you well know, California has embraced embraced a kin first culture, meaning that the state strongly prioritizes keeping a child placed with a family member or trusted adult who can better assure that a child stays connected to their communities, cultures, or tribes.

The state recognizes that kinship care includes both relatives and non relative extended family members who are safe adult caregivers that a child has a preexisting familial relationship with.

Research has consistently shown that children placed with a familiar caregiver experiences better outcomes, including greater placement stability, higher likelihood of enrolling in higher education or gaining employment by the age of 21, and improved mental and behavioral health. Currently in California, all foster care applicants must go through one unified application called the Resource Family Approval Process or RFA for short, regardless of whether or not they are kin with the child they're applying to care for.

The RFA was largely designed for licensing foster parents in traditional foster homes and does not fully reflect the needs of Kin caregivers who step up during a family crisis. The standardized process can create unnecessary administrative barriers and undue delays for these Kin applicants, sometimes preventing children from being placed with Kin altogether. Recognizing these issues, the Legislature passed 28 AB 2830 by Speaker Robert Rivas in 2024, calling on the Department of Social Services to adopt a simplified approval process for relatives to become foster care providers.

AB 2,478 follows through on this requirement. It would create the kinship family approval pathway or KFA for short, a streamlined approval process specifically for kin caregivers. This pathway will help reduce, regulatory barriers and irrelevant requirements to maximize efficient placement. Specifically, AB 2,478 removes barriers to kinship placements by one, extending a limited and preexisting criminal exemption process to non related extended family members and tribally approved foster homes, and two, enabling agencies to be eligible to claim Title IV E federal dollars.

By reducing these administrative delays and strengthening family first placement policies, the bill helps ensure that children entering foster care can thrive and remain connected to the people and communities that matter most to them.

I'll close, mister chair, with noting that our office is continuing to work with all of the sponsors, as well as the Department of Social Services and tribal advocates to continue fine tuning some of the technical language of the bill. Testifying in support today, I have Amanda Kirchner with the County Welfare Directors Association of California, as well as Ann Cork with Children's Law Center of California.

Excellent. And I'll ask you each keep it to two minutes, please. Go ahead.

I'm Ann Cork, policy attorney with Children's Law Center Sec of California. We are the attorneys for the children in the child welfare dependency system in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Placer Counties. Being placed in foster care is often scary, confusing, and traumatic. We teach children about stranger danger, Then a social worker shows up, takes them from their home, and places them in a stranger's house. Seven year old client of mine clarified this for me many years ago.

She'd recently been placed into a foster home and I asked her how she was doing. She told me, I don't feel safe. I know I'm supposed to, but I don't. They're very nice people, but I don't know them and I don't feel safe. AB 2478 seeks to remedy this.

It's a big bill with a simple purpose. When a child can't be at home, get them with the people they know and love as quickly as possible so they can both be safe and feel safe. Sadly, I have many examples of why this bill is necessary, but I think Jeremiah's story is particularly illustrative. I changed his name and blurred some details for his privacy. He entered foster care as a young teenager along with his little half brother and sister.

They had the same mother with different fathers, but their father had been the one who raised Jeremiah, so he considered him dad. That father jumped right into reunification services and did everything that was asked of him. So Jeremiah's little brother and sister were able to be returned home quickly. Unfortunately, it wasn't the same for Jeremiah. The father had some criminal history from long ago and because he'd never married Jeremiah's mother, there was no legal relationship between him and Jeremiah despite the deep connection.

So Jeremiah couldn't be returned. It was very hard to explain why it was safe for his little brother and sister to go home, but not safe for him. Because the issue wasn't about safety. It's just the law doesn't allow it. Jeremiah remained in foster care and ended up aging out.

We were never able to find him permanency, which makes sense because he had a home. We just couldn't put him there. AB 2478 would change that and give us the legal tools we need to get the current Jeremiah's home. We thank you for your support and respectfully quest your aye vote.

Excellent. Thank you. Go ahead.

Good evening. Amanda Kirsch on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association. We are here as a cosponsor for AB 2478. Statewide, about one third of our children in foster care are placed with relatives. Counties have worked very diligently over the last several years to increase placement with relatives, including partnering with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding on best practices, participating in CDSS kinship navigation sprints, and utilizing statewide funding to build out family finding units.

