Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

Seconds. Senate Committee on Human Services will come to order. Good morning. We are today over in the state capital in Room 113. So we ask all members to get here so we can establish a quorum.

We have 25 bills on today's agenda, and six of those bills are on the proposed consent calendar. In consent, we have file items six, eight, ten, thirteen, nineteen, and twenty-four. We will start as a subcommittee, and we have authors here ready to go. So we'll start with Assembly member Caloza. You have file item one.

Welcome.

Everything here is stuck to the table. Hello? Okay. Good morning. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee for this opportunity to present AB 262.

Thank you to the committee consultants and staff for all of their hard work on this bill. I am pleased to present AB262, which takes an important force important first step towards addressing unique challenges faced by pregnant women in crisis who are experiencing homelessness in California. Every year, thousands of pregnant women experiencing homelessness who are pregnant face so much instability from lack of services, from lack of housing, and so many more.

Without stable shelter, they face greater risks of pregnancy complications, delayed prenatal care, poor birth outcomes, and increased health care health care cost. In my district, I represent East Hollywood and Northeast LA, East LA and South Glendale.

Unfortunately, there have been a lot of really heartbreaking circumstances where, pregnant women have had to go door to door knocking on the doors of small businesses asking for help to no avail. A most recent example involved an auto body auto body owner, where the pregnant woman locked herself, in his break room and gave birth, and her baby unfortunately died. And these stories and so many more from some of the people in my district who do volunteer work and provide mutual aid, unfortunately, are too common.

For the small business owner who had to experience this, he really wanted to help and do the right thing, but unfortunately, we don't have any systems in place to really support our small business owners, our nonprofit communities, and those who end up interacting with our pregnant women in crisis. Despite these unimaginable yet real concerns, we lack comprehensive data to inform how our emergency response systems and housing networks can better support this particular vulnerable population.

This bill asks our new California housing and homelessness agency to conduct a study of issues impacting pregnant people experiencing homelessness and report its findings to the legislature by 07/01/2028. The study would also evaluate the feasibility of creating a voluntary pink alert system and provide recommendations on what a system could look like.

These recommendations would examine ways nonprofits could voluntarily receive notifications when a pregnant person needs emergency housing or prenatal services, how participating shelters could be connected to those individuals, how organizations could register to participate, and how existing emergency service partners could be better incorporated into this network.

California has already implemented similar alert systems, such as the Amber Alert, or the Feather Alert, or the Silver Alert, And by identifying what's needed first, which AB262 would do, we can better understand existing gaps in housing and prenatal prenatal services needed for this very vulnerable population. Due to scheduling, I'll be reading the testimony provided by Brian Cohan, who is a constituent of mine and a champion for a lot of homelessness issues in my district.

And also with me today, who will be speaking first in support of AB262 is Catherine Squire, legislative analyst with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls.

Okay. Why don't you go first? Alright. And then we'll come back to the Assemblymember for the other testimony. Go ahead.

Hello. Can you hear me? Okay. Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. My name is Catherine Squire.

I'm a legislative analyst with the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, and we are in '62. For nearly sixty years, the Commission had has advocated for the rights of women and girls working to eliminate systemic inequalities designed to impact more than 19,000,000 residents of the state of California. Our mission encompasses promoting equality and justice through research, policy development, education outreach, and strategic partnerships.

AB262 reflects that mission by recognizing one of the most vulnerable populations in California, pregnant people experiencing homelessness and taking the thoughtful data driven approach to understanding how we can better meet their needs. Pregnancy should never become life threatening because someone lacks stable housing, yet, yet too many pregnant women face barriers to prenatal care, emergency shelter, and basic support services.

Before California creates a new alert system, it is critical that we first study the problem they face, from housing insecurities to inaccessible prenatal care, and develop recommendations that are informed by the organizations serving these individuals every day. The proposed pink alert study evaluate evaluates how nonprofits can voluntarily opt into a notification system, How shelters capable of serving pregnant people can be connected more efficiently and how existing emergency service organizations can be integrated into that network.

AB262 lays the groundwork for a coordinated response that prioritizes health, safety, and dignity, ensuring that any future program is built on evidence rather than assumptions. At the commission, we know that improving outcomes for women and families requires collaboration across agencies, health care providers, housing organizations, and community based nonprofits. The provisions in AB262 embrace this collaborative approach while asking the important question of how California can better support pregnant people during one of the most vulnerable moments of their lives.

For these reasons, the commission is proud to be in support of a AB262 and respectfully asks for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Great.

Thank you, Chair. And now I'm gonna read, the statement from, Brian Cohan, my second witness who's unable to be here. He wrote, good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for hearing AB262, in my comment in absentia. My name is Brian Cohan, and I'm a constituent of Assembly District 52.

For the past seven years, I've been running weekly drop in programs and doing volunteer homeless street outreach with a group of neighbors. We started as a small mutual aid organization and now have four staff supporting over 800 active volunteers like myself. Our volunteers are on the front lines of the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles. We frequently encounter a woman claiming to be pregnant, and less frequently, but more so than is acceptable, encounter visibly pregnant women.

Some notable experiences stand out to me over the years, Particularly the case of a woman who was in her third trimester and living on the streets of Hollywood.

She cared deeply for her unborn child, but for complex reasons of trust in her relationship with the father was unable to move indoors. We brought her a cell phone so she could at least call 911 if she went into labor. In another instance, we found a new mother with an intellectual disability and her three month old baby in a tent on Sunset Boulevard. Our response to homelessness should try to break the cycles of poverty, mental illness, and violence that lead to it.

Helping mothers and their children get the best start in life is a critical part of that.

AB262 is about asking if we can do more. That's the question I want to know the answer to, and I hope the answer is yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have others who went away and in support? Others in support? Sip to the mic. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members.

Welcome.

Good morning, Chair, Members.

Trevor Nelson of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Okay. Thank you. Any in opposition? Do we have any in opposition? Let's take it back to our vice Chair.

Any comments?

I just wanna thank our witness for being here this morning. I wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I think the only question I have would be, I understand the silver alert. I understand the, the feather alert. What exactly would be the pink alert?

What are you alerting to? No.

It's a great question. And this is a steady bill for the housing department to come up with a set of recommendations. But, you know, the idea impetus behind it is really notifying service providers in the area when someone like a small business owner encounters a pregnant woman in crisis, and we don't really have a coordinated way to alert nearby providers. Currently, it's really tough for some providers to prioritize pregnant women just depending on how their funding is provided that doesn't allow them to do so.

However, when people like the mutual aid organizations, like one of my witnesses volunteers for becomes aware, they immediately work to provide more resources to that very vulnerable person.

And so the idea of the pink alert is something that is voluntary, but we know that this is a great need, especially for my district and for a lot of urban cities in particular, where we have a lot of people out on the streets all the time. And women who are out on the streets are incredibly vulnerable in general.

And a lot of the data that we are looking for doesn't exist, which is why we're asking the housing agency to study this, especially because they just are in the middle of reorganizing to actually be a cabinet level agency with a focus on housing and homelessness. So we think it's the right time to study this issue. We hear a lot of anecdotal reports, and we know that there's more that we can do to support a super vulnerable population.

But the reality is this is happening, and this is a reality, especially in places like Hollywood and Northeast LA.

Well, I, I think it's a commendable bill. I'm grateful that you're going to be moving forward with with the study. I think the only caution I would probably share would be when we think of a feather alert, when we think of a silver alert. When we think of these alerts or an amber alert. We usually think of public safety, someone missing.

So I think, I, I think the only concern I would have would be, by referring it to the pink alert, that considers somebody missing. Historically speaking, presidents wise, we have it as someone missing. They need help finding someone. So to call it a pink alert, it just might be a little misleading or not misleading. That's the wrong word.

Let me rephrase that. Might be a little what would be the word? It wouldn't, it would, it would imply something differently. That's the only thing, I would, I would just bring a little to your attention on on calling it a pink alert. But other than that, I think it's a great I really appreciate the, you know, the argument support, which say, you know, protecting two lives at once, which I absolutely really, really appreciate that.

I am grateful for it. I'm I'm gonna be supporting it. I'll be happy to move the, the bill when appropriate, ma'am. And when the when the time's appropriate, we'd love to move the bill forward, Mister Chair. Thank you for for bringing this forward, and thank you for being here this morning testifying in support.

Okay. Thanks to our Vice Chair. I too will be supporting the bill. I really appreciate both of you here and, your witness who couldn't be here. I love the idea for notification system, you know, if we could pioneer something like this, that would go out and let people know that there's this need and, and let people respond according to the way.

Sounds terrific, but the broader study is important as well. Again, we are a subcommittee right now. We'll have a motion from our Vice Chair at the appropriate time. Thanks for being here.

Thank you, Senators. We appreciate your support and respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Yes. Well, it's at your close. We'll take that as your close. Yes. Thank you.

Sorry. It's Monday. Okay. Awesome. I see Assemblymember Jackson.

We have a special guest, our superintendent of public instruction. So I'm gonna take them next, and then I'll take some of them were lucky who's here early. We'll make sure we'll take you next. Right. Welcome, superintendent.

Welcome, Assembly member. You go ahead when ready.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. I'll keep my comments short because the real deal is here. First, I wanna thank the committee and staff for their amendments and which I'll be accepting today. Today is AB 673, which establishes the unaccompanied youth support grant program. This program would provide assistance to 16 and 17 year old students experiencing homelessness and who are not in the physical custody of a parent or guardian, as they continue their education.

With me today is Tony Thurmond, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and also accompanied by Eric Dunk as well, who's been my ride or die through this whole process.

Welcome. Very nice to have you. Go ahead when ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair, vice Chair. I wanna thank Senator Jackson for your leadership on this matter. We'll keep it brief. Just to put it in context, most recent data shows us more than 280,000 homeless youth in our state. 10,000 of those youth are unaccompanied minors.

Think about 16 and 17 year olds who are homeless and don't have a parent or a guardian to help them. To make the matter worse, there's only 130 beds statewide for temporary emergency shelter. And only 10% of schools that get McKinney-Vento dollars are able to use any of those resources. But even with those resources, they don't provide enough to support the needs of those youth who are homeless and on their own.

This bill closes the gap by establishing the pilot program that you heard, the Assembly member talk about for unaccompanied youth ages 16 and 17 to get access to housing navigation, basic needs, tutoring, employment, readiness, health, and certainly mental health services.

The funding flows to a weighted formula that focuses on the school districts that have the highest concentration of unaccompanied youth with the greatest need, and that way we can focus on providing the best outcome. Your committee sits at the intersection of housing and child welfare and social services. This bill is fundamentally about connecting those students to systems and to schools.

This bill does not ask school districts to replace human services, but it does ask them to be A Bridge that gets vulnerable students to the right door. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 673.

Thank you. Here for technical support? Okay. Yeah. Great. Great. Well, thank you both. Do we have others who wanna add on and support? We do. Step to the mic.

Hi. I'm Zachariah Okenda. I'm with the Alliance for Children's Rights. We're also in support. And I wanna speak on personally, I was a formerly homeless youth, unaccompanied minor, ages 16, 17, without a guardian.

I moved to California, without guardians or caregivers, and it was the school district and local population that came together. But I really personally support this bill because it would create a resource that would have been directly helpful to me, not just scraping, you know, ragtag sort of groups together from the interfaith community and other folks to come help. So thank you so much for doing your work again, Senator Jackson.

Okay. Thank you. Generally in me too's, but we only had one witness. So we we appreciate you sharing your personal story. Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair and members. Trevor Nelson with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

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

Amanda Kirchner, County Welfare Director is in support.

Excellent. Any in opposition? Do we have anyone in opposition to this bill? Seeing none, we'll take it back to the committee. Any comments from our vice Chair?

I guess we're facilitating conversations today. So a couple of things. So we saw this bill in education. I did not support the bill in education at the time because it was it's my understanding that we currently have several areas where our students fall into as far as funding goes. So if we look at our our LCFF funding, which is low social economic demographic, these students would fall into that particular segment.

So additional funding would be provided in that circumstances. We also have the the currently, the social services that are currently provided for students who are unaccompanied already, sorry I'm looking at my notes here. So

let's see. So right now, the CDE submitted a budget request for $45,000,000, and there's currently $30,000,000 in the May revise for the McKinney Vento and and homeless supports in general. This has been augmented to 300,000,000 in the Senate's proposal as of right now. So couple of questions on this particular from this angle and this perspective, how will the the CDE ensure that this program does not duplicate services already offered through county social services and other local homeless assistance programs?

Because in this case, when students are unaccompanied or they're being mistaken care of as far as homes, the the schools have an automatic responsibility to report to the social services.

So in this case, as I'm as we spoke in in education, they would be required to report to the Department of Social Services and get that department already engaged in with these particular with with these particular segment of students. So how do we not duplicate programs? That's my biggest concern right now is that we have pots of money everywhere.

And in reality, we're starting to really duplicate a lot of services rather than focusing on we current what we currently have, the systems that we currently have, and ensuring that we actually enforce fully funding them first, staffing them, and and fully ensuring that they're they're working the way they're supposed to be working. So will this one, how do we not duplicate?

Number two, how do we how will this take away control from social services who are already tasked by social service agencies to serve this population, and will there be collaborative efforts between the CDSS and the CDE? And oh, we'll we'll start with that. And then the follow-up question after that sorry. I have about a couple of four or five. Then after that, will the, say, you know, obviously, you've got quite a team here.

The likelihood of this bill being signed into law will likely be there. But I do want to, put on record that, if it does go through and it does get signed into law, will there be a requirement to come back to the legislature and ensure that we have an accountability measure in that? So one, two, three.

I'll defer to my witness.

Thank you, madam vice Chair. The last to your last question, the answer is yes. The bill has built in a mechanism for reporting back to the legislature on its progress. I I would just say this is your opportunity to help young people who are in an impossible situation. Those agencies that serve you, you heard from some of them today.

I I worked for many of them for twenty years. To put it in context, there are only a 130 temporary shelter beds for these youth. We actually reached out to each of the thousand districts to ask them their understanding about how many unaccompanied youth that there are and they gave us data.

And they said at least 80% of the youth are either doubling down with somebody, couch surfing, they may be sleeping in a car, but they're not getting into any social services programs because those programs are completely taxed. They're doing all that they can.

This is an opportunity to help youth who will otherwise become homeless adults. And I know you care about young people. And so I, again, urge you to support this bill because you will be helping young people who need help now. And the systems that you've mentioned have no ability or capacity to help them. 130 beds matched up against 10,000 homeless teenagers who have no adult to help them.

Senator, I would I would also just say that similar to how we always make sure that we have set aside for homelessness for veterans, the idea is that there's multiple housing programs. But we know that if we don't set aside funds and make sure that programs are specifically designated to the population, And many times, they don't have an advocate to be able to get to those resources. And many times, they don't even know that the resources exist.

And so in a time where all of our programs and all of our supports are are stressed to point it, like, to express it lightly is that this just shows that number one, these are the ones who are often

forgotten, often are unable to advocate for themselves. And so by making sure that, not only through law, but also through the budget, we are able to make sure that these funds are directly directly going to go to them, so that we can actually deal with this population. So it's similar to a whole host of things that we do.

For instance, when we do youth set aside for Homekey or other things, We're just basically saying it's time for us to set aside some funds specifically for this unique population that is even more distressed than for, say, the number of McKinney-Vento young people that also are going through our schools as well.

Okay. So going back to I'm gonna break down what I just heard to ensure that we have clarity. So when we're having this particular funding going in there, the number one concern that I hear is that our current system within the Department of Social Services is already overly tasked. Meaning, one, they don't have a staff, or number two, they're out of funding.

And they don't have foster parents. I know that you've raised that. They don't have foster parents for children who are being abused every single day, and there may not even be group homes for group of youth that we're talking about. Even if there were, many of these young people have had their own way. And so there's no place for them. This is an opportunity for you to help them.

So this funding would be specifically responsible for, one, adding housing. Is that what you're saying, that this would provide more housing?

Everything that you laid out about what's in the budget proposal creates a framework for some housing support shelter. It is almost impossible to house young people who don't have access to a guardian under California law. And so there are opportunities to create some shelter and some resources to help young people find where there might be transitional housing supports, and so that's what might be in the budget.

And if you if you can't support the budget, this is your opportunity to make a statement about your willingness to help young people who are in the most urgent of situations.

So this is where this is where I'm going with is that, that funding that is being currently, added into the into the budget, is that would that help on the Department of Social Services, or is that funding going to be accessible to the school districts themselves?

I think some of those details will get worked out as the budget process concludes, but you did ask, in your opening questions, if there'd be cooperation between Department of Education and Department of Social Services, and the answer is yes. Because most of the youth that we see in these situations ultimately do get served in between systems, in some way, but there are no resources for them. And so this would be a great opportunity for the departments to continue working closely together.

We've been in regular contact with some of the folks who work in the Department of Social Services, and, we could do the same in terms of you heard today one of the groups in support is the County Welfare Directors Association. They give us the ability to work through county social services, to make sure that there is a, coordinated effort, great communication to help these youth. These are youth who fall through the cracks, and it takes all those systems working together to help them.

Okay. So the other the other the other comment that I'm gonna make is that as we're allocating this funding for these students, and as we're looking into giving the schools more responsibility and, this is this is the other part, we're thinking we're assuming that the schools are going to have these staff and and the people available to actually care specifically and counsel these students. Right? Which we know for a fact that we don't have enough counselors at the school district level.

We were trying to work on that pipeline. We don't have enough staff working in various capacities within school districts to be able to meet the needs of the students and the different programs that they have. Number one concern that we have from school districts is they don't have enough staff, which is why we're trying to work on that pipeline to get more folks into the school system, whether it's counselors, health aids, teachers, and so forth. Same thing with the Department of Social Services.

Number one concern, not enough funding, not enough staffing, and so forth.

So I just wanna be clear that what we're trying to do is allocate more funding, more resources. But overall, either way, whether it's for social services or for the education, for a specific demographic, in general, we we were trying to fight and combat and try to create a new program and allocation of funding for systems that we currently can't support.

I guess you have to ask yourself if staffing shortages is a reason to vote against the bill that's actually trying to augment what districts are trying to do. I would I would put it in this context. We asked the districts what kind of help they want. More than 60% of school districts in our state said that they want to see these types of resources. Almost every district has a staff person who works with homeless students.

You're correct. Not every district has enough counselors, but almost every district has some staff person who works with homeless students, and they need these resources to be able to help them navigate housing opportunities. This is a great opportunity to help, and, respectfully, I ask that you support the bill.

Okay. So going back, and I'm gonna push a little bit more on that end because I really I'm I'm really putting a lot of pressure on every single new program that we're we're we're creating because I really want to ensure that what we we support what we currently have and fix what we currently have before we start expanding something new.

So the challenge on this when when we focus on the housing component on there and another another area where I also push on the on the housing part as far as either having vouchers or creating housing on our campuses. If you're if you're stating that this is going to help housing, the common concern I'm gonna put on record is that this does not add to housing.

And why I say that is because we also have a premise where we're trying to allocate funding for housing for our students in college.

And one of my biggest points that I've made in the past is giving vouchers to students has not fixed the actual lack of housing. What would fix the housing issue when it comes to our college students would be building housing on community colleges and our state colleges and our UCs in order to accommodate our students who are lacking housing. That will fix the problem because it doesn't add housing to just give vouchers.

It just adds to the fact that we don't have enough housing in those communities, and we're making an impact in those communities when we add students. So with this particular component, I I just wanna make sure that we understand that that adding funding for housing without actually providing additional building housing units is not going to fix the access to housing. And I just wanna put it on record. I'm gonna support the bill today.

May I address that?

Sure. Go ahead.

Thank you. I would just say that we need both housing and vouchers, and here's why. I spent almost five years working with emancipated foster youth, young people who are 18 to 24, who bounced around, sometimes in foster care and then out of foster care, limited systems, and they needed the vouchers. The state offers some transitional housing programs, but it is completely underfunded.

And there are resources that young adults can get housing if they have those vouchers, as well as the college students, that you've talked about, who need to have it.

I would say that these 15, 16, 17 year olds need it even more because they have no one. They have access to no one. They can't sign up for foster care. They can't sign up for extended foster care. They can't get any resources. They can't get into a group home. They can't get into a shelter. They can't get into anything.

Because it's not available.

Because it is not available.

It's not available.

And so we need both. We need both additional slots, and we need the stipends to fund individual costs for the individuals who have to get into a place.

Okay. I'm gonna support the bill today, but I do wanna make sure that we're having these conversations that, you know, that just pouring money without building the infrastructure is not going to fix the issue. The money is just going to go poof. And that's the biggest concerns that I have. That is a temporary it it literally is a band-aid or it makes us feel good, and that's why I don't.

That's why I wanna make sure that to the to the concern that you said you stated earlier, we don't have it available. So we have to build it. Right. And that's the biggest concern is that, I wanna see more in that effort on on building housing to fact fix the issues and also noting that just adding money to the problem, to the issue, does not increase necessarily the staff or or the structures that we need for it. So I just wanna put that on the record on there.

I will be supporting the bill today in human services, but I I wanna see that collaboration and ensuring that we're having the conversations that we have to look at the current systems and fully funding them or fixing them. So with that, Mister Chair, I'll be happy to move the the bill when appropriate.

Okay.

Mister Chair, if I could, through the Chair, I'd like to invite you both to attend a meeting that we've convened of school districts where we will have social service agency representatives present. You can call it a homelessness summit. It's intended to really flesh out some of the very questions that you're talking about. How do we make the most of every resource?

How do we maximize partnership and collaboration? It will be on July 22 here in Sacramento at 1PM. There is a Zoom option. We would invite you both and the members of this committee and, obviously, the author of the bill to participate. And, again, we share the same concerns you do. Thank you.

Well, thank you. We'll note that. And I wanna thank you first, superintendent. I don't know how much other chances I'll have, this year, to thank you for all your work across the board.

We talked about housing, which I know things separate from this bill right now, but it's you've done so much to equate housing on school district property. The legislature as a whole, I know actually in our community college district, actually just broke ground on on three sixteen units of housing, so we're all doing that also on in community colleges and other places.

But but, again, you work for all students also to make sure all students can succeed in California, and I very much see this work, your collective work, as part of that, making sure all students have a chance to succeed. We heard from one of the witnesses about his experience and the school district helping him get to the stage. He's here to be able to hear and represent one of the groups testifying here today.

So, I wanna thank you, the human services great to have the human services Chair for the Assembly here, in our committee. I will be supporting the bill as well. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much. First, I would like to thank the superintendent for his idea on this bill. And it's it's always great when two social workers can work together on an issue like this, and understanding the complexities.

I I would just say, as also one of the budget sub chairs in the budget on the budget side, is that if you look at the budget as a whole and the work we've been doing, not only what we're gonna be doing this week, but what we did last week, is, as you know, I had a very hot bill when it comes to students in parking lots. And there was a lot of great debates for the last three, four years.

And one of the things that I always said that we need a both and approach. And a part of that is, what I'm excited about is on this ballot in November, we're gonna have opportunity to vote on a housing bond.

That includes building affordable housing, includes veterans housing, also includes university housing as well, which is one of my sticking points that we've had as well.

And so we actually when you look at, in totality, all the things that we're doing this year, we're actually taking a well rounded approach, building more housing, setting aside additional funds for for programs in which people are literally falling through the cracks, and making sure that we're also making sure that we're also doing very robust support to our counties, as well as historic funding for our public education system.

So we're we're going a full court press on this to making sure no one is left through the cracks, people are are being supported according to their individual needs, as experts in their own lives, and most importantly, making sure that we're building for the future. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, thank you. Again, thank you, both for your leadership here. We will both be supporting the bill, and we'll take a a motion at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Assembly member Lackey, when you're ready.

Great. Thank you. Go ahead. I'm ready.

Alright. Well, thank you, Mister Chair and member. Aye, I wanna begin by accepting the committee amendments and explain to you about AB 2304, which is also known as Gabriel's Law. It clarifies when a child requires immediate emergency care in an emergency situation. Social workers must have a child seen by the appropriate medical professional. This bill additionally clarifies existing law that social workers can be held accountable for falsifying records.

As you might know, since becoming a legislator, I've been trying to pass legislation revolving around the horrific child abuse case of Gabriel Fernandez. He was an eight year old boy who was tortured and killed by his mother and her boyfriend in my district. In his case, the social workers involved, they actually failed to take the necessary precautions that were needed to protect him.

Even though they were called out to see him multiple times for various injuries, his body chart was only updated once with a bruise on his bottom, preventing any further investigation and, from him being seen by any medical professional. Additionally, the various social workers he was assigned to backdated and falsified his records.

When his case was closed, a month before he was killed, one social worker changed the date to be March instead of April in order to not be held responsible for visits to the family in his final month. The four social workers were charged with one count of child abuse and one count of falsifying public records. However, all charges were dismissed in 2020. The death of Gabriel Fernandez serves as a wake up call to focus our collective consciousness on the systematic failures that exist to protect innocent children. It revealed that there are many cracks within the child welfare system that malign the interest of those children.

AB 2304 makes a necessary change and clarification in current law to help prevent any more cases like Gabriel. This bill requires that if a child appears to be in need of immediate emergency care, that the social worker called to the case must have seen the child. So they must come and respond. I have with me Gabriel's aunt Emily Carranza and Dan Felizado, with the Los Angeles County Attorney's Office to testify.

Okay. Thanks for being here with us, and you'll each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Emily Carranza, and I'm here today in memory of Gabriel Fernandez, Anthony Avilos, and Noah Cuatro. A question was asked, why is Gabriel's Law necessary? The answer is clear.

Gabriel's Law is necessary because children cannot protect themselves. When a child is being abused, neglected, or suffering in silence, they rely on adults and the systems designed to protect them to stop to step in before it's too late. Sadly, California has witnessed the devastating consequences when those protections fail. Gabriel Fernandez was only eight years old when he was tortured and murdered despite numerous reports of abuse.

Anthony Avilos was 10 years old when he died enduring horrific abuse and repeated warning signs that should have triggered stronger interventions. Noah Cuatro was just four years old when his young life was cut short after concerns about his safety had been raised. These children had names. They had dreams. They had futures. Most importantly, they deserved to be protected.

Gabriel's law is necessary because the lessons learned from these tragedies must lead to action. It is about strengthening accountability, improving communication, ensuring thorough investigations, and making child safety the highest priority. It is about preventing warning signs from being overlooked and assuring the cries for help are met with immediate action. This legislation is not about politics. It is about protecting children.

It is about making sure that the stories of Gabriel, Anthony, and Noah become catalyst for change rather than just headlines that fade with time. We cannot bring these boys back, but we can honor their lives by building a stronger child welfare system that responds quickly, acts decisively, and puts children first. I ask you to support Gabriel's law so that future children have the protection that Gable, Anthony, and Noah deserved, but never received. Their voices were silenced, but ours do not have to be. Thank you for your time, your compassion, and your commitment to protecting California's children. Let the legacy of Gabriel Fernandez, Anthony Avilos, and Noah Cuatro be one of the lasting change and stronger protections for every child in our state. Thank you.

Thanks for being here. Go ahead.

Mister chairman, members, Dan Filsott on behalf of Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. We're proud to support AB 2304. As the author and witness said, this bill will simply ensure that children in need of immediate medical care actually receive it. Far too often in our investigations, after the fact, we hear story after story. If this child had just been seen by maybe one medical professional, something may have been done.

This bill will help ensure that these children are seen by medical professionals. When they're seen by medical professionals, it helps ensure mandated reportings are taken into account. Law enforcement, social workers, the entire human services gambit is there to provide whatever services are needed for those children. It also clarifies that social workers employed by child welfare agencies who are not court officers are still covered by Section sixty two zero one. As the office said in our prosecution, we charged the individuals under Section 6,200. The court of appeals said that was the wrong section to be charged.

This will help ensure that no future prosecution is unnecessarily overturned because of a mistake in charging. For those reasons, we ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Others in support? Do the others anyone in opposition? Anyone would like to testify in opposition?

We do? Yes.

Yeah. That's okay. And whenever you're ready. Yeah. Michael Hefty, Los Angeles dependency lawyers.

I'm a court appointed appellate attorney representing parents in the Los Angeles County Juvenile Dependency System. We do oppose, for two reasons. The quicker reason would be that the medical, the requirement to provide medical care does not include a corresponding potential criminal penalty for a failure to do that. So only to the extent that there is not that corresponding penalty, we oppose that particular aspect. But we do certainly support the idea of making that provision of medical care a requirement.

The main opposition that we have pertains to the amendments tosection sixty two zero 0ne. The court 0f appeal case that came out of the Gabriel Fernandez issue was BOMB v Superior Court. That's B o m, BOMB. The court of appeal as the district attorney identified, asserted that county child welfare so or social workers are not officers who can be prosecuted under 6,200.

Sixty two zero one already states, quote, every other person, end quote, who is not described by 6,200 can be prosecuted under sixty two zero one as a fell or excuse me, as a misdemeanor penalty. So sixty two zero one already includes child welfare social workers who are employed by the county because as Baum asserted, they are not officers who can be prosecuted under 6,200. The court of appeal in Baum asserted part of the reason why they determined that social workers were not officers pertain to government code Section 24,000. 24,000 identifies county officers and the court of appeal in Baum said that child welfare social workers are not included in that list. The court of appeal and bomb reasserted that those who are included in that list are officers who can be prosecuted under 6,200. The main problem I think with AB 2304 is

Sorry. It's just you start to wrap up.

Oh, yes. The fact that 24,000 includes such persons as county veteran veterans or county librarians who can be prosecuted under felony penalties, while AB 2304 assures that the social workers in Gabriel Fernandez's case had that law been in effect at that time, would only receive misdemeanor convictions. We do think that this is not particularly appropriate given the acts alleged in the Gabriel Fernandez case.

Should this committee decide to pass this bill out of committee, it should be with amendments to 24,000 or 6,200 to make sure that these persons are identified as officers who are subject to the more harsh penalty under felony convictions.

So we're gonna have to wrap up. Certainly. Okay. Thank you. And I think a lot of that you raised was actually in public safety, which will also jurisdiction, which will hear the bill tomorrow. Okay. So there will be another chance to talk about some of those specific Sure. And and measures. So thank you. Any anyone else in opposition like to step forward? Okay. We'll take it back to committee.

Yeah. It's sad that we need this bill in the first place. It's it's it's incredibly disheartening to understand that we actually need this. But I am in full support to hold people accountable when they're trying to falsify information, when when dealing with our with with with children. But I'm grateful for the author to bring this forward.

I do wanna ask for clarification purposes based on what the witness and opposition stated is, would these first of all, is there any plan to address the classification of social workers as, quote, unquote, officers? And following up on that, within this bill, with this and I know this is probably public safety, but it was brought up by the by the the opposition.

Is this considered would this be considered a misdemeanor or a felony if someone is is caught falsifying information, which I'm assuming should already be illegal in in our in our system moving forward? Through the Chair.

Yeah. Please go ahead.

Mister Chair, certain social workers child social workers are considered court officers. Others are not. That is the confusing part. We have social workers in Los Angeles County who in their job description are classified as court officers. But like I say, other social workers are not.

If this bill were to be enacted, the penalties there's wobbler penalties available. So these can be charged as an alternate misdemeanor or felony. It is you are right. It is completely inappropriate for a court officer or non court officer who is documenting instances of child abuse, child neglect to falsify reports, alter reports. In our particular case, there was reports made on visits that never even occurred.

It's just completely unacceptable. And like I say, the prosecutor in our office who who filed that case is considered one of the finest complex child abuse prosecutors in the state, and he didn't get it right. This bill will help other prosecutors who are not as experienced as he was make the correct, filing decision.

So following up on on your on your comment on clarifying whether whether some or some and not social service social workers are considered officers or not. What defines that definition? And the person that falsified the information with the with this child that oh, it's his name. Sorry. Sorry.

We've got a lot of stuff in here. With Gabriel Fernandez, were they considered officers or or not officers? And would this bill have made a difference within that case?

To your questions. First, as far as whether you're a court officer or not a court officer, that is it depends on your job duties. That's a kind of a human resources issue as far as, you know, what what your job description is. And I am not an expert on that. As far as would this bill have made a difference, yes.

Because in our in our at the time is and I was not involved in that prosecution, but it's my understanding that at the time, they thought that all the social workers were court officers and that's why the 6,200 was the right charge. In this particular case, because the duties of the particular social workers involved did not qualify them as court officers. That's what the court of appeals ruled. Of course, by that time, it was too late to refile that case.

So with this bill once again, reiterating. With this bill, would they have would this bill make this, the officer that or the officer the social worker taking care of the death of Gabe or Gabriel Fernandez, would this make them officers?

No. It wouldn't make them officers. That's why I say, if they were officers, you would charge under Section 6,200. If you are not a court officer, you would be charged under Section sixty two zero one. What this bill does is clarify for prosecutors, other social workers, everybody that non court officer social workers are covered by sixty two zero one.

So if you have a situation in which a non court officer, child, social worker is doing these horrible things, that this is the appropriate code section to charge them.

I'm gonna have to this is public safety, so we gotta really move on in that line of question.

We wanna make sure that the bill is actually doing what it's intended to do. And if there's concerns about the bill not meeting that definition, we wanna make sure that we have language moving forward that it does.

I was gonna say, the the criminal prosecutors who deal with this issue feel that the language in the bill is correct.

Understand would probably be probably more appropriate, I think. Alright. Well, I trust the author, Assembly member Lackey, in the work that he does. So I'm gonna trust that he is he's he's done the work that needs to be done. I just wanted to make sure that we highlight some of the concerns that were brought up by the by the opposition, but I will 100%, support the bill.

And if and trust that any nuances that still need to be addressed will be addressed at the next, committee hearing. With that, I'll be happy to move the the bill when appropriate.

Okay. Thank you. Again, appreciate raising those issues, but a lot of them will be will be discussed tomorrow. I just wanna say thank you, Senator Lackey. You're, you know, going back and looking at, your all your bills over the years.

You've been really, steadfast and dogged in in in in trying to fix this issue. I did note in the analysis, I wanna note, you know, number of changes that have been the LA County Department of Children and Family Services have have taken as in in the wake of of the tragedy as well, and, hopefully, some of those are having an effect as well. But I do believe that, your legislation will, help, help prevent similar tragedies in the future. So I'll be supporting the bill here today.

I wanna thank you for testifying.

Would you like to close?

Yeah. I would just like to say, first of all, there are always to all bills, there are some complexities, and some of those interpretations could also be misguided. And I think it's it's important that we understand what we're trying to arrive at here, and that is protection of these children. She mentioned three cases. Every one of those cases have happened within the last ten years and were from my district.

That means this kind of tragedy is much bigger than people realize. We have got to do what everybody expects and that's protect children. And when you have malfeasance and behavior by a social worker who's the key link between discovering, this kind of mistreatment. You got to remember these kids are not only abused, they're tortured. Imagine that.

And you you have social workers that in in all fairness, they are very overburdened, but that does not excuse being dishonest in the paperwork. We have to hold people accountable to these things, and doggone it, we we can do better. We need to do better, and this bill makes it better. So I ask for support when time comes.

Thank you. We'll move the bill when the time comes and and take a vote. Thank you all. Thanks for being here. Thank you.

Alright. We're gonna, try to stick to followers as much as possible. Assembly member, Arambula. You have two bills.

Alright. We're gonna, try to stick to followers as much as possible. Assembly member, Arambula. You have two bills.

Welcome. Thank you, Mister Start with file item three. Will you start with, fifteen seventy five first?

Great.

Sounds great.

Okay.

Thank you for the opportunity to present on Assembly Bill 1575. The Lanterman Act was a landmark law passed in the state of California guaranteeing the rights and services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Prior to its passage, the IDD community was often subjected to overcrowded state hospitals and institutions without service to education, socialization, and opportunity to receive care and services at home.

By ensuring the state's responsibility to care for persons with developmental disability, the act changed the landscape of disability services in California and went a long way to lessening the associated stigma. Unfortunately, despite these existing protections, adults with disabilities continue to experience discrimination in education, employment, and in health care settings.

AB 1575 continues this arc of progress by updating the Lanterman Act to ensure consistent use of person first language, emphasizing each person's humanity and moving away from stigmatizing language. Here to testify in support of AB 1575 is Joe Meaders Meaders, former executive director of the People First of California, and Julie Sherman, director of public policy at the ARC and United Cerebral Palsy California collaboration.

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

Okay. Thank you. Can everyone hear me okay? Okay. Great.

Good morning, Chair and vice Chair, Julie Sherman, director As the author mentioned, AB 1575, in its amended form, simply updates the outdated term consumer within the Lanterman Act and replaces it with person first language. So why does that matter? Well, because words matter. The language we use in our laws shapes how people with disabilities are viewed and how they view themselves.

Every day, people receiving regional center services and their families read materials that refer to them as consumers, a term many self advocates find impersonal, transactional, and outdated.

Also, the term is not accurate. People with developmental disabilities are not consumers purchasing services. Under the Lanterman Act, they have a legal right to services and supports they require. Regional centers determine eligibility and coordinate those services, but they are not selling a product. Referring to someone as a person eligible for regional center services better reflects that relationship.

This bill in its amended form does not create a new program or change anyone's right to services. It's simply a respectful modernization of the language in one of the nation's strongest civil rights laws for people with developmental disabilities. The Department of Developmental Services has indicated the bill's cost or costs are minor and absorbable and the substantial work of revising the wording of the Lanterman Act has already been completed by the author's office and legislative counsel.

We therefore respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time is appropriate. Thank you.

And I will now pass it over to our second witness, Joe Meadows.

Right. Two minutes exactly. Excellent. Thank you.

Good morning. Hello. My name is Joe Meadows. I am the former executive director of People First of California, a self advocate network. I am also a person with a disability, and I'm here to speak for many of my peers with a disability.

I'm here to support AB 1575, because I believe in the need for a person first language in our laws. The movement towards people first language begin in the nineteen eighties over forty years ago. It was about putting the person before their disability. It helped reduce harmful labels by showing our showing that our disability is just one part of someone who someone is. As time changes, our language should change too.

The term consumer in the aftermath act may have once been okay, but it's not but is no no longer okay. The word consumer bothers me. It does it doesn't sound like a person when you hear consumer. I think of something some someone eating something something. It's not clear and does not describe who who you are talking about.

The change to the law will stop calling me consumer. From now on, I I would be call eligible a person eligible for regional center services. When you talk about me, please call me a person. I want to be treated like a person. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Thank you for testifying. Thank you. Do we have others in support who would like to yes.

We do. Please come to the mic. Just say name and organization position on the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Roxy Ortiz with the Association of Regional Center Agencies representing the 21 regional centers in California in support.

Hello. Vanessa Flores on behalf of Alameda County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Other in opposition? Do we have anyone in opposition to the bill? No. Okay. Let's bring it back.

Look to our vice Chair.

Thank you very much, member Rumala, for bringing this measure forward. I'm very grateful for informing me this morning about, you know, the importance of of language and how we use language to create a a perception. You know, it's funny because I would have never I would have never questioned the consumer perspective on on that end because I I always assume myself as a consumer, and I just never considered it from that perspective. So thank you for being here, sir, and sharing your perspective on that.

You're absolutely right.

You are a person and deserves to be treated as a person and viewed as a person rather than just a consumer. And your perspective on, you know, the services are being provided, you know, it's it's they're entitled to it. They're not just consumers on it, but they're they're service. So your perspective was very well taken, ma'am. With that, I'll be happy to move the the the the measure when appropriate, Mister Chair.

Thank you. Thank you very much for those comments. Again, thank you all for for coming in and highlighting the change that really needs to be made and making a very powerful case for it. I will be supporting the bill, as well. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair, for the opportunity to present. Ultimately, this bill is about ensuring that persons with disabilities are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. I requestfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

Thank you very much. We're still operating a subcommittee, but we will take a vote at the appropriate time. Thank you all. Assemblymember Rambio, you have a second bill, AB 2510. So we'll switch out with this when we have a chance.

Thank you, Mister Chair and senators. AB 2510 strengthens the CalWORKs family reunification program by ensuring that families have the support needed to bring children home safely and successfully. CalWORKs provides critical supports to families working to reunify with their children who have been placed in foster care, including family reunification funding for families who have their children removed from the home. However, under current rules, all CalWORKs eligible children must be removed from the home to qualify for these funds.

Cutting off supports during this critical time undermines the reunification efforts and creates unnecessary hardship that jeopardizes family stability and delays reunification.

AB 2510 ensures that families have access to these critical resources by allowing all families to continue receiving cash aid and children during the reunification process. This bill is about stability, equity, and better outcomes for children and families. Here to testify in support of AB 2510 is Rebecca Gonzalez, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and Khoi Sadarim of the Coalition of Children Welfare Rights Organizations.

Thank you both for being here. We each have two minutes. Go ahead.

Great. Hello, Chair and members. My name is Rebecca Gonzales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We are cosponsors of AB 2510 along with the reimagine CalWORKs Coalition. This bill updates the CalWORKs family reunification program to remove barriers which prevent parents from continuing to receive cash aid and services while their children are temporarily placed outside the home in foster care or the home of a relative.

This allows the state to better achieve its goal of family reunification by promoting family stabilization. In 2021, the 2021 law allowed the California Department of Social Services to issue guidance to the counties to implement the program. In doing so, the department restricted when a family can continue to receive assistance in ways which are inconsistent with the intent of the current statute.

The department resolved several of our concerns, but the following areas addressed in the bill were identified as needing statutory clarification, which was just mentioned, not all children in the family need to be removed from the home before the family can receive reunification assistance. Also, aid can be continued when an eligible child joins the family, such as the birth of another child or in case cases of partial reunification.

Two, automatically ends the immunization sanction for families who failed to show proof of of immunization, since they do not have physical or legal custody of the children and cannot meet that requirement. Three, specifies the assignment of child support and child support cooperation requirements are suspended for these families during this time. Four specifies parents must navigate only one set of requirements that covers both reunification and welfare to work roles in a unified plan, as is done in the majority of counties.

Five, clarifies if a foster care placement is with a former non custodial parent, the county cannot discontinue aid to the original assistance unit if they are otherwise eligible for CalWORKs reunification aid. Lastly, ensures the sixty month limit on CalWORKs time on aid is not running for families in this program.

AB 2510 helps to fulfill the state's goal of reunifying CalWORKs families by removing unnecessary barriers. The Western Center respectfully asks for your aye vote. Thank you.

Hi, Chair Becker and members. My name is Koissy Turn with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. I'm a former CalWORKs recipient, and I'm also very familiar with systemic marginalization. This bill ensures that when a parent is already carrying everything, the state doesn't add to the weight of it by taking away the one thing keeping them standing. More than eighty percent of California foster replacements result from neglect, not abuse.

Drug was only a factor of 41% of the neglect investigations, and California law is clear. Poverty does not constitute neglect. Sorry. These are poor parents, not necessarily bad parents. It's a systemic marginalization.

There's a difference. Imagine a single mother on CalWORKs. She leaves her 13 year old watching her five year old to finish her shift because missing it means losing her job. A teacher notices that the five year old has been withdrawn. She files a report and during a home visit, the worker sees an empty fridge, and the 13 year old playing parent and an empty fridge, and then this five year old gets removed, the 13 year old stays home, and she didn't abuse her child.

She made the only choice that poverty left her. Reunify. Now she has to take parenting classes, drug testing therapy, and have stable housing all simultaneously. And under current CDSS guide guidance, because her 13 year old stayed home and her five year old was removed, She doesn't qualify for reunification aid. Getting stable after being destabilized is not linear.

So getting to parenting classes requires a transportation, which requires money and an employment, and it also requires childcare and getting to parenting classes when you have no money and no childcare week is not a failure of character, it's just a failure of support. And that's what the In 2021, the legislator made a promise to families like hers. Stay stable. Keep work keep working toward reunification, and we will not cut you off while you're doing exactly what we asked.

CDS has provided guidance that's inconsistent with legislative intent.

To wrap up, please. Okay.

So AB 2510 makes the program match that promise. So we respectfully urge you to go Aye. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Others in support. Others who would like to weigh in? There are.

Please step to the mic.

Amanda Kirchner, County Welfare Director is in support.

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

Okay. Anyone in opposition? Is there any opposition? Seeing none, let's take it back to committee to our vice Chair. Any comments?

How much are we talking about as far as a monthly stipend for CalWORKs eligible children in that home? What are what are what would parents be receiving during that period of time? The average CalWORKs grant is about a thousand dollars. K. So a thousand dollars per month.

And then if the child is removed, the thousand dollars would be removed approximately. Right? Curious, how did you folks come up with the six month period of by the way, a thousand dollars is not a lot of money. Just for the record, I just wanna be stated. A thousand dollars is not a lot of money.

How did you folks come up with six months as the threshold for continuing benefits when the children are removed?

So there, are two things. Well, just to be clear. So when, there's a temporary absence period that's always been there for thirty days, and that could cover things like a hospitalization, like the kid is out of the home. And so that has always been there. But the statute in 2021 in the trailer bill language, they added the six month period for for this aid.

I don't think I could, you know, speak to the thinking in 2021, but we are just, you know, keeping that in the bill and clarifying that it is up to six months, or or for a time determined by the department. The reason we put that is we just, you know, didn't want it to be shorter than six months, if it was needed.

So with this with the six months I'm just trying to figure, because it's a really long time not to have children to be to continue this this aid, which is supposed to be used. Is there, historically speaking, other aid that this family would be receiving in addition to the CalWORKs funding of a thousand dollars a month, such as housing assistance or anything else that they would be receiving in addition to the to the thousand dollars?

They might be on the you know, CalWORKs family reunification and, you know, they might have mental health supports or those kinds of things. I also Wanna Kinda get back to the six month question, because I think you implied something else there, that there could be a period where, the social worker determines that they don't need the aid, you know, for the whole six months. So it doesn't have to, you know, be the entire time. But there are yeah.

There are other CalWORK supports that families might be receiving.

Okay. Because I think the concern that I have is that if you don't have a your children for about six months, even after a month or two, I would I would expect that these parents would be seeking employment to help, you know, help them financially. I do have a problem with just creating systems where it's not conducive to initiating that self drive of wanting to work or having work.

In this case, I'm a little thrown off by the by the comment by one of the witnesses saying that they are working and they left the 13 and five year old, you know, at home. Now that is also very cultural perspective because, you know, in Latin homes, I know that that was not unusual to leave a 13 year old, even an 11 and 12 year old, at a home babysitting their siblings.

But that's, you know, I didn't didn't even know that that was inappropriate in California when I was a young parent. So just that's why I I sometimes I wonder about how we perceive things, especially when we're not considering, the maturity of the children in the culture in the home, what what is expected or not, as appropriate or not appropriate.

I'm I'm having a hard time with this one because, if you don't have a child at home for six months, you should be working and you should be getting an extra job or whatever it may be to to be able to create Right. Additional financial security, especially if your children are not with you. That's why I I have a hard time supporting this bill in this case, because if you're not working for, you know, for a couple of months, you should be working.

I don't think that the bill removes the incentive to work. The idea is is that if the child is removed and then the grant gets pulled out from under them, it's immediately destabilizing and people may not be able to pay pay their rent. They may become homeless. If they're homeless, they're you know, the chances of getting their kids back is really harmed. So it's really more pulling that rug out from under them.

Right.

I don't think it reduces the incentive to work.

And I think this is why my previous question as to how did you come up with six months? Because I can understand, like, maybe a month, maybe two months, and then you were employed, And then moving forward on that, but six months seems a really long time to give aid without having someone. So I would

I'll start if I can, Senator. I I was present back in 2021 when we passed that trailer bill language, sharing the subcommittee that oversaw health and human services. And at that time, what we heard from families is the need to get their feet under them. And what we were able to accomplish that year only dealt with those who had their full family removed.

At this time, what we're seeking to do is to create parity to ensure that if you had one child instead of two children removed in the case that was talked about, that we could ensure that they had that same stability, that they were able to better reunify their family unit.

And that oftentimes does require months of help to make sure that they're doing work, as well as doing long term educational attainment, as well as ensuring that they're getting the behavioral health supports. We have mostly women who are on CalWORKs that need this type of support to create the best environment we can for children to stay within the home. The alternative was they then enter into the foster care system.

And once they're into the foster care system, it's much harder for them to prove if they're now homeless, if they're now unstable with their life. And thus, we found a real rationale for us to push for a a longer grace period, if you will.

But, ultimately, this bill is about creating parity if you had one or two children removed versus if you had the entire family removed. And, by doing that, we are better able to support all family units and not to focus on saying that you need to have all your children removed from your house to be able to receive support at all.

Okay. Yeah. I think I think that's good. Well, I wanna thank you. I wanna thank you all for for being here and working on this.

I will be supporting the bill here today. We're still operating in the subcommittee. We have several members in budget. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair, for the opportunity to present, and I'll take my response earlier as my close.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thanks to the witnesses. We have a sub member of Bryant filing 51655.

Wherever you wanna be. That would make sense.

Just one way.

Go ahead.

Yes. Thank you, Mister Chair, and senators. I'm proud of us in AB 1651655. The CalWORKs program is designed to protect children's basic needs when families are struggling financially. The program provides modest support to help pay for food, rent, clothing, and other essentials.

However, when a child is temporarily absent from the home for longer than thirty days, that support can be reduced or eliminated. There are some exceptions for this, of course. For example, if a child is in the hospital, they are considered temporarily absent for the duration of their stay even if it passes thirty days and the family doesn't lose support.

However, for families who have have their children kidnapped by ICE and held in a detention facility for longer than thirty days, they can lose the critical safety net that they need and deserve. This bill, AB 1655, protects struggling families when their children are kidnapped by ICE and held in detention facilities.

I think often about the five year old boy from Minnesota, Liam Ramos, who was shipped to a facility down in Texas, became sick at that facility and a court ordered that he be returned home. Had he been gone for more than thirty days here in California, his family would have suffered financially during his absence. It's shameful that we have to think about these kinds of policies in this moment, but it's also important that we do. With me to testify is Edgar Guerra with SEIU State Council.

Thank you Assemblymember. Good good morning, Chair Becker. My name is Edgar Guerra here on behalf of, SEIU California, cosponsor of AB 1655, representing more than 750,000 workers across the state, including the county eligibility workers who administer the CalWORKs program every day. AB 1655 is a targeted fix. When a child or family member is unlawfully detained in federal immigration custody, current law can reduce the family's CalWORKs grant because that person is no longer counted in the assistance unit.

From the perspective of the county workers who run this program, this change makes sense. County eligibility staff are often the ones sitting across the table from the families in crisis. When a parent or child is suddenly detained, the last thing a worker should have to do is explain that the family's cash aid will also be cut. AB 1655 gives counties clear direction and allows workers to do their job in a way that protects children instead of punishing them, pushing them deeper into poverty.

also about stability for California families. Research shows that immigration arrest can result in tens of thousands of dollars in financial loss to a household, and losing CalWORKs on top of that only makes the situation worse. On behalf of SCIU California and our members, including the county workers who administer these programs, we respectfully ask for your

This bill is

I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support. Do we have others in support who would like to weigh in? We do. Yeah.

Please come to the mic.

Santiago Avila, policy intern with La Mesa Verde Group, representing the Central American Resource Center, GADASEN, in support.

Right. Thank you. Well done.

Sarah Brennan with the Weideman Group on behalf of NextGen California in strong support.

Thank you.

Yesenia Rabancho with end child poverty in California, proud cosponsors in strong support. Thank

you. Great.

Khoi Seiturn with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in strong support.

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

Good morning, Adam Kegwin on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association and California LULAC in support.

Good morning. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support.

K. Do others in op do any opposition? We do?

Yes.

Yeah. You can either speak at the mic or on the table, whatever works for you. Good morning. Good morning, sir.

Thank you, Chair Becker and committee members for this opportunity to speak. Glenn Allen on behalf of the California Welfare Fraud Investigators associate association, also known as CWFIA. CWFIA is in respectful opposition to the bill. I I would like to introduce our organization for over fifty years. It is a nonprofit organization whose main goal is to ensure welfare fraud is detected, prevented, and or prosecuted in order to maintain program integrity and trust in public assistance programs.

We are recognized on the state social services website as stakeholder stakeholders and public benefit programs. Most of our members are sworn law enforcement officers, and we have eligibility workers out of SEIU that are working in our units. This bill is missing specific language that would protect the taxpayers money, which funds CalWORKs and protect fraud. Two simple steps to correct the bill. The reporting person should be required to sign a county or state social services sworn statement form.

The present bill just says a sworn statement. Under the present bill, that could be an oral statement, which if, if, if we deny aid to a recipient that's detained, they file a fair hearing, the recipient. We have to prove our case beside in front of a state judge, state hearings judge, an oral argument would not hold too much water there. If the case went into criminal court, the best evidence is a written a written statement.

It could be simply fixed in the bill by stating a county a county human services sworn statement signed by the applicant instead of just saying a sworn statement.

Also, one other area that's lacking in the bill, the reporting person should be required to sign a I'm sorry. Back up. The reporting member should provide the location of the detention facility where the assistance member is detained. Immigration Customs Enforcement has a public portal to obtain the location of the detention. If it's not possible at the time of aid request, the location should be provided within thirty days.

Continuing aid for the detained family member would be terminated the following month if the location of detainment is not reported. And a final statement, the State Department of Social Services figured this bill is probably about 1,700,000 for the next fiscal year and every year thereafter. Our organization has seen it well north of 2,000,000, maybe towards 3,000,000 since

Okay. Great. I do have to ask you to wrap up.

Okay. State social services did not include investigator time, state hearing time, and, some other facets. Thank you for your time.

Okay. Others in opposition? Anyone else wanna add on in opposition? Okay. We'll take we'll take it back to the vice Chair.

Any comments?

Just been curious if the other has had an opportunity to work with the opposition to address some of the concerns.

I think this is the first hearing that this opposition has been here, but in state law currently, there are temporary absences. As I mentioned, hospital stays. Whatever the current documentation is to for a a temporary act a temporary absence, we are simply adding an additional exception to that. And so we wouldn't have any more reporting than is already consistent with state law for for absences, but open to the conversation nonetheless.

Great. And we'll note this bill is going to judiciary next. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. So with some opportunity to discuss some of these issues in judiciary. I'm gonna take a moment to establish a quorum. Let's call the roll.

Here.

Becker?

Becker, here. Achobog? Here. Achobog, here. Laird, Perez, Webber Pearson?

Here. Webber Pearson, here. A quorum.

We do have a quorum. Thank you. Okay. So in judiciary, so some some of these elements, I think, will be appropriate there as well.

Okay. So I will I won't be supporting the bill today. I will look to see what the language will look like after judiciary. Is Is that is that what you're saying? Judiciary is next?

Yes. And then, I'm assuming some of these concerns will be addressed then? Okay. So I'm not gonna support it today. I will, we'll have my team monitor the bill as it moves forward, and, we'll look into, the bill, its final language when it comes before us.

I'm assuming Senate is probably gonna go after that directly to us. Yes. Probably Senate after that, Judish. And then this just a little point for any opposition for advocates moving forward. This is why your opposition needs to come in as soon as possible and address with the with the authors in order to ensure that we have the language that's correct so that we're not postponing it and moving, delaying the process of being able to see that final language as a proponent for our advocates moving forward.

So thank you for bringing this measure forward, and thank you for being here and expressing your concerns. I I'm very, very much supportive of any measurements within statute in to ensure against fraud. So thank you for bringing that forward, sir.

Welcome. Okay. Excellent. Well, thank you. You know, I understand there are a few suggested tweaks that you will look at going forward.

I do thank our our fraud investigators. I do think this is also a really important bill. We don't want families punished because of family members taken by ICE for more than thirty days. We absolutely do not want that to happen. So thank you.

We have a motion from Senator doctor Weber Pearson. Please please call the roll. Would you be able to say what the oh, due to close, please.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I'll read the motion.

File item five, AB 1655. Motion is do passed to judiciary committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Achobog? No. Chobog, no. Laird Perez, Webber Pearson?

Roll Call

Okay. Well, there's two to one that Bill will stay on call.

Can I make a motion for the consent?

Yes. We have a motion from this consent calendar, from our vice Chair. Sure. Why don't we do that? Consent calendar. File item six. Becker?

Aye.

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

Aye. Weber Pearson, aye.

Okay. 30. You'll be on call.

Thank you. File item one, AB 262. Motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker?

Great. So it's we have a motion from Senator Chua Vogue.

Okay. File item one, AB 262. Motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker?

Aye.

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

Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. 3, I'm gonna put

that on call.

Okay. 30.

On call.

File File

item two. We also have a motion from, a vice Chair, I believe.

Yes. Correct.

File item two, a B673. Motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye.

Ochoa Bog? Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Laird Perez. Weber Pearson?

Aye. Weber Pearson, aye.

Okay. That's three to zero. Stay on call.

And then file item three, AB 1575. Motion is do passed, and that was moved by Achobog. Becker?

Becker, aye. Achobog? Aye. Achobog, aye. Laird?

Aye.

Perez? Webber Pearson? Aye. Webber Pearson, aye. File item four.

We need a motion on file item four. Do we have a motion? Okay. Doctor Pearson moves the bill.

K. File item four, AB 2510. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Becker?

Aye.

Becker, aye. Atobog?

No voting.

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

That's two to zero. That bill's on call.

And then we do have file item 21. Do we have a motion on this one?

Yes. File 21. A motion from, our vice Chair.

Joe Volk. K. File item 21, a B2304. Motion is do passed to public safety committee. Becker?

Aye.

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

Aye. Weber Pearson, aye.

That is 30. On call. Okay. So member Davis, thank you for waiting patiently.

Good morning. Thank you, Mister Chair. Senators, today, I'm here to present AB 1746. I first wanna thank committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this bill. Senators, AB 1746 is a common sense measure to require counties provide CalWORKs applicants and recipients with more information and opportunities to request childcare support.

The bill includes a ten day deadline for county welfare departments to approve, deny, or seek more information once the childcare request form is submitted. This prevents administrative delays that could otherwise keep a parent from starting a job or attending a training program. This bill ensures parents aren't just told that aid exists, but are actively given the tools to find and choose a provider that fits their family needs.

Without reliability, affordable care, talented and motivated parents are forced to choose between the well-being of their children and the stability of their careers, a choice that no California should have to make. By investing in child care, we aren't just supporting families.

We are fueling the workforce that drives our state's economy forward. And lastly, you have my commitment to continue working with all interest parties to ensure the goals of the bill to ensure childcare is received in a timely manner is met. With that, Mister Chow, respectfully ask for an aye vote, and with me here today to talk about the issue is Coy Sautern on behalf of the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. Thank you.

Great. Go ahead.

Members Koi Sautern with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. The purpose is to require counties to process childcare within ten days of request. CalWORKs childcare starts when CalWORKs starts. It never so counties do not do referrals. They don't actually begin services until the CalWORKs recipient submits a form called the CCP seven.

The problem is is that there is no true, like, time frame for counties to process the C P CP seven. If counties delay in doing that, then this means that CalWORKs recipient is not eligible for child care. And they cannot this bill requires the counties to process that CTP seven or equivalent form within ten days to allow the CalWORKs families to quickly access child care and move forward with their welfare to work plans.

So when I was a student parent at UC Santa Cruz, I had a 10 year old and a newborn. I went to the CalWORKs Center, and they handed me the notice, and not the actual form, because that's what the county's obligation is currently.

And after having to navigate government bureaucracy, navigating childcare, being that student parent, and being a first generation especially, it's hard for you to just navigate all the mental workload. And I think this experience isn't unusual in my case alone. It's a lot of people, and there's a huge gap that needs to be closed. And this bill ensures that that gap is closed. The county's obligation is clear, ten calendar days.

It's processed. It's in the system. And then, yeah, if I'm my kid is going to school, I'm already kind of, like, looking for childcare or whatever. It's already in process, and I know that it's gonna come. So we respectfully urge you to vote for support this.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Are you here for technical

support? Yes.

Thank you. Alright. Others in support. We'll take others in support here. Please come to the mic.

Good morning. Thank you. I'm Naomi Gemmel with Child Care Law Center. We do support the intent of the bill, but there are a few amendments we'd like to see, so we look forward to working with the author on those amendments.

Thank you.

There still is time. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in opposition? Do we have anyone in opposition?

Good morning. Amanda Kirchner, County Welfare Directors. Not officially in opposition, but we do have some concerns. We've been in engagement with the author's office. We're just gonna continue to work on that over the break, and I think we'll get to a resolution.

Okay. Sounds positive. I have a good feeling about that. Okay. Vice Chair, any we'll take it back to the committee.

Love love serving with a Chair that is optimistic. We love that. I am grateful for the bill. To Assemblymember Davis, thank you for bringing this forward. We always wanna see streamlining in in government.

We call it government bureaucracy for a reason, and it is incredibly frustrating when we can't get the work and there's just so much paperwork and so much information. This is where I'm a huge advocate of the use of AI and ensuring that we have collaboration between all state agencies, departments that we're not duplicating the work.

And I hope that the powers that be that are listening, that they will move forward in in a way where we are sharing information between agents, departments, utilizing AI in a way to share that information so that we're not duplicating it and creating extensive bureaucratic. I mean, this is where I think the tools at at hand could be fully utilized and really benefit. Should I use consumers or not consumers?

I I don't know what to use now. Persons receiving able to qualify for benefits, I guess. Is that is that what the term is? I'm I'm gonna be very mindful now on how to use those terms, but thank you for bringing this bill forward. I'm happy to move the the the bill forward.

Well, thank you. I'll be supporting the bill too. Echo the comments about streamlining and especially in this case, getting money out to where people need it. So thank you. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you all. We

have a motion from Senator Chobot.

File item nine, AB 1746. Motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker?

Aye.

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

It's two to zero. Keep it on call. I'm optimistic about that one too. Thank you. Okay.

Samuel Carrillo, thank you for being patiently like your tie. Thank you, sir. May

I begin?

Yes. Please.

Go ahead. Good morning, Mister Chair and, Senator Schrabach. Thank you for allowing me to represent Assembly bill 1688. First, I would like to thank the committee for the work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. Thank you.

AB 1688 is a measure that will provide a greater degree of transparency and accountability for attorneys and guardians of dependents of the California Foster Care System. Foster care system. Currently, in cases of suspicion of abuse or neglect, only the attorneys of children suspected of being abused directly are the only parties alerted of these allegations. This creates a gap in reporting, allowing other youth in the same foster placement to potentially be subject to the same abuse or neglect.

For context, Children's Bureau reports that some 68,000 children move in and out of the California foster care system annually, with more than half of foster youth being housed in Southern California.

Within Los Angeles County, General And The Glen made up to thirty nine point two percent of the referrals to foster home with nineteen point four percent being at risk due to their siblings being abused and fifteen point six percent being physically abused. In a 2022 study, it was found that one hundred and sixty nine children in California were victims of abuse or maltreatment by their foster parents. Nationally, six children passed away due to the abuse or maltreatment from their foster parents.

There is no legal recommend to provide notice to the parents or attorneys of other children in the same placement that their client or child has been housed in a foster location where abuse has occurred. And due to this, too many children are falling through the cracks of our state's foster system because of this oversight in the child welfare reporting process.

This is why I am here today to introduce AB 1688 to protect our most vulnerable population of children that must traverse and navigate the complexities of foster care system and either guardians that depend on them for support. In order to continue protecting foster youth throughout California, we must ensure that there are effective interventions to close the holes in our state safety net and reporting allegations of child abuse or neglect in foster homes.

This piece of legislation will be a critical step forward to ensure that those that will come after us secure environment. Joining me to testify in support and answer technical questions is Anne Quirk with the Children's Law Center.

Welcome. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Anne Quirk. I'm a policy attorney with Children's Law Center of California.

We are the dependency attorneys for children in the child welfare system in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Placer Counties. As the attorney for the child in California, we hold a special position. We are both their lawyer and their captive guardian ad litem. On simple terms, our job is to make sure people know what our client wants and to advocate for their safety and protection.

For this reason, we are proud to cosponsor AB 1688, which addresses a critical gap in child safety within the foster care system.

Under current law, if there's a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused or neglected while in foster care, the attorney for the child is notified. AB 1688 adds two important safeguards. If the alleged maltreatment is substantiated or the child is moved from the placement due to the report, notice would also be given to the attorney for the child's parents and the child's tribe, so we can work together and quickly get that child to what they need to be safe.

Secondly, because foster placements usually have more than one child in them, and those children will have different social workers, different attorneys, and even being from different counties. Notice would be provided to the attorneys of the other children in that placement as well.

The first child's privacy is protected, so no confidential information is shared, but this notice will alert the attorneys of the other children to go check-in with their clients and make sure they are safe. Foster care should provide safety, not cause more harm. AB 1688 ensures that attorneys have the information they need to swiftly and protect vulnerable children. We thank Assemblymember Carrillo for authoring this important measure and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Others in support. Do we have others in support? Would you?

Thank you, Chair and members. Trevor Nelson with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Thank you. Any opposition? I see none. We'll take it back. Vice Chair, any comments?

Okay. Yeah. To me too, this is a really common sense measure. I'm I'm well, I won't say I'm surprised. It's not happening already, but I'm glad that you are you've come forward with this to to make this change.

I'll be supporting the bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you, Senator Chua Bogue for your support. Appreciate it. Okay. Respect for Yasser and I vote. Thank you.

Alright. Well, we do have a motion from Senator Chua Bogue. Please call the roll.

File item seven, AB1688. Motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker?

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

Aye.

Thank you.

20. We'll stay on call. Rodriguez, you see here. Go ahead. You have Excellent.

You have two bills in front of us. Would you like to start with, 20 195?

one ninety five first. Thank you. And good morning, Chair and members. I wanna start by thanking the committee for their analysis. AB 2195, the Work to Support Families Act, builds on California's previous effort to modernize child support enforcement.

This bill prevents the suspension of an occupational license for a parent who owes child support if that parent's annual household income is at or below 70% of the area of median income. The goal of child support investment is to ensure children and the custodial parent are receiving consistent financial support. Suspending a Suspending a parent's occupational license to work will make that goal unreachable.

AB 2195 addresses this problem by focusing license suspensions on cases where they are most appropriate while protecting low income parents from losing their jobs. This bill maintains local child support agencies' other enforcement tools.

The work to support families act preserves accountability while keeping parents connected to work. I have with me today Rebecca Gonzalez with the western center on law and poverty and Steven Goldberg from the California Welfare Organizations to provide testimony. Not Steven Goldberg.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Rebecca Gonzales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We are proud cosponsor of AB 2195 under the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition, a coalition of more than 30 organizations working to reform California's child support system, so it better supports low income children and families and helps reduce child poverty. At its core, child support is about children.

It is about making sure a child being raised in a single parent household has financial support from both parents, support that helps pay for food, rent, transportation, clothing, and basic stability. AB 2195 asks a simple question, are our enforcement tools helping deliver that support to children, or are they sometimes making it harder? Under current law, when a low income parent falls behind on child support, California can deny or suspend that parent's occupational license. But for many parents, that license is vital. It is their job as a security guard, barber, manicurist, vocational nurse, or in another licensed profession.

When we suspend that license, we are not creating money for the child, we may be taking away that parent's paycheck. We may be causing them to lose their job, fall further behind, or be pushed out of the occupation they train for. That makes it harder, not easier, for support to reach the child and the single parent household depending on it. The legislature has already recognized this issue through SB 1055 by former Senator Com Lager, California Limited Driver's License Suspensions for low income parents who owe child support. AB 2195 continues that effort by applying the same practical practical principle to occupational licenses.

If the goal is to get resources to children, we should not cut off a low income parent's ability to work. We have evidence this approach works. An Orange County evaluation of SB 1055 found no significant impact on collections. In fact, collections increased. The county also saw administrative savings equal to two full time case workers. AB 2195 is not about excusing non payment.

It preserves accountability. In response to prior concerns. The author amended the bill to allow child support agencies to request income and employment documentation. If a parent does not respond, the existing suspension process may continue. California has other effective tools to collect support, including wage garnishments, tax refund offsets, bank levies, credit reporting, passport actions, and interest on late payments. I'm sorry. I kept I'm wrapping it up. Thank you so much. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Great. Hey. With the West or the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. I'm reading testimony on behalf of, Demont Hampton of Van Nuys. My child support obligations began in 1995 and over time, as I cannot pay the full amount, my child support arrears just ballooned. My debt got so high that I felt like I was stuck in a hole. My children are in their thirties and I had over a 100,000 in child support arrears, most of it interest. Over that last decade, I have been on a fixed income.

Although I was making regular payments of $50 a month, every six months or so because of my arrears, my driver's license would get suspended. When this happened, I contacted the DMV and child support, but it was hard to get into contact with the right person. Once I got into contact with them, child support said they would lift the suspension, but sometimes it would take months to get my license reinstated. Thanks to a B1055, I didn't have to worry about my license being suspended anymore.

I had not been able to work for a long period of time, but once I was mentally, physically, and emotionally better, I wanted to go back to school to learn a skill, so I looked into programs that would train me to become a barber. When I first received my barbering license, then they immediately suspended my license because of my arrears.

I called them back and they fixed it. About one month later, it happened again. I had to call them back and they lifted the suspension. About two days later, it happened again. The person I talked with knew that my license kept getting suspended, but there wasn't anything she could do.

I would have to call, get in contact with them, wait for them to call me back. She would ask a few questions and then she would release the hold. This happened even though I was making regular payments as they requested me to do. It was really important for me to address my child support arrears because they held me back in from growing in life. I could not move forward while I had such a big debt.

Over the years, I had talked to child support workers and family law facilitators about my arrears, but no one ever told me about the debt reduction program. When I went to neighborhood legal services, an attorney told me about the debt reduction program about the debt reduction program. When I asked my child support case worker about it, she told me that in order to apply for the debt reduction program, LA child support had to first audit my account, which which could take up to a year.

Once the audit was complete

Thank you. That's about two minutes. Can you wrap up the

We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

It's good to hear the personal case study. We have to stay on time here. Okay. Are there others in support? Others who would like to add on in support here? We do.

Yes. Senora Boncho with n Child Poverty California. Proud cosponsors. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there others in opposition? Anyone opposition? Seeing none. Take it back. Is there a vice Chair? Go ahead.

Yes. So question. Questions on on on this particular bill would be so I'm in complete support of the principle of the bill, which means that I would imply that we want folks to work because if they don't work, if you take away that license, how are they going to be able to provide for their families? So I'm in complete support of the principle.

I do have a concern with regards to what options does do departments have in order to enforce parents to actually pay child support if we remove every single tool that we have to enforce that. I was also supportive of ensuring that we don't remove licenses, like driver's license, because the people need to get to work in order to to to be able to provide for their children. So what tools are there to help folks enforce parental obligations for child support?

Wanna go ahead?

Okay. So there are various tools. Some of the tools such as wage garnishments and tax refund offsets, those are really valuable because they put money directly into the hands of the custodial parents. So they actually get that money instead of harming the ability of the non custodial parent to work and to get them passports. Let me see.

I have the full list. Wage garnishments, bank levies, credit reporting, passport actions, and interest on late payments. So they do have a lot of tools in their tool shed, and we just think this particular one doesn't make sense.

No. And I and I I agree on that on the principle. I just wanted to make sure that we actually have tools to enforce the the obligation of paying child support. And I think the the other concern that I would have had would have been or would it would be if they're self employed, if you have a license to be self employed, what what guarantees do we have that they don't and I guess this would be even for on behalf of the government paying your taxes.

But how do you ensure that they're fully reporting what they're making in order to ensure that they are paying their their their child support?

So they still have to go through income verification, and, actually, the department is is not against this bill because they recognize this as an opportunity to get in contact with the parent if they do do do decide to pursue the opportunity in this bill because it gives them that chance to vet their income and set up payment arrangements.

So just I know your concern was about the department, and they have all of the tools at their disposal, and and they are also aware that this is another opportunity for them.

Okay.

Okay. That was my my biggest concern is, okay. Yeah. You don't want them to you wanna be able to have them be able to work on that end, but the number one concern would would be the enforcement part. But there are still tools that can be used to ensure that they're they're paying their child support.

And if that's the case, then I'll be able to support the the bill at this time.

Thank

you. We can't make a motion yet because I'm the only one here, but we will keep this on call or we'll we'll return when we have more members on our committee. Thank you for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Yeah. Just when parents are able to work, they're able to provide for their children. So we respectfully ask for your item.

Thank you. Okay. So you have a second bill with us today? Yes.

Twenty five sixty seven.

Twenty five sixty seven file item number 16. Please proceed when you're ready.

Okay. Thank you. I wanna again thank the committee for their thoughtful analysis. AB 2567 is a simple bill that helps families in crisis get emergency relief from CalWORKs faster. Specifically, it requires counties to determine a family's apparent eligibility for immediate need and temporary homeless assistance without first requiring the family to apply for other income benefits they are not currently receiving.

CalWORKs serves families with children who are often turning to the safety net during moments of serious financial crisis. Current rules can require families to first apply for other benefits such as unemployment, social security, veterans benefits, or state disability insurance before emergency aid can be issued. This can take time, and this is during an emergency. Applying for those programs can require Internet access, a phone or computer, work history, bank information identification, and time families in crisis may not have. That delay can make emergencies worse.

Immediate need and temporary homeless assistance are intended to keep families stabilized before they fall deeper into crisis. This bill addresses this gap by removing unnecessary front end barriers to emergency CalWORKs assistance. This change allows counties to evaluate a family's immediate need based on all the information available at the time of application. To be clear, existing safeguards will remain in place. Families must still be eligible for CalWORKs, and they must still apply for and accept all available income before final approval and ongoing aid.

I have with me Amanda Kirchner from one of our sponsors, the County Welfare Directors Association of California to provide testimony and support.

Good morning. Amanda Kirchner, County Welfare Directors Association. We're a proud sponsor of the bill. When our CalWORKs families come to us, obviously, by definition, they are low income. But when we have a crisis moment because they're facing an eviction, they have a very high utility bill, any number of these situations occur, their car is broken down so they can't get to work, they need a little extra help.

But unfortunately, there's a paperwork barrier because they have to show us that they've approved and and applied for any other available information. Especially in situations where we have evictions, it's very easy for them to lose the documents they need to prove to us that they've applied for those types of income, especially around, like, veterans benefits.

If they lost their g d two fourteen in an eviction, and then they have to show us that they've applied for it, but they still get need to get a new one. It just delays all of the process when at the end of the day, they really are already eligible for CalWORKs. They just need some paperwork to show us.

And so what this lets us do is move that paperwork to the to the back end instead of the front end, and that way we can get them the immediate needs. It's about $200 in cash benefit and then some temporary housing support for a housing voucher. And it's only for sixteen days. It's not long term. It's just a little bit of something to get them stabilized while the CalWORKs approval goes through, and they meet all the other eligibility requirements.

So it streamlines our workload. It's better for our clients, and I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Alright. We'll now continue with any witnesses in support. Here in the room, please come to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position on the bill.

Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of the County Of Humboldt in support.

Koissey Tern with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support.

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

Josh Garger on behalf of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in Support.

Okay. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll now continue with any witnesses in opposition. See no lead opposition. Do we have any members of the public who would like to express their opposition? See no.

We're now con we'll bring it back to the dias, and I guess I'm the only one here. Isn't that fun? Okay. So I think the the one concern that I would like to see if the county would like to address is the possible double dipping.

Would there be a possibility of providing the emergency assistance before applicants pursue their available benefits may increase the state cost and duplicate available assistance, especially in the era of efforts and hold to hold fraud accountable all while the state grapples with fiscal deficit.

So, is there a possibility that, you know, as you're moving forward that they could be a an issue or problem with literally double dipping in other areas on this with this, in this particular space?

Of course. So to answer that question, they still have to be eligible for all of our regular CalWORKs eligibility for income. And so the information that they're gonna provide for us just sort of determines the amount of income they would get, not whether they would get it more than once or again. The emergency assistance is a small amount. It's not part of their typical Galworks allotment.

And if there's any other sort of issues where we think it was some sort of fraudulently engaged, nothing in the bill changes any of our processes for any fraud investigations.

Okay.

I will say anecdotally, because we don't have anything we track on because it's not technically a denial. It's just they haven't been able to apply for it because they don't have the information. But what we have heard directly from our eligibility workers is that almost always because they already generally are eligible for CalWORKs, they are eligible for the temporary assistance as well.

Okay. If that's the case, I I I trust you, and I will be happy to make a motion, on the bill.

Alright. Well, I wanna thank you for your work on both these bills. And didn't get to comment too much on the on the license bill, but I I I do appreciate the intent there and and we'll be supporting that one as well. And it sounds like we will have a motion on on this from our vice Chair and I'll be supporting 2567 as well. So would you like to close?

Sure. AB 2567 ensures that emergency assistance functions the way it was intended. Quickly, clearly, and now and help families when they need it most. This bill is sponsored by a number of folks, and we gratefully ask for your aye vote.

Alright. Well, we, we do have a motion from, Senator Chobock. Please call the roll.

File item 16, AB 2567. Motion is do passed to appropriations committee. Becker?

Aye.

Becker, aye. Achobock? Aye. Choboke, aye. Laird, Perez, Weber Pearson.

Alright. Two zero. So that one's on call. Do we have a motion on this bill?

Number 15? I'll be happy to make a motion.

Okay. Excellent. We'll have a motion then on AB 2195.

Thank you.

Yeah. Please.

File item fifteen, AB 2195. Motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Becker?

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

Aye.