But we know that there's more that we can do. Next step forward. The bill updates our resource family approval to allow for kinship specific requirements. This is gonna help us streamline our relative approvals, so that more children in foster care can be placed with their family members.

We're working very collaboratively with our cosponsors, stakeholders, and Department of Social Services on these new kinship specific approval, and to make sure that we have equitable funding and resources, as well as greater flexibility on requirements that don't impact child safety.

And for these reasons, we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. To have others, who would like to add on in support of AB 2478. Go ahead.

Kristen Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights, a cosponsor asking for your

high vote.

Hi. Jackie Reethizer with the California Alliance of Caregivers in strong support.

Good afternoon. Josh Gaugher on behalf of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors in support. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone opposition? Anyone like to speak in opposition? I see none. I'll take it back.

Zeiss, any comments? I would like to thank you, for, this bill. It is a big bill, but as you say, with a very simple, I think, understandable presence, premise, and, grateful will be supporting the bill today. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion?

You're looking at the entire committee membership. I would move the bill. Excellent.

We have a motion from Senator Laird.

File item 18, AB 2478. Motion is to pass to judiciary committee Becker.

Aye.

Becker, aye. Achobogue, Laird.

Aye.

Laird, aye. Perez, Weber Pearson.

Okay. 2 to zero. We'll keep that on call. Thank you. Thank you all.

Okay. We're gonna go with Assemblyman Rabanta. Assemblymember Aarons continues to wait patiently, which we appreciate. Okay. Go ahead.

Thank you. You have AB 1996, also a good year.

1969.

Oh, oh, 1960 is on Yes. That was on consent. That's right. Which one? Oh, oh, it was you two.

Okay. So 1969 will

And then 1996.

Okay. Great.

Have it go on consent.

Yeah. Exactly.

Alright. Well, then good afternoon, chair and members on, file item 12, AB 1969. I would like to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thanking committee staff for their thoughtful and thorough analysis, and I'm pleased to present AB 1969, the It Takes a Village Act of 2026. We often say that it takes a village to raise a child, but too often our systems are not structured to function like that village.

If we are serious about improving outcomes for children and families especially in economically disadvantaged communities, we must ensure access to coordinated supports from birth through college and career.

This work is deeply personal to me. It has been my life's work, in fact. I've seen firsthand how a place based cradle to career approach can change the trajectory of a child's life. Prior to joining the assembly, I served as the CEO of Oakland Promise where we worked to improve educational and economic outcomes for students experiencing poverty. In that role, I saw both the gaps in our systems and the transformative impact of aligning services across sectors to meet families where they are.

California invests billions of dollars annually in children, families, and and their economic development programs. Yet, these investments remain fragmented, siloed, and even unevenly targeted, particularly in neighborhoods with the highest concentrations of child poverty. We've made significant progress launching Cal Kids, children's savings accounts, investing in community schools, implementing Cal AIM community supports to address upstream health and social needs, expanding the expanded learning opportunities program, advancing a career technical education master plan, and we've made historic investments in early learning.

Each of these efforts is critical, but they are most powerful when they are aligned and coordinated around the needs of children and families and can transition seamlessly through changing administrations. That is exact is is that is exactly what AB 1969 is designed to do.

This bill establishes the California coordinated neighborhood and community schools incentive grant to support community schools and place based partnerships that coordinate services from early childhood through college and career. Over the past decades, Promise Neighborhoods and similar cradle to career initiatives have shown this approach works. These partnerships align education, health, housing, and economic supports and the results are clear: improved access to care, strong outcomes in academia, and increased college and career readiness. AB 1969 builds on that success by expanding and sustaining these efforts statewide.

By investing in coordinated community driven solutions, this bill strengthens California's ability to reduce poverty, close opportunity gaps, and support children and families at every stage of their life.

Because when we invest in the systems that surround a child, we invest in their future and the future of our state. With me today to testify in support are Edgar Chavez, executive director of Hayward Promise Neighborhoods, and Richard Raya, Chief Executive Officer of Marin Promise Partnership.

Okay. Thank you. Welcome both of you. You each have two minutes. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Edgar Chavez, executive director of Hayward Promise Neighborhoods. I am here to support, AB 1969 representing over a dozen California Promise Neighborhoods serving more than a 180,000 children, a fraction of the 1,800,000 California children living in poverty, a number that we can eliminate with the right and local investments. AB 1969, the It Takes a Village Act would establish a California coordinated neighborhood and community services grant to fund place based partnerships that coordinate cradle to career services.

Nearly every legislator can name a neighborhood in their district where the need facing children in crisis exceeds anything any one agency can provide.

If you can name the place, Promise Neighborhoods is a model for it. But we can no longer defend depend on federal funding and support to continue this work. In December, Hayward received a $13,500,000 non continuation notice from the US Department of Education. Since when since then, we've closed over a dozen programs, eliminated 20 positions, and halted services families were counting on. This model works.

Our state funded evaluation through DSS and RTI International found that every dollar invested in a promise neighborhoods returned $4 in societal benefits across rural, urban, and tribal communities. In Hayward, we've seen our strongest results in fifteen years. Take chronic absenteeism is is when we look at our data by family instead of by school, we found that if one child is chronically absent, the whole family usually is. By pairing direct services with whole family support, food, transportation, childcare, we've cut chronic absenteeism by over 25%.

That is the it takes a village approach of AB 1969, which would bring a statewide investment and partnership with existing programs such as community schools.

I respectfully urge you to continue to support this. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi. Richard Rya, CEO of Marin Promise Partnership and a member of the California Cradle to Career Coalition. So as Edgar mentioned, a recent study showed a $4 return for every $1 invested in California Promise Neighborhoods due to increases in kinder readiness, graduation rates, and more. And the Marin community, which I represent, wants to join the growing movement for place based partnerships across California.

Contrary to stereotypes, Marin is one of the most inequitable counties in the state with some of the starkest disparities for working families. The problem is not just the lack of resources. It's the lack of co coordination and prioritization of resources, and the lack of commitment to share data and accountability for results across systems. In Marin, we've convened a cross sector leadership table to change this with community schools as anchor partners. We call this effort the Canal Promise Neighborhood.

The Canal is the most segregated Latino community in the Bay Area with steep income, health, and academic disparities for children. And our goal is to rally around these children to ensure they are on a path to college and career. And we do this by breaking through silos and collaborating along the cradle to career Continuum. From creating new preschool slots to working with high schools on dual enrollment with colleges, and internships with employers.

At a time when communities can feel divided, place based partnerships help us unify around a common vision for our children.

Without a vision for our children, we have no vision for our future. The It Takes a Village Act sets us on a path to create that vision. Community by community, in alignment with state priorities. Thank you for your leadership, and we ask for your support.

Thank you, both. We have others in support. Please step to the mic. Thank you.

Hi. Yesenia Rebancho. Adding in our Cradle to Career Coalition members, Bright Futures Monterey County, Chula Vista Promise Neighborhoods, Cradle to Courier Fresno County, Mission Promise, Neighborhood, Oakland Promise, Stanislaus Cradle to Courier Partnership, United Way of San Diego County, and Stripe Together.

Good afternoon. Darby Kernan on behalf of In Child Poverty California in support.

Good evening. Jasmine Asher representing the Greater Sacramento Urban League. We are in support.

Okay. Anyone in opposition? Opposition comments? Seeing none, I will take it back to the committee. Senator Laird.

You keep looking over to me. It's until I resigned recently, when I was named budget chair, I was on cradle to a career Yeah. As the Senate representative from its start. And that's such an important thing and this is so consistent with it that I salute the author for doing it and I would move the bill.

Thank you. Yeah. And I'll just head on. From my standpoint, you know, I kinda grew up in the in the era the age of social entrepreneurship. Right?

And looking for, creative models and data driven models, and we all heard of the Harlem Children's Zone. And and, you know, I remember hearing about the promised neighborhoods from early on. Haven't followed that closely. I actually did not know, before this bill how many, promised neighborhoods we did have in California. And, so it's really, on one hand, very exciting.

It was for me to realize how many, you know, the the network that has been built here and how many promised neighbors as we have. But on their hand, as you say, now with the cutoff of federal funds, how this is in danger. So I'll to add my gratitude. Really excited about this. Wanna, you know, be involved in any way, and, would invite you to close.

Thank you so much. I invite you to, be a co author, if you aren't already, on this legislation. And really thank you for your support. This has been work that has been years in the making for us.

We've really tried to focus on the fact that if we just do the simple thing of making sure that every child from the time that they are in the womb to the time that they are able to get into their career that helps them to thrive has what they need the most, which is all of our arms wrapped around them so tight that they cannot fail that we will succeed in the state of California.

And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote.