Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services

Good afternoon. I call this hearing of the Assembly Committee on Human Services to order. I would like to start today's hearing by welcoming back Assemblymember Sanchez to committee's membership and acknowledging our new vice Chair Assembly, Mister Tangipa. Once we have established court, we have 11 measures on the agenda, three of which Harabedian consent. Please note that we limit testimony to two witnesses each in support and two witnesses in opposition.

Each witness has two and satisfied. All additional witnesses will be limited to stating their name, organization, and the position on the bill. I also want to note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website. Lastly, I'd like to address disruptions during the hearing. Conduct that disrupts or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing is prohibited.

If the sorbative behavior occurs today, you will be removed from the hearing room by the Assembly sergeants. Now for a little housekeeping. Assembly Rules Committee has determined that the fiscal implications of SB 1234 Alvarado-Gil and SB 1345 Wahab should be analyzed in the Appropriations Committee despite the bills being keyed nonfiscal. Upon passage from this committee, these bills refer to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

We will start as a subcommittee since we do not yet have, Assembly members on the committee yet.

But we'll start with file item number three, SB 1099 by Senator Reyes. And you may approach the desk when you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and staff. I'd like to present SB 1099, which clarifies California local government's authority to provide state or local public benefits to all residents under the statutory exemption provided in the Federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, also known as Proaura. Historically, California has relied on a statutory exemption under Proaura that allows local governments at their discretion to provide state and local public benefits to all residents.

Thanks to this exemption, our local governments have been able to provide critical services such as health care and safety net programs to all residents without worrying that they are that they are in violation of federal law. Unfortunately, the California statute that provides this pro war exemption is too vague and is not directly tied to how local and state public benefits are defined at the federal level.

This creates risk because if the federal definition changes or is reinterpreted, our California exemption may fall out of alignment, potentially exposing local governments to compliance issues. SB 1099 addresses this by explicitly tying state law to the federal definition, ensuring clarity and consistency with federal requirements. Here to testify on the bill today is Dylan Elliott on behalf of the Civil Prosecutors Coalition.

Alright. Go ahead. Two minutes, please.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mister Chair. Again, Dylan Elliott here today on behalf of the Civil Prosecutors Coalition. And the Civil Prosecutors Coalition is proud to sponsor SB 1099 alongside our cosponsor, the county of Santa Clara.

The coalition is composed of seven city attorneys and county councils, including the cities of Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, and the counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Clara, representing some of the largest public law offices in the state and advising our local government clients on all issues.

And that is why we are so glad to be working with Senator Reyes on SB 1099, a bill, that creates a straightforward clarification of long standing California law, allowing local agencies to spend state and local funds that offer critical programs and safety net services to all of our residents. This bill does not require, local governments to do anything. Instead, it clarifies in statute local government's authority to develop and maintain programs that serve residents based on criteria established locally.

City attorneys and county councils do their best to provide as much legal certainty as possible for their local government clients, and this bill will minimize risk and uncertainty, particularly in these difficult budget times. For those reasons, the Civil Prosecutors Coalition respectfully requests your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Now do we have any members of the public who should testify in support of the bill? Please come to the microphone. Alright. Do we have any opposition to this bill?

Witnesses in opposition. Do we have any members of the public who should testify in opposition to this bill? Please come forward. Seeing none, I'm gonna bring back to myself, to the committee. I have an eye recommendation for this bill, and I think it is important working clarifying our role of the Federal Government.

But I don't have any questions at this time. But would Senator, would you like to close?

I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alright. And, we will move that bill at the appropriate time when we have a quorum. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. Next on the agenda, I think I saw Senator Grove has SB1190, item item number five.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Oh, well, Mister Chair. Thank you. Senator Reyes says the early bird gets the worm, so here we are. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I'm here today to present SB1190, the safe passage for youth act. Before I get started, I really want to do thank the Chair from the bottom of my heart, as well as the committee staff who did exceptional entire dose work on this bill and made eleven ninety even significantly stronger than the prior legislation.

And you did that for us last time we had a bill that affected youth in our communities and out of state, and so you really have been a champion for that. So I just wanna really do say thank you.

I'm also, wanna thank the bill sponsor, Paris Hilton, and all of the survivors associated with eleven eleven media impact for their tireless engagement and bravery and sharing their own personal traumas and stories in order to advance protections for our vulnerable youth. As some of you may know, Paris Hilton was ripped from her bed in the middle of the night by strangers that transported her across state lines.

This bill is a direct response to that trauma that she experienced as well as experiences of many others in our state. When parents engage or make arrangements of out of state residential placement facilities are often recommended in the hiring of the transport escort service. These companies often hire security type individuals to show up in the dead of night, Awaken a startled child, strip them out of their strip their phones away from them, and strip them out of bed, and take them across state lines.

We're seeing a trend of, minors are subjected to physical, restraints, blindfolds, abuse, and severe emotional distress. This is completely unacceptable, specifically in California and how we care for our children. SB1190 establishes a Safe Passage for Youth Act to directly, Dis Disseminate, these abusive practices and ensure that the industry is properly regulated.

SB1190, 90 also, achieves this by requiring all transport companies to secure a charter part or care charter party carrier, permit through the CPUC and mandates that this, the staff be a trust line background checked. Furthermore, it strictly bans the use of blindfolds, hoods, or unauthorized physical restraints and institutes a 9PM to 6AM transport curfew where we can't take somebody out of the bed their bed in the middle of the night, and it empowers the AG to go after bad actors.

If children are to be transported at all, then they should be provided with a regulated safe passage that respects their dignity. Here with me to testify today on behalf of our sponsor, Paris Hilton and eleven eleven media impact is a survivor of the trouble teen industry and one of our champions that has worked with us for several years regarding this industry, Zoe Schreiber.

And, additionally, we have Amanda Simmons, an attorney who represents youth victims and institutional abuse and a survivor of the trouble teen industry as well. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you. Two minutes to each of your witness, please. Go ahead.

Good afternoon. My name is Zoe Schreiber, a troubled teen industry survivor and advocate. Alex Gaeta testified in Senate committee hearings but couldn't be here today and asked me to read her story for the record. I wanna thank Alex for her bravery in sharing her experience. Her story is just one of countless children who disproportionately come from California, who've had their lives and futures hardened by these practices.

These are her words. On 06/23/2019 in Menlo Park, I was woken up before dawn by two strangers standing over my bed. They said they'd been hired by my parents to take me somewhere, but wouldn't say where. They told me not to resist or it would be worse for me later. I was 14.

I was terrified. I wasn't dressed. I asked them to leave the room so I could get dressed. They refused, saying I was a flight risk and watched me. I begged to say goodbye to my dog.

They said no. Each of them grabbed one of my wrists and a shoulder. I have a connective tissue disorder, and they held me so hard my joints partially dislocated. They marched me to a car then to the airport where they showed paperwork saying my parents had signed over temporary legal guardianship to them. When I asked to use the bathroom, When I asked to use the bathroom, the female transport followed me into the stall.

I was a child with no history of dangerous behavior. I had straight a's. None of that mattered. It's been almost seven years, and I still have nightmares. I can't sleep in my childhood bedroom because it's true triggering.

Nothing can undo what happened to me. But today, you have the chance to make sure there are fewer stories like mine again. Thank you. On behalf of Alex, eleven eleven media impact and survivor advocates across the state and beyond, Thank you for your consideration, and I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Alright. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Amanda Simmons. I'm a special education and school injury attorney, and I come to this issue with extensive experience on both the legal side as well as a lived experience advocate who has experienced institutional child abuse. I am here in strong support of SB1190. This bill matters because private youth transport services have operated in California without real guardrails for far too long.

For decades, children have been taken children have described being taken from their homes in the middle of the night by strangers. As we just heard, many report being handcuffed, zip tied, blindfolded, or otherwise forced into transport. These are not isolated stories. They are a pattern. And this trauma does not end when the transport does.

Many survivors, as we just heard, carry it for many, many years, nightmares, PTSD, anxiety, and a deep mistrust that follows them well into adulthood. Parents are harmed too. Families never really understand the force, fear, and coercion that may be used on their children until long after, by which point the damage is done, including serious and lasting harm to the relationship between parent and child. The bottom line on this bill is simple.

If a private company is going to transport a child for pay, there must be basic safety standards.

There must be clear boundaries and real accountability. SB1190 begins to provide that. It requires transport services to use trust line registered staff, get state permits, train on de escalation and child abuse reporting, and obtain parental consent. And it bans some of the most horrific practices of all, blindfolds, hoods, and middle of the night pickups. This bill is about dignity, safety, and accountability.

It's an important step towards finally putting safeguards around an industry that has operated in the shadows of our state for far too long. I respectfully request your support on this very important bill.

Thank you. I wanna thank your witnesses for coming here and sharing the stories. Now I'm gonna ask if there are any members of the public who should testify in support of the bill. Please come up to the microphone now if you're should support the bill.

Sylvia Tawfik and I support this bill.

Hi. Hailey Sugarman and I support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to the bill, please comment on the microphone. Sinead Rivera back to the committee, and welcome to our new vice Chair, something we were talking about. Any questions or comments?

Yeah. Yep. First and foremost, I just wanna say thank you to the author of this bill. I know you've made it part of your legacy and history here in the state of California to be a warrior for children, and to be a warrior for the youth from what you've done to make, child exploitation felony here in the state to also what you're doing to make sure that you're protecting at risk youth that are going through some traumatic issues.

And so I always wanna take the opportunity to just say thank you to the Senator, you know, for a lot of the work that you've done, how hard you work those positions, and never take no for an answer.

So thank you.

Thank you.

I do have an eye recommendation for this bill. And I wanna thank you for collaborating with me and my staff on this and inviting me on as a co author with you. And I really do think the stories of trauma and abuse that are happening so often really shed a light on how egregious this this unregulated industry is. And so we're finally creating that and structuring regulation.

And I think it's really, important bill to work on, especially to protect our youth and from these really long lasting traumatizing experiences.

So I do have an eye recommendation. We don't yet have a quorum to advance the bill, but I'll let the author close if she wants to close.

Again, thank you. Mister Chair, thank you for your hard work and dedication to protect our youth. I, I really appreciate the collaboration and the I recommendation. And at the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Thank you very much. We'll take that bill up when we have quorum. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. Next, we'll go to file item eight, SB1322 by Senator Richardson. I don't think I see any other senators here.

Well, thank you, Mister chairman, for allowing us to scoot up a little bit with everything that's going on. Mister chairman, staff, and members, it's a pleasure to come here before you to talk about SB 1332 tribal housing grants. Native Americans face significantly higher rates of homelessness and housing insecurity in California with many lacking access to safe and affordable housing, not to mention health issues, water, utilities, and property rights.

To help address this issue, the California Department of Social Services, also known as CDSS, established the Community Care Expansion Program, CCE, which provides funding to expand housing facilities for individuals at risk of homelessness. However, the CCE program's tribal grant process remains cumbersome and complex, creating challenges in reconciling state regulations with tribal sovereignty.

The CCE program also requires tribal grantees to provide real property despite the federal restrictions that often limits them from having actual ownership. This is a significant barrier to necessary housing resources. SB 1322 would require CDSS to align the CCE program tribal grant agreement with successful federal practices and exempt tribal grantees from providing real property when federal restrictions limit tribal property ownership. This bill also strengthens the department's tribal liaison role to ensure tribal sovereignty is consistently understood, incorporated, and honored.

SB 1322 improves access to critical grant funds and advances California's commitment to addressing housing instability and tribal communities.

With me here to testify today is Ileana Chavez, director of the tribal programs with the California Coalition of Rural Housing. Should I repeat myself? No.

You got it.

That's good. Thank you so much. I'll I'll have your witness go two minutes now, please.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, committee members. My name is Leanne Chavez. I'm the director of tribal programs at California Coalition for Rural Housing. I oversee the tribal initiatives for CCRH.

On behalf of Annalie Trujillo from Poly Band Mission Indians, I'm here to testify and share their experience with the CCE program under CDSS. Polivan was awarded $8,300,000 under this grant program for assisted living facilities on trust land with 13 beds for elders, but it has taken two years for the award to be processed and get to a final funding agreement. The negotiation only was lengthened because the tribe was asked to put an 8,350,000 land collateral from their trust land, which jeopardize the tribe's sovereignty.

Paula has then had to use extensive funding resources in hours staff hours in order to know negotiate the funding agreement with their lawyers to assure that their tribe in the the project was being protected. The CCE program isn't built for tribes in mind, and so, therefore, we're just asking and seeing how we can remediate to make sure that the CCE program does fit the tribes accordingly and respects the tribal sovereignty.

With this bill, we hope that we can streamline the program and eventually be able to have a ripple effect across CDSS and other programs that they want to have accessible to tribes. Our message is that we want to have the best practices and standards and have a mutual beneficial agreement for the state and for tribal governments and assure that they have a system that establishes a government to government foundation where tribal sovereignty is respected since tribes are a sovereign nation.

I hope that we can get your support in this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now do we have any members of the public who wish to just find support of the bill? Please comment to the microphone.

Afternoon, Mister Chair, members of committee. Alex Alaniz on behalf of the Hapomitopomo of Upper Lake in support.

Mister chairman, members of the committee, Chris Lundstrom with the tribal business alliance in support.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Any members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, I'm very back to the committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair?

Yeah. I just wanna thank again the Senator for bringing this forward. I actually have a tribe, had a similar situation that they brought up to me very recently. We looked into this, and there's already a solution for it. So I just wanted to make sure that I was thanking the Senator and look forward to moving this at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Alright. Well, I thank the Senator for bringing the bill forward too and ensuring that the tribal tribal sovereignty is honored through the grant process. We are almost there at quorum, but I'll I'll allow the Senator to close if if you'd like.

Thank you, Mister chairman and members. I just wanna close as a Senator should have respectfully asking for an aye vote, but really deeper than that in this case. You know, the whole reason why programs are created are in order to help people. And when the federal grant system can do something in a far more efficient way, certainly, the state should be able to follow. And we certainly shouldn't be delving into implications of sovereignty.

So I respectfully request your understanding of that and support of this measure and, helping us get across the line so, tribal communities can take advantage of programs and funding that is rightfully due. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Alright. We will take that, measure up when we have quorum.

Thank you.

We'll go on to the next item. I think I see, the author for file item number four, s P11O9, Senator Alvarado-Gil. So whenever you're ready, you can come up to present your bill.

Thank you. I feel like I'm in high school with all my binders.

Alright.

And before you go, madam secretary, let's establish quorum.

Lee?

Here.

Tongapaugh?

Here.

Caldera?

El Huari?

Here.

Arquis.

Jackson? Celeste Rodriguez? Sanchez?

Thank you. And a quorum is established. Alright. Senator, you may begin when you're ready when you're ready.

With the permission of the, the Chair, I do have two bills to present. Am I able to present, item number four and then subsequently item number seven?

Yes. You wanna start with item number four. Right?

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Alright.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you. Alright.

So good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. Today, I'm presenting Senate Bill 1234. This is the accountability before custody act or the ABC act. This bill ensures that when a juvenile court is in a dependency case already orders a parent or guardian Sorry.

Real quick. So you did you wanted to start with item number seven first.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Is that what you're saying?

Do the wrong one?

Yeah. Which one did you wanna start with then? You wanna start with 1234?

No. Let's start. We we prefer 1109.

Yes. Yes. My see, my my 1109 witnesses are here for 1109. Okay.

So you wanna do 1109? Okay. Well, let's do file number 4 SB 11O9 first then.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Alright. Reset. So good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. Senate Bill 1109 is about ensuring that when we place our most vulnerable youth in treatment facilities, that those placements are actually safe, appropriate, and held to the highest standards of accountability.

As someone who personally went through the foster care system, I know how important these programs are. Short term residential therapeutic programs serve a critical role for youth with the highest behavioral and therapeutic needs. These are children who have experienced significant trauma and deserve safe environments where they can heal, not facilities with repeated serious violations. As this bill has moved through the legislative process, we have worked in good faith with the committee, community care licensing, providers, and the opposition.

We have listened to concerns and made significant amendments, including accepting all the amendments in the Senate.

Today, Senate Bill 1109 contains one simple provision. If a, if a STRTP receives five or more type a citations within a twelve month period, the Department of Social Services will conduct an annual license renewal review. This is all that the bill will do. This does not close facilities. It does not revoke licenses.

It does not eliminate STRTPs. It remains an essential part of California's child welfare system. It does not create new licensing violations. It does not exchange it does not change existing licensing standards. It simply requires the department to take another look before renewing the license of a facility that has repeatedly received the state's most serious licensing citations.

To me, that is not burdensome. It is responsible. Unfortunately, we know exactly why this additional accountability is necessary. This legislation was prompted by concerns surrounding right of passage operating the stirpes in Alpine County, where county officials repeatedly raised concerns regarding youth safety, emergency response, and oversight. Originally, this bill was written so that any county that did not have a high school or a hospital would be included in this legislation.

On the Senate side, my colleagues asked us to expand it to all counties. And even though this issue started in Alpine County, we saw it we saw the responsibility to include it throughout the state of California. So according to the California Department of Social Services' own community care licensing record, one right of passage STRTP in Alpine County had accumulated 10 Type A citations, while the other has accumulated 16 Type A citations. Members, this bill does not apply after one citation.

It does not apply after two citations or even three or even four.

It applies only after facility has accumulated five or more of the state's most serious licensing violations within a twelve month period. That threshold was intentionally chosen because this bill is not aimed at providers making isolated mistakes. It's aimed at repeated patterns of serious noncompliance. Yet according to the department's own records, these facilities have accumulated ten and sixteen Type A citations. If repeated serious violations at that level do not warrant an additional annual review, I respectfully ask, what does?

And these concerns did not begin yesterday. They've been documented for years. State reports have identified repeated deficiencies involving inadequate criminal background checks, unsafe facility conditions, failures to report required incidents, improper use of physical restraints, deficient staff training, and serious licensing violations. In one review, investigators found staff files missing criminal background clearances and required emergency intervention training. Before I can even volunteer to go on a field trip with my grandchild, I have to get a background check.

But yet currently, you can work to take care of some of the most vulnerable children in California and be and have a violation on file with no accountability. Some employees had not even completed the child abuse identification training. I mean, I don't know about you, but that is basic. Before you work with children and understand how to care for a child and whether putting your hands on a child or speaking in a certain tone is abuse, you should not have access to our children. But yet, we've seen those violations repeatedly.

Some have not even received CPR certification. How can you work with a child in the state of California and not have CPR training? My babysitter has to have CPR training. But yet in the state of California, you can work in a STRTPs, care for the most vulnerable children in California, and not not have a CPR certification and have no repercussions.

In another report, inspectors documented youth grievances being ignored or discarded, failures to report allegations of abuse within required timelines, including physical abuse with broken bones, bruises, and hospital visits, improper physical restraints that investigators concluded were unlawful.

These are in our own state reports. These are California's children. It's documented. These reports also described unsafe living conditions, fire safety concerns. Alpine County is in the high WUI area.

Safety concerns. And when this is documented, these are things like not having a smoke detector or a fire extinguisher. That is happening in California, STRTPs right now. And repeated feel failures to meet the basic licensing requirements. These are not one isolated incidents.

This is not one bad day. This is a pattern that has appeared in reports over many years. From reports issued in 1999 to findings in 2011, to the riots and public safety concerns at the Silver State Academy in 2015, to compliance findings in 2021. And even today, additional concerns continue to be raised involving rite of passage operated facilities. So why do we need this bill?

This is a bill that simply asks for more annual reviews. That if you are an organization like Rite of Passage, which we entrust our children to you, and you have repeated violations Type A, which are the most egregious in California, that that triggers an annual review. That's what we're asking for. Now some of you might say, well, is this gonna close doors for much needed stirps? That's not what it's intended to do.

But if you're breaking kids' bones and you are hurting them in a way that they are supposed to be safe, then, yeah, your door should be closed because they're coming from homes of trauma. They're coming from histories of trauma. And if they can't be in a California STRTP and feel safe, then, yeah, we need to figure out how to close those doors and keep the ones open for those who are serving kids.

Since introducing this bill, we've continued to learn of additional incidents, including concerns raised publicly before the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors following a May 25, 2026 fire at the rite of passage operated facility, where a youth was allegedly responsible for igniting an administrative building. Now you might ask yourself, how did he get to the administrative building?

How did this youth get access to materials to ignite a fire? According to testimony shared at that hearing, nearby residents described long standing concerns regarding the facility, including trespassing, property damage, and prior break ins. Following the fire, residents raised concerns about debris removal activities, including allegations that burned materials such as electronics, plastics, and potentially hazardous materials for building may have been transported and stored or disposed of without permits.

Residents also expressed concerns about environmental impacts, including potential runoff affecting wells and springs, ponds, and surrounding agriculture and wildlife areas, as well as frustration that local agencies reportedly issued enforcement actions that were not fully complied with. Why do we have regulations?

Why do we have standards if we are not making sure that these facilities are meeting the most basic of those standards? An annual review could help to identify these issues and help to make these facilities safer. Additional testimony described a deteriorating sense of safety among neighboring property owners, including elderly residents who stated that they no longer feel safe living adjacent to these facilities, as well as concerns regarding notification practices when youth leave campus and repeated incidents involving stolen property and runaway youth.

Members, these are not abstract concerns. These are multiple violations of right of passage facilities throughout California, and there are many of them in my district and in your district.

They reflect ongoing real world impacts experienced by surrounding communities when facilities operate without sufficient accountability or enforcement consistency. We have the enforcement mechanisms, but we're not doing the job. This bill is not about one provider. It applies equally to every STRTP in California. The overwhelmingly majority of providers are doing the difficult work every day on behalf of California's youth.

I applaud them and I thank them because without them, I would not be here serving as state Senator of Senate District 4. This bill does not affect those providers. Facilities that comply with licensing requirements will never be subjected to this provision. It's only the facilities that repeatedly receive the state's most serious licensing citations that would receive an additional annual review. And if a facility improves its performance and no longer meets the threshold, well, it returns the normal licensing process.

This is accountability. It's not punishment. The opposition will argue that existing oversight is already sufficient. Will children with broken bones and facilities that don't have adequately trained staff would argue against that? So respectfully, if existing oversight alone were sufficient, we would not continue seeing facilities accumulate these repeated Type A citations year after year.

Again, the most egregious. Senate Bill 119 creates no new violations. It raises no new licensing standards. It imposes no new operational requirements. It simply creates one additional layer of review after repeated serious violations that have already occurred.

We should not have to legislate the protection of our children. But when facilities repeatedly receive the state's most serious life serious licensing citations while continuing to care for California's most vulnerable youth, this legislature has a responsibility to act. Every child is placed in these facilities deserves adults who put their safety first. Every county deserves confidence that these facilities are being properly overseen, and every provider that is doing the right thing deserves to be distinguished from those who are not.

This bill does not ask for us to choose between protecting providers and protecting children.

We can and we should do both. Providers operating safely have nothing to fear from Senate Bill 1109. This bill ask only that facilities with repeated serious violations receive one, just one additional review before their license licenses are renewed. Just one. I believe that that's the minimum standard for every one of us that we could support.

Mister Chair, I have with me today two witnesses in support of Senate Bill 1109, Alpine County Chief Probation Officer Brian Lowry, and Calabres County Chief Probation Officer Kim Craddock.

Thank you. I just wanna note the witnesses, you do have two minutes each unlike, generally, we provide to the main author. So two minutes each, please.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. My name is Brian Lowry. I serve as the Chief Probation Officer for Alpine County, home to two STRTPs. First, I support the mission of STRTPs, and I want them to succeed. They care for some of California's most vulnerable youth.

Since the STRTP model was created, the landscape of California's juvenile justice system has changed. With realignment and the end of most out of state placements, California relies on STRTPs more than ever. As that responsibility has grown, so has the need for meaningful oversight. In Alpine County, over a five year period, we've had 500 call, or excuse me, 200 calls for law enforcement, calls for service in five years.

That's when you add that up as a total, that's over 10% of the calls for law enforcement in the entire county.

If you look at the the budget, 10% of law enforcement budget over five years, you're talking about millions of dollars that have been spent responding to incidents that are at these facilities. STRTPs in my jurisdiction have received numerous type a violations and continue to operate without meaningful review. I'm concerned about the safety of the youth being served. SB 119 does not create new regulations or close facilities. It provides a reasonable level of accountability.

This approach is not unique. Across California government, when facilities serving vulnerable populations demonstrate repeated serious safety violation, increased oversight follows. Whether it's nursing homes, residential care facilities, hospitals, juvenile facilities, schools, the principle is the same. Greater risk warrants greater review. Good oversight protects children, strengthens public confidence, and supports the many providers that are doing the right thing every single day.

Thank you for your consideration.

Alright. Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Kim Craddock, and I am the Chief Probation Officer of Calaveras County. Calaveras County is a very small rural county with limited resources. The importance of STRTPs to probation's goal of rehabilitating youth cannot be understated. But it is also important that the communities these programs rely on reside in are able to provide the necessary to support to ensure the safety of the youth.

There are no psychiatric facilities nor juvenile detention facilities within Calaveras County. Calaveras County has four sheriff's deputies on patrol to cover 1,037 square miles. The response time to ROP is at least twenty minutes. That is a long time when a student has attempted to drown staff in a pool, threatened to stab staff with a piece of glass, carjacked an elderly neighbor, or has let the administrative building on fire as happened on May 25th.

The road to ROP is long, windy, narrow, and steep, taking fire trucks even longer to respond.

When residents in the area complained that ROP was removing fire debris, code enforcement and environmental health had no record of the demolition permits being issued or building materials being tested for asbestos, lead, or other hazardous materials. Code compliance noted students walking past the burn site without personal protective equipment and had a stop order work or order issued, but it was not followed. Further inspection revealed fencing around the burn site did not effectively restrict access.

In 2025, the Calaveras County Sheriff's Department had 91 calls for service to ROP. That's 7.6 calls a month and 46 reports of runaway juveniles, 3.8 children a month from a facility that houses only up to 16 youth.

STRTPs are vital to the youth who receive services from them, but we must ensure communities surrounding STRTPs are able to to provide the necessary support when crisis arrives. With the oversight provided by community care licensing, when five or more violations within a year have occurred, we can better ensure youth, staff, and the community create a stronger and more stable program.

Alright. Thank you. Now do we have any members of the public who wish to testify in support of the bill? Please come to the microphone. Any witnesses in opposition to this bill? Any members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to this bill, please come forward.

Seeing none, bring back to the committee for any questions or comments from anyone.

Does Vice Chair have? Okay, go for it.

Yeah. I just wanna say again thank you to the author of the bill. I know as there have been some changes that happened, especially when it comes to, you know, displacement for at risk youth no longer can be moved out of state. I've seen that in Fresno County when I was there and some of the issues that were created through some of the legislative changes.

But what we need to make sure is that when they have to remain in the state of California, that they're in safe spaces as well, especially if this is like their most impressionable time.

So I know after five times of some egregious penalties, maybe we do have another look to see if they're the right individuals to do that. So just wanna say thank you, and thank you to my constituent from Calaveras County as well For being here. So thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. I'll invite the author to close.

Yes. I just want to thank you for allowing us to present here today. I just want to tell you, you probably cannot, off the top of your head cite what a Type A violation is. But in law, those citations are issued when there's deficiencies that pose a direct and immediate risk. Direct and immediate risk to the health, safety, or personal rights of children or non minor dependents.

So these can be physical. They are harmful. They create severe emotional distress, physical harm. These are the most egregious of the egregious. When we're talking about abuse, missing medication, improperly implementing emergency care, or physical restraints, these are the most egregious of egregious.

So, I do ask for this committee to consider an aye vote, and thank you for allowing me to present.

Alright. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate you bringing this bill and your passion to it. I understand your intent of the bill. But right now, CDSS does have the ongoing authority to regulate and to hold these facilities accountable.

And without having a hone in this in the past, this committee has also had targeted legislation of trying to hold these providers accountable for egregious actions too. This licensing scheme as it is right now, which is is a bit vague in some parts, could still leave many children in limbo. If these close, then these facilities don't or if these facilities close, then these children don't have anywhere else to go.

And I'd rather you know, I do, of course, encourage the center to keep working on this issue, but I would encourage us is it a enforcement mechanism issue with CDSS as we do much of the time trying to get our departments to be more on top of their game? But I think rather than inventing a new regulatory licensing scheme, it's better off that we work on using CDSS as a tool to actually implement the regulations on hand as it is.

That being said, I am recommending a no recommendation on this bill, and so I will not be supporting the bill today. Alright. Do we have any motions? Okay. The bill was moved.

Mister Chair, respectfully for twenty years.

We're we're let we're making a motion right now. We're doing a motion right now. Hold on. Alright. The bill was probably moved, but seeing no second, then that motion fails.

The bill does not proceed. Alright? Yep. Alright. Thank you.

So do you wanna go with your next bill? Item number 7, SB 1234.

Chair, permission to share some literature?

Relate this bill?

Yes. Okay. Sure.

This bill.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Whenever you're ready. Go for it.

Moving forward with item number seven, Senate Bill 1234. Okay.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Today, I'm presenting Senate Bill 1234, the accountability before custody act or the ABC act. What I've passed out is a study that I'm gonna be referencing in my presentation and and, is available for you. Senate Bill 1234 is an intentional child safety measure that's focused on a very specific circumstance in juvenile dependency proceedings.

When a court is already evaluating whether a child can safely remain in or return to a home, and there are concerns related to fentanyl or opioid use by a parent or guardian.

At its core, this bill is about ensuring that courts have the most complete and accurate information available when making some of the most consequential decisions in the child welfare system. Today, fentanyl presents a serious and growing threat to children across California. According to the December 2025 report that I've passed out from the California Department of Public Health substance and addiction prevention branch, there were 15 California children ages five and under who died from fentanyl related causes in 2023.

Now these weren't children that were addicted to fentanyl. These weren't children that were rehabilitated from using drugs.

These were children ages five and under, most who were under the age of two. The vast majority of these cases occurred in a home, and in many instances, another person was present. These are not abstract statistics. They reflect children dying in home environments where safety is assumed often in the same set settings where dependency courts are at are being asked to risk to assess risk and make life altering decisions.

The same report also underscores the extremely the extreme potency of fentanyl, noting that it is up to 50 times stronger than heroin and a 100 times stronger than morphine.

Meaning, even very small exposure can be fatal, particularly for young children. Senate bill 1234 responds to this reality in a specific way. It does not expand the court's jurisdiction. It does not create new dependency pathways, and it does not alter reunification standards. It simply ensures that when a juvenile court has identified a risk of fentanyl or opioid use, fentanyl is included in the drug testing that the court already has determined to be appropriate.

This helps ensure that when fentanyl is part of the risk picture, it is not inadvertently missed at the point where courts are making critical child safety determinations. We've heard concerns from stakeholders about clarity and implementation, and I'm happy to have worked with this committee and will be accepting the committee's proposed amendments.

The committee amendments will be accepting help to address that by more clearly grounding risk of fentanyl use in observable indicators such as prior positive test, credible statements or testimony, possession of fentanyl or opioid related related paraphernalia, or a documented professional assessment indicating signs or behavior consistent with use. These clarifications reinforce that this is not an arbitrary standard, but one based on evidence already commonly used in dependency court decision making. Senate bill 1234 takes a common sense approach to a serious and ongoing threat.

It ensures that when courts are already engaged in evaluating child safety, fentanyl is not overlooked in that process. And where their risks are identified, families are connected to appropriate support. With the committee's amendments accepted, this bill reflects a more precise and balanced approach that strengthens child safety while incorporating practical prevention tools. And with me today to tell her story is my witness.

Alright. Thank you. Two minutes, please.

Hi. My name is Corinne Frostik, and I'm here in full support of Senator Maria Alvarado-Gil's SB1234. Our lives and family were forever changed on 05/09/2022 when my precious 15 old granddaughter passed away following my son's relapse. Charlotte was a beautiful girl with the sweetest smile. She was a perfect toddler, curious, inquisitive, and just beginning to talk.

Charlotte absolutely adored her parents, and she was a light in their in their world. She had her 50 well baby checkup just days before her death and was a perfectly healthy and happy girl beating all the expected milestones. Nothing appeared wrong. The loss of Charlotte has shaken our family to its core. There are empty places at every family gathering from Sunday dinners to birthdays and holidays.

I'm also holding a picture of Liam Savoy O'Neil alongside Charlotte. Liam and his father, Patrick, both lost their lives to fentanyl a few years before Charlotte in my in our same hometown. At the time, I could not fathom how such a thing could happen, but I've come to understand that addiction is an awful disease. It doesn't discriminate, and it does not care who is caught in the crosshairs.

And it's absolutely important to emphasize that the parents of Charlotte and Liam were and are good people, parents struggling with an awful disease.

Although this bill would not have saved Charlotte or Liam, both parents had been clean and relapsed unbeknownst to family members. I am in full support of SB1234. What this has shown me is that sometimes the risk to a child is not visible. Even when concerns are being assessed through the system, this is why this bill matters.

When a child is being returned to home within a juvenile dependency case where court has already found a risk of fentanyl or opioid use based upon defined criteria, we need every safeguard in place.

S B 1234 ensures that fentanyl is included in drug testing when testing is already required. Fentanyl is a different it is fast. It is deadly. And without testing for it, a serious risk to innocent child can be missed.

S P SB 1234 also ensures that when a risk is identified in these cases, courts and social workers have clear standards for assessing fentanyl and opioid exposure and that the risk determination is based on defined indicators such as prior positive tests, credible statements, possession of paraphernalia or professional assessment, and that families receive basic safety information and resources, including safe storage guidance and access to fentanyl test strips and education through existing state programs.

So today, I stand here to support the ABC Act wholeheartedly. My goal is to save innocent children and help prevent other families from experiencing similar tragedies and to raise awareness about the devastation that addiction causes. Thank you for your time and consideration. God bless you.

And I wanna thank you for coming to share your story and your, granddaughter's life and story with us as well. Thank you. Alright. Do we have any members of the public who should testify in support of the bill? Please come into the microphone.

Thank you.

Any witnesses opposition to the bill, please come forward. Also, Senator, there's some Senator, there's some tissues right there in front of you if you wanna pass. Thank you. Alright. Two minutes each, please.

Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. Greg Gardner on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance. For nearly three decades, DPA has worked in California and across the country to advance health centered approaches to drugs and drug use that reduce harm, support families, and move away from ineffective and harmful punitive responses. Before I address this bill, I do wanna express our sincere condolences, to the family who shared the story today.

Losing a loved one is a devastating tragedy, and we honor the courage in coming forward today and and being here with us.

I too am a parent, and, many of us who do oppose this bill are parents. I believe we all ultimately share the same goal, keeping our loved ones, our communities, and our especially especially our young people safe, healthy, and connected to the support that they need. Unfortunately, this bill, S B 1234, does not advance those goals.

I too am a parent, and, many of us who do oppose this bill are parents. I believe we all ultimately share the same goal, keeping our loved ones, our communities, and our especially especially our young people safe, healthy, and connected to the support that they need. Unfortunately, this bill, S P, twelve thirty four, does not advance those goals.

The bill creates a new statutory requirement for ordering drug testing based on a vague and subjective standard that a parent or guardian is, quote, at risk of fentanyl use. While we appreciate the amendments that begin defining what evidence may establish and and emphasis on may establish that risk, it invites inconsistent and biased disproportionate impacts on raising serious concerns about enforcement of who is being tested and why.

The bill creates a new statutory requirement for ordering drug testing based on a vague and subjective standard that a parent or guardian is, quote, at risk of fentanyl use. While we appreciate the amendments that begin defining what evidence may establish and and emphasis on may establish that risk, it invites inconsistent and biased disproportionate impacts on raising serious concerns about enforcement of who is being tested and why.

Raising serious concerns about enforcement of who is being tested and why. SB 1234 is also redundant. Courts already have the authority and discretion to order drug testing. This bill does not demonstrate why the existing authority is inadequate or how this new requirement would improve the safety or family outcomes. In addition, the bill singles out fentanyl in a way that's unprecedented in law, in juvenile dependency law in particular.

No comparable provision requires testing based on the risk of a specific substance. Creating a fentanyl-specific trigger risks expanding unnecessary testing, increasing court involvement, and imposing additional costs on families and impacts on families in the dependency system without evidence that it will better protect children. We do support policies that strengthen family stability, promote well-being, and help children thrive safely at home. This bill undermines those objectives, and for these reasons, we respectfully oppose 1234 and urge a no vote.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Michael Hefty, Law Office of--or excuse me--the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers. I was previously with the Law Office of Martin Li as a trial counsel. I'm currently an attorney in the Court of Appeal representing parents in the juvenile dependency system. I do wanna reiterate the point with respect to the bill not actually providing any additional authorities that the court didn't already have, but I wanted to testify with respect to my experience with fentanyl cases as trial counsel in the Juvenile Dependency Court.

I would urge the committee to amend the bill to adopt the language that was proposed in the most recent analysis, specifically with respect to risk of use as being indicated by including other factors, a past positive test for use-- or use test that demonstrated use, but in my experience, the Juvenile Court is already very careful when it comes to fentanyl. I had a case where the parents in the case were-- it was more distinctly proven that they were manufacturing fentanyl.

There was no clear evidence that they were ever using before the investigation started, and all of their drug tests came out clean prior to adjudication and post-adjudication. But the Juvenile Court still ordered fentanyl testing for those parents over the objection of parents' counsel because there was no demonstrated use, even through collateral witnesses.

I don't think--now that I'm working in the Court of Appeal--that a Court of Appeal would overrule such a finding, demonstrating that all parties concerned are very aware of the risks that fentanyl poses to children, and especially in Los Angeles County--but I'm sure in much smaller counties--the attempts to protect children are already very well established through fentanyl testing. So I would just oppose the bill without the specific amendments that were suggested in the most recent analysis.

Thank you very much. Now do we have any members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to the bill? Please come forward to the microphone.

Shivani Nishar, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance, registering opposition for the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, Community Works, and the Youth Justice Coalition. Thank you.

All right. Let's bring it back to committee for questions, comments, and discussion, members. Mr. Vice Chair?

Thank you. You know, I'm gonna respectfully push back against the opposition because this is a one-sentence bill. It's literally a one-sentence bill. It says this bill would require a Juvenile Court that finds a risk of fentanyl used by a parent or guardian to order the parent or guardian to submit to testing for fentanyl. There's one sentence, that if they find that a parent or there is a risk of fentanyl use in a home, that they have to be tested.

That is the one-sentence bill that you're arguing that is overly burdensome. I think for people who come from families of heavy addiction or have grown up in it--which I have; my family I grew up in--heavy addicts--that if you could protect siblings or other kids, we should do something about that. And not only that; fentanyl has killed more people in the last 10 years than all American wars combined, all American wars combined in the last 10 years, especially when it comes to drug overdose.

I don't think that this is something that we could say is overly burdensome for our system. When a 107,000 people die in 2024, is that not enough to say we should take action, when one child is poisoned because they have found risk of fentanyl in a home? I don't think that's overly burdensome at all, and I just think it's insane that something as simple that when you find evidence of drugs, that it requires the parents to simply take a test, and they're the ones who have the ability to lose their child because they will either lose them to the courts or they lose their lives. It's all this bill does. So with that, I motion to move this bill.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from members? If not-- oh, okay. Assembly Member Rodriguez, go for it.

Thank you for your presentation and thank you for sharing your story. I just had one question about risk of fentanyl use and how that is defined, because I think we all do agree we wanna do everything we can to protect children, so I was just wondering if that is going to be further refined as you move this bill forward.

Thank you for the question. So this bill wouldn't further refine it because it's defined within the Juvenile Court system already. The determination can be made. Although certain counties include fentanyl as part of their screening, some don't, so it's inconsistent across California. So with this bill, what we would say is the counties that are already implementing this, we would implement it across all California.

The judge has the authority and the discretion to order this with all the evidence presented in front of them so that's why we're not changing the law. We're strengthening it to protect kids. So I don't know if you saw the packet that I sent. So California spent quite a bit of money for the California Department of Public Health to do this study because we had 15 dead children in four years. So the system has cracks. The system is not working because we have 15 dead babies that were exposed to fentanyl and these 15 babies were in the system.

Thank you. And thank you for clarifying that you're creating consistency across counties.

That's right.

And just for Assembly Member Rodriguez's information, on page seven of the analysis, we have the proposed amendments which the author accepted, and so the first bullet point may be more helpful to your question as well--

--to address the amendments.

Okay.

Yep. Assembly Member Elhawary.

Thank you.

I just wanted to offer-- like, similarly have, like, addiction history in my family. My cousin recently passed away with fentanyl overdose, but I think--

Sorry.

--what often happens when we incorporate these types of requirements in a judicial system that has often shown unintended biases against communities and especially communities of color, I think it just-- it becomes an undue burden on certain folks versus others, and I think we have to be mindful of that as well. Thank you.

Well, I think addiction is a very difficult and complex disease and I find offense in that only people of color use fentanyl or are exposed to addiction. I know many of the angel families that I work with would disagree. What we have found is that when someone is navigating through addiction, it is very, very difficult. We know the success rate is very low, and when you are charged with the life of another human being, a child, we must do everything that we can.

There are reported incidents where we have parents that are undergoing drug screening, and they know they're not being screened for fentanyl. So if you're not being screened for fentanyl and you're a drug addict and you want the high, then isn't it best to use a drug that you're not being screened for so that you don't violate? This is the reality. So, nowhere in this bill does it say that it only pertains to Black and brown people. Nowhere on the fentanyl pill does it say it only poisons brown and Black people with the recognition that our system is plagued with disparities in race and ethnicity. And I kindly ask for an aye vote on this.

All right. I'll take that as your close, Senator. Well, I-- well, I wanna thank you for working with my staff on the amendments. I think to some of the opposition's points, we provided a lot more nuance and context to the process, so working in collaboration with Assembly Judiciary Committee who works on some of those to bring more nuance to it.

So I hate to break it to the Vice Chair. The bill will no longer be just one sentence change. It will be a lot longer than one sentence 'cause we have put in some of the amendments, and with those amendments and more context and nuance, again, to the bill, I do think it is important to address the presence and risk of fentanyl to especially young ones.

So I do think with the amendments that we have today and that you've agreed to, I do have a do pass as amended aye recommendation. So-- oh. We don't yet have the second on this bill. Okay. All right. The bill has been moved by Vice Chair Tangipa; seconded by Assembly Member Sanchez. Welcome to committee. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File Item Seven: SB 1234. The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

Five to zero. That bill's out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. If appropriate, may I ask for reconsideration on File Item Number Four: SB 1109?

The motion for reconsideration isn't necessary because the motion to move it failed, so the bill is just being held in the committee. Okay?

Okay.

All right. Let's move on to Senator Menjivar, who has two bills, so I'll let her decide which one she wants to do. Which bill would you like to do?

991.

All right. Let's start with SB 991, which is File Item Number Two. Are you dressed for a sporting event or something? I mean, I'm not sure what's going on.

The Salvadorian is very excited for the Mexico game. Mister Chair, committee members, here to present McPhersonville SB 991.

Current

oh, Mister Chair, can I start? Currently, right now, you might be looking to to place your your mom, your dad, your loved one in a residential care facility, and you're wondering which is the best place to place them in. And you'll go on the website to see, hey. Is this, is this a good place? Are there any violations at this place where I'd like to place my loved one?

Well, you'd find that there is a report of what kind of violations well, not really of places that have violations, but they're not specific to what actually happened at the facility. They're categorized broadly as a violation of someone's rights. So whether a a center has a rat infestation or an elder person was experienced elder abuse or was financially abused and scammed of $35,000, those nuances are not included on what kind of violation.

I think that kind of transparency is really important for the public to know and to see to see the different kind of residential care facilities that exist. Enter SB 911.

That would then, should it pass, allow for these specific kind of violations to exist on the current website. So there's not creating a brand new website. The website already exists, and now the violation will include the actual type of violation and not just say there was a violation of residents' rights.

We wanna make sure that we improve how, these reports of abuse and neglect are categorized on the Department of Social Services and their public facing licensing enforcement database because the current umbrella category doesn't allow for family members looking for a facility to clearly know what the type of violation is occurring with that. Mister Chair, I'd like to turn over to, my first witness here in support of this bill.

Thank you. Two minutes each, please.

Hi. My name is Rachel Tate. I am a clinical social worker and the vice president of Ombudsman Services for Wise and Healthy Aging, a nonprofit organization that provides the Ombudsman program in Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, and San Bernardino County. Victims of abuse routinely find themselves dismissed, denigrated, and invalidated by their abusers. Individuals who require the care and services of residential care facility find themselves particularly vulnerable to this treatment.

Regulatory and enforcement agencies often place more value on statements from those around the victims than from the victims themselves. Common thinking is that after all, they need to be in care, so they must be mistaken or they must be confused. In Senate District 20, residents in an assisted living facility were asked about their treatment by community care licensing. Resident one was able to confirm that a staff member hit them in the back of the head, top of the head, and kicked them.

Resident two confirmed the same staff member choked them.

This was all witnessed by resident three. Resident four confirmed the same staff member grabbed and pulled them by their hand and pushed them against a Chair. Resident five suspects that they were hit in the back of the head by the staff member, because that staff member was around them at the time, but cannot confirm because when they turned their wheelchair around, the staff member was no longer there. Licensing staff was able to confirm that the resident five sustained physical injuries.

The citation for this incident reads that there was a resident's rights violation in that the administrator failed to provide an environment free from abuse.

The situation does not unequivocally say that multiple residents were in fact assaulted and abused by their staff member. It is imperative that we vote I on this bill to honor and respect the lived experiences of long term care residents that are dependent on the state for their very protection.

Thank you. Next witness, please. Two minutes. Good.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jason Sullivan Halpern, and I'm the director of the California Long Term Care Ombudsman Association or CAPCOA, the sponsors of SB 991. Abuse and neglect are among the most common complaints reported in to California's local long term care ombudsman programs. Last year, ombudsman received 2,088 complaints involving abuse and RCFEs, nearly as many as all care related complaints combined. The year prior, abuse was the single most common complaint category reported in these facilities.

When abuse is suspected, mandated reporters are required to report it using the same definitions in the welfare institutions code the bill cites. Ombudsman who receive and investigate these reports alongside the department must also categorize allegations according to the type of abuse involved. However, when the department substantiates abuse and it publishes its findings on its transparency website, those violations are often reported broadly as violations of residents' rights to be free from abuse, not as abuse.

As a result, consumers, families, advocates, and policymakers often cannot tell what type of abuse occurred or identified patterns. A citation for a violation of the right to be free from abuse does not clearly communicate whether a resident was physically assaulted, financially exploited, sexually abused, neglected, abandoned, or abandoned.

Victims and their families deserve greater transparency. SB 991 requires the department to identify the specific type of abuse demonstrated by the evidence when it substantiates a violation and to deploy display that information on the public facing databases it already maintains. The bill does not change reporting requirements, investigations, burdens of proof, enforcement authority, or appeal rights. Licensing program analysts are already trained to investigate abuse using the same statutory definitions.

SB 991 simply ensures that when abuse is substantiated, the department communicates those findings more clearly to the public using information it already collects.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any members of the public who should testify and support the bill? Please come up to the microphone.

Good afternoon. Brooke Benetti in support on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of this of this committee. My name is Eduardo Rubalcava with AARP on behalf of 3,200,000 AARP members here in California in strong support of SB 991. Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any members of the public who should just find opposition to the bill has come forward?

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

You want the bill to bill?

Alright. The bill has been moved and seconded. I'll invite the author to close.

Recent report by the Public Policy Institute of California states that by 2040, the number of seniors who are gonna be in these institution residential facilities is gonna increase by fifty one percent. It's not more than ever important to ensure there are there added barrier there are added guardrails to protect our seniors in these homes, respectfully asking for an eye of both.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator, for bringing the bill forward. It's so important to you know, it can be such a overwhelming process for older adults to look for care, and I think having more transparency and information for them is so vital. And I look forward to supporting this bill. Enjoys a high recommendation for me, and it was moved by Assemblyman Calderon, second by Assemblyman Rodriguez.

And the secretary, please call the roll on file item number two.

File item number two, SB 991. The motion is do passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee? Aye. Lee, Aye.

Tongupa? Aye. Tongupa, Aye. Calderon? Aye.

Calderon, Aye. El Huari? Aye. El Huari, Aye. Jackson Rodriguez?

Aye. Rodriguez, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye.

Six zero. That bill's out. We'll leave the roll up. Open for APSA members. Thank you.

Alright. Let's go on to file item number six, sb 1200.

Mister Chair, colleagues, from talking about seniors to not talking about our youngest ones, it's a spectrum of issues that you're all working on. All deserve our attention. We all recognize here in the legislature that the need for child care slots and spaces has been a long fight, not just for the legislative women's caucus, but so for so many individuals.

And while we were so glad that we expanded through TK, the unintended consequence that happened there is that our our at home childcare family centers took a big hit, because their bread and butter was with those four to those four four year olds that they were taking care of that now switched over to schools.

And because we have a locked, set amount of how many infants they can care for that are ages between zero and 24, it is difficult for them to open more slots up for infant care even though that is where the greatest need is.

I think the Assembly member from the San Fernando Valley, Assemblymember Rodriguez, can tell you as an in she has an infant, the need to find a care for that age group. There are various state there are various states. There are various published evidence based practices and and health care advocates that define infant either above the age of 12 or above the age of 18 as do other states. But here in California, we define it between the ages of zero to 24.

A 24 year old 24 old is walking and oftentimes is talking is very different in terms of the developmental needs of a seven month old or a eight month old.

So we wanna allow, should a at home family care provider have the capacity, to care for, more infants, to define here in California zero to eighteen as an infant. Some of our our childcare centers already define it of zero eighteen as the sub Chair on health and human services. I've dived in so much in child into childcare on this, and we wanna see if we can align this to also define infants for their kind of provider, facilities.

With that, I'd like to turn it over to my two witnesses.

Alright. Two minutes. Mister Chair. Oh, thank you. Two minutes each, please.

And I guess I am gonna ask you about s p 1,200, so tell me about this bill.

That's fantastic, Mister Lee, because I would love to tell you about it. Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Rebecca Grassi. I'm a California credential teacher. My degree is in social science and, additionally, home economics.

I've been a family childcare provider for sixteen years since the recession. As a cofounder of Safe California Family Childcare, I'm a proud sponsor of s p 1,200. For racial purposes only, this bill defines an infant as a child younger than 18. Our homes are not static classrooms with one age of child that resets every year. They're unique mixed age environments where research proves children thrive.

I've watched only children who are behind developmentally become motivated to reach their next developmental stage simply by consistently having access to an environment to watch older peers. Our care is the most versatile, culturally, linguistically responsive, and widespread, but there are still child care deserts. When parents can't access child care, they drop out of the workforce, the economy suffers, or they turn to unlicensed care that lacks our training, inspections, and certificates. Families are desperate because our ratio brackets are stuck in 1982.

Neither the term toddler nor preschool exists in title 22 that governs family childcare homes.

Neither of those two words exist. Despite forty years of research, we are doing a disservice to children eighteen to twenty four months who can walk, self feed, climb, communicate, and put their own shoes on. And by treating them as if they are newborns who can't roll over or hold a bottle, keeping them in the infant ratio they've outgrown locks actual newborns out of care. Family child care providers live in actual practice, the reality of child development every day. And science backs our expertise.

The AAP, the NIH, the CMA, CDPH, CDC, CACFP define children as infants 12. The APA, NAEYC, and the California Department of Education define them as 18. I respectfully ask for your aye vote and can answer any questions. Thank you.

Yeah. Hi. My name is Rita Ferando. I am a childcare provider in Alameda. I'm a large provider, meaning I can have the most children in family childcare.

And I'm reading a letter on behalf of a parent. Hello. My name is Esmeralda Chavarria, and I am a resident of Alejo. I am a mother of three children, a four year old, a 21 old, and a two month old. I currently work as a family advocate for a nonprofit that works in partnership with other local agencies to promote quality child care, literacy, family support, and parent involvement.

This is a role that is deeply meaningful to me because it allows me to support family doing some challenging times, connecting them to resources, helping them during difficult times, and help helping them build stability. In my job, I see firsthand the daily struggles of mothers that mothers face to find childcare, especially when trying to keep siblings together. Ironically, I am now facing the exact same struggle. For the past three years, I have relied on Lipetie Papillon, whom I absolutely adore.

She has created a safe, nurturing environment, and I want all of my children to go to her because California's outdated rage regulations.

My two month old cannot attend with my current provider on the date I need to return to work since my two months old is treated the same as my 21 old. That is exactly why I'm supporting the passage of SB 1200. This places me in an incredible difficult situation. Le Petit Pappilon provides care for my middle child and after school care for my eldest.

If my two month old cannot also enroll with her, I will be forced to take my three children to three different locations in the morning every single day.

Infant care is so limited that parents are often not put on the wait list until the child is born, leaving working mothers stranded. I must return to work to provide for my family, and this system adds severe financial and emotional stress to an already overwhelming time. SB 1,200 represents an important step towards addressing this kind of outdated regulations in child care in the child care system. Families should not have to choose between their livelihood and trusted care.

I I respectfully urge you to support SB 1200. Sincerely, Esmeralda Chavarria.

Do we have any members of the public in the hearing room here to testify and support?

Hold the bill. Okay. Thank you.

Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Do we have any members in the public who wish to testify? Oh.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Sedalia King. I represent UDW SME Local thirty nine thirty. I'm here on behalf of the childcare providers united, representing over 70,000 childcare providers throughout the state of California. I would wanna preface this that, opposition is really aggressive.

It's not opposition. I just wanna flag the fact that we found that there might be a possible conflict, and we reached out to the author. And I also wanna uplift the fact that she's a fearless advocate for us. So this is extremely friendly. We wanted to make sure that, all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed.

So we look forward to continue working with her, but we wanted to make sure that the committee was aware as well.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from committee members? Seeing none, I just wanna personally thank you for working on an issue like this. I'm just like, the mom you read about when Aye, found out I was pregnant.

I actually called my childcare provider for my older daughter to tell her that I needed the space in a few months, because that's how it is. It's really challenging to find access, and it's a big issue that a lot of the legislators here are working on to make it affordable and accessible for all of us. We have a the Chair recommends an aye vote. We have a motion and a second. I'd like to invite the author to close before we do a roll call.

Thank you so much. I mean, childcare continues to be a huge priority for so many Californians. It's affordability issue. It's an equity issue. It's an access issue.

One day, we'll get it right. I'm grateful that we've included funding in our budget to move a step forward with this bill. We will not change the ability to serve more children, but rather simply ask the ability to serve children that they can within the parameters of a safe staffing ratio, respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Awari, a second by Assemblymember Calderon. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

File item six, SB 1200. The motion is do passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye.

Tonga pa? Aye. Tonga pa, aye. Calderon? Aye.

Calderon, aye. El Huari? Aye. El Huari, aye. Jackson?

Aye.

Jackson, aye. Rodriguez?

Aye.

Rodriguez, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye.

Seven to zero. That bill is out. Congratulations. Alright. Alright.

Let's go to our final bill presentation, file number number nine, sB 1345 by Senator Wahab.

Good afternoon. SB 1345, the foster youth dignity and respect act is an important expansion to the foster youth bill of rights. Foster care placement is a traumatic experience. When a youth is placed in foster care, they're physically removed from their family, placed in an unknown environment, and most are shuffled between housing placements up to three to five times a year. Placement transitions are often carried out in ways that compound harm by disrupting a foster youth's sense of identity, belonging, and well-being.

Across the state, youth report wearing the same clothes for weeks and forced to pack their belongings in trash bags, which are often lost, damaged, or left behind. While existing law provides storage space for private use, it fails to clearly establish that youth must maintain reasonable access to that storage and lacks requirements on belongings should how how they should be handled. These practices undermine a foster youth's control over their daily life, send a harmful message to youth about their worth, and impact their long term outcomes.

Foster youth do deserve better. SB 1345 establishes a clear and enforceable right to reasonable access and dignified transportation of belongings, emphasizing that foster youth deserve respect like any other child.

I specifically wanna share that I am a former foster youth. I have my doctorate in social work. My sister is a social worker in emergency response. Thank you. And I really wanna highlight that as much as we talk about adoption and we talk about how the foster care system protects children, it also, as I stated, compounds harm and trauma in different ways.

From bouncing from home to home to home to home, literally, all your belongings tossed in a black trash bag in the back of somebody's car, that is all you remember. And oftentimes, you are not allowed to take all of your belongings.

I specifically remember this and was very surprised that nearly thirty years later, this still exists in California law. It's really disappointing. We have a long way to go in social services across the board, county per county. This bill, I do wanna highlight that we have worked with the counties to make it reasonable for them and manageable at the same time.

We have not overprescribed anything to say it has to be a suitcase and has to be this size or that size or anything like that. We are literally just saying, please, for the love of God, find a way to allow that child to have some dignity in this process as they are removed from maybe a violent situation or a harmful situation into a situation where they are unsure and unclear of what is even going on. So with me, to testify, I have Chantel Johnson, director, Directing Advocate and Legal Apprentice with the Youth Law Center.

Thank you. Your witness has two minutes, please.

Yeah. Absolutely. Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. My name is Chantel Johnson, and I am here today on behalf of the Youth Law Center, proud sponsor of SB 1345. In addition to being an advocate, I myself am also a former foster youth and a foster parent, adoptive parent.

So SB 1345 is deeply personal to me. I'd like to begin with the story of Erin Clues, a former foster youth who shared her story in support of the bill. When Erin was just 16 years old, she was removed from her home and placed 500 miles away in a group home. She arrived with everything she owned packed in a trash bag. After experiencing additional placement disruptions and homelessness, she eventually aged out.

Once again, her belongings were packed into garbage bags, and she was dropped off in LA in LA, never hearing from anyone from the system again. Looking back, Erin says, it wasn't just about the trash bags. It was about what they represented. She told us, my takeaway from these experiences is I don't matter. My life doesn't matter.

Nobody cares about me. I'm invisible, unwanted, and unloved. Today, as a parent herself, she reflects on how these experiences followed her into adulthood, leaving her with almost nothing from her own childhood to pass on to her children. Her story reminds us that the way we treat children's belongings sends a powerful message about how we value children. SB 1345 is about ensuring that children of foster care are treated with dignity and respect.

It strengthens the foster care bill of rights by clarifying that foster youth have have and deserve the right to maintain reasonable access to use of their personal belongings, clothing, and personal items while in placement. It also makes clear that when placement changes occur, those belongings must be transported in a matter that preserves the child's dignity. SB 1345 does not impose burdensome new mandates. Many caregivers and counties already treat the youth with dignity and respect.

This legislation simply establishes a clear statewide expectation that every foster youth deserves access to their own belongings and deserves to be treated with respect.

California can and should send a different message. California has already made tremendous progress in recognizing the rights of children and youth in foster care. SB 1345 builds on that commitment by making clear that dignity isn't is reflected not only in the decisions we make, but in the everyday experiences of young people in our care. Every child deserves to know that they matter, and the state is entrusted with their care, will treat WIM and their belongings with respect.

On behalf of the Youth Law Center, we have respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Thank you. Now do we have members of the public who should decide support of the bill? Please come into the microphone.

Good afternoon. Amanda Kirchner on behalf of the County Welfare Directors in support.

Mikayla Sarmento, Law Clerk from the Children's Law Center in support.

Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses in opposition? No. Do we okay. Do we have any members of the public who should testify in opposition?

Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee.

I'd like to move the bill.

I second.

Alright. Oh, okay. Assemblyal Elhawary.

I just really wanna thank you for bringing this forward. I'm a foster mom to a young girl who was 17 when she was removed. I remember the day that she talked about putting everything in a trash bag and not even knowing where she was gonna go and just the horror of that, the trauma that, like, that, like, will never leave you.

I think the vulnerability that you shared with us today appreciates you for carrying this bill, and the work that you're doing and just the importance of really ensuring that young people who are in foster care have dignity. I've heard that if there are social workers who are connected to folks with resources, they're not even allowed to take the luggage and use that for the children because it's in statute that we have to use trash bags.

That is crazy. And so thank you for really pushing us, outside of that so that we could do something real for these young people.

Alright. Seeing no more, I'll invite the author to close.

Thank you. I actually will highlight the fact that this type of, you know, experience kind of sits with you. I'm one of those people that are very much minimalist. I don't care for an office. I don't care for the space.

I don't care to decorate. I I just literally know that if anytime I need to get up and go, I have to. And I I think it largely stems from childhood, you know, experience. So, you know, this it's sad that we have to have a law to say give some dignity to the youth. And, again, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

I wanna thank the Senator and the sponsors for carrying this bill, bringing this bill forward, and always for a Senator fighting for our foster youth. So I do have an aye recommendation on this bill, and this bill was moved by Assemblymember Rodriguez, seconded by Assemblymember Sanchez. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on file item number nine.

File item nine, SB 1345. The motion is do passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

Seven to zero. That bill is out. Alright. So members, that is all the bill presentations, but we still have some bills that did not have motions, and we haven't yet moved the consent calendar. Can someone move the consent calendar for us?

Consent calendar is moved and seconded. Madam secretary, can you please call the roll on the consent calendar?

[Roll Call]

Alright. Business before the Assembly Human Services Committee is complete. The hearing is now adjourned. However, we will now transition to our oversight hearing. So we will convene our oversight hearing in just a minute, but I'll invite Assembly of Pellerin to join me up here on the dais and Assembly of Gipson when he arrives.

Good afternoon, and welcome to today's outcomes review oversight hearing for the Assembly Human Services Committee. This hearing will be covered in two parts with part one discussing AB 2247 from 2018 by Assembly member Mike Gibson, followed by part two, which will cover AB 2496 by Seminar and Pellerin from 2024. Following each part, the public will be allowed to make public comment.

The purpose of this outcomes review oversight is to look back at what these bills did and to tell the story of whether these policies are working as intended. We'll be examining these policies through the lens of before and after using data to illustrate how things are going.

Oversight is a crucial aspect of the work we do here in the legislature, and I am pleased to look at these two important policies that have had a direct impact on the health and safety of California's foster youth. As we get started on part one to discuss AB 2247 by Samuel and Gibson, the Committee on Human Services is joined by panelists from the California Youth Connection, Children's Law Center, Department of Social Services, and County Welfare Directors Association.

I want to thank our presenters today for making the time to share important work they are doing to implement these landmark bills that we are that were intended to support our youth. We will begin with panel one. Welcome to Assembler Mike Gibson and Mercedes Parker from CYC.

So Assembler Gibson, you may open and go for the presentation.

Thank you very much, Mister chairman. I wanna start off by thanking one, speaker Robert Rivas for one, convening such oversight review hearing. And thank you very much for going through this process and one, selecting my bill, my legacy bill of 2018 to be one of the ones chosen to be heard in today's oversight hearing. Excuse me. So before before Assembly bill 2247, California's foster foster care system often unintentionally added to the trauma of children had already experienced.

Youth who entered the foster care system because of abuse, neglect, or family instability were frequently subjected to repeated placement disruption and deepened their sense of loss and security. At the time where foster parents were only expected to provide seven day notice when requesting a child be removed from their home. While some transition were thoughtful, managed for far too many children experience disrupt movement with little preparation or support, research alongside lived experience. Foster youth made clear that repeated, removes, neglected, or negatively impacted children.

California youth connection members, drawing from their own experience in foster care, helped identify the critical gaps and partnered in writing a new statue that centered the need of children in the state of California.

The voices that shaped this legislation came directly from those who had lived through the system here in this state of California. Some children's experience, watch this, 30 or more placements during their lifetime in foster care. Just imagine what that means. Placement, 30 or more. What does that mean?

30 high schools or 30 schools, 30 different beds, 30 different neighborhoods, and the list goes on and on. Every move increased the risk of losing personal belongings, falling behind in schools, being separated from siblings, and losing trusted connections with their communities. That's what that means. Even more troubling, there were very few requirements to preserve placements before deciding to move a child. In some cases, youth received little to no notice.

They were leaving loved ones behind. Their belongings and the memories they represent were packed into a trash bag. A youth advocate named Katrina, a powerful testimony during a bill that was being considered that I wrote in 2018. Oh, she sat in this very room with me. She sat to my left side in this Chair next to me when I brought that bill before this committee.

She said, and I quote, the thing about packing in trash bags is this, that trash bag are too fragile to carry futures. Did you hear what I said? It's too fragile to carry futures. That testimony became the defining the the the defining reminders that replacements changes are never simply an administrative decision that shapes a child's sense of dignity, belonging, and hopes. Assembly bill 2247 fundamentally changes California's laws by shifting the focus from simply managing placement changes to activating preventing unnecessary disruption.

The legislation requires social workers to develop and implement placements, strategies, developing partnerships with with youth, children, and families teaming before changing a child's placements, documenting those efforts within a child's case planning. When a placement change was still necessary, the law established strong protections by requiring at least fourteen days notice. The bill also prohibits a nonemergency placement change from occurring overnight between the hours of 9PM and 7AM. The bill recognized that children deserve dignity, preparation, and stability during one of the most difficult moments they may experience.

Assembly bill 2247 creates a collaboration process that brings social workers, caregivers, youths, and families together to problem solve before placement ends.

It recognized that stability is not simply an outcome. It is an essential part of healing. Perhaps most importantly, the legislation helps rebalance power before giving youth a greater voice in decisions that profoundly affects their lives. Eight years later, the legacy of Assembly bill 2247 is measured not only in the law it creates, but the culture that it helps transform. A foster care system that recognize that every child deserves stability, belonging, and the opportunity to heal.

These children are individuals whom safety, dignity, relationships, and the future deserves protection. Again, I wanna thank our speaker for having the vision because without a vision, the people perish. This is my legacy. This is my voice on behalf of the foster youth of the state of California, and thank you for allowing me to present this bill, Assembly bill 2247, on behalf of the foster youth of the state of California.

Thank you so much, Assembly member. Now we'll move on to Mercedes Parker from the California Youth Connection for your presentation.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee, and thank you Assemblymember Gibson for your powerful words. My name is Mercedes Parker. I am a community advocacy coordinator with California Youth Connection. CYC is a statewide youth led organization of young people under the age of 25 with lived experience in the foster care system as well as intersecting systems.

And for the last three, almost four decades, our members have driven systemic policy changes by ensuring that the people who actually live through these systems are the ones designing the solutions.

We proudly sponsored AB 2247 in 2018 because placement changes are some of the most profoundly disruptive experiences a foster youth can face. Currently, there are over 36,000 foster children and youth currently in California's child welfare system, and every single one of them deserves to have a stable, safe, and loving and secure home. The reality is that frequent chaotic placement changes completely undermine that stability from the start.

And instead of protecting our most vulnerable youth, the system, in turn becomes yet another obstacle for young people who are already facing an uphill battle, an uphill climb to adulthood with limited resources and no safety net. Nationally, youth experience an average of four to five placement changes.

This track record shows that a young person securing a home drops drastically after just two placements, plummeting from over 86% all the way down to thirty 13.7%. Once a young person is moved twice, the system essentially enters a a free fall of chronic disruption. And in fact, we found that of foster youth that experienced five or more youth or five or more moves, nine out of 10 of them will become involved in the juvenile justice system.

Before AB 2247 was passed, there was a vacuum in California law governing how placement change should actually occur. As a result, youth faced abrupt sudden moves that disrupted every single part of their lives while being completely locked out of the process.

Decisions that dictated where they slept, where they went to school, who they lived with were made about them but entirely without them. This complete lack of a meaningful voice and choice created traumatic traumatic conditions, not safe ones. Youth were treated like property to be moved from one location to another given little notice and little explanation. And it's not just about losing a roof over your head. It's the fundamental right to normalcy.

California statutory mandates explicitly require the state to protect the false youth's right to a normal childhood, ensuring that they can participate in age appropriate extracurricular activities, stay connected to their community, and their their supports. When youth are ripped from placements without warning, that standard of normalcy is entirely destroyed. What is instead normalized is being pulled out of a classroom mid semester.

What's normalized is losing your spot on your school sports team, your after school programs, your siblings, your friends, your mentors, often so much without so much of a goodbye. What's normalized is foster youth feeling temporary and disposable, creating

difficult to focus on building a future. Caring for these youth, our young caring for these youth, our young people are routinely displaced and not necessarily for safety risks, but for their self expression, their culture, their religion, their dietary choices, their gender identity, or their foster parents' outright racial biases. If a caregiver refuses to accept a young person's core identity, the system allowed them to treat that youth as an inconvenience.

survival anxiety that makes it incredibly

Instead of doing the work to ensure placements continue to be successful, these placement changes were weaponized against youth as a punishment. Youth being labeled too difficult to work with and shuttled to another home with even less of a chance of stability.

In a typical family, teenage disagreements over rules are handled with conversation, dialogue. In this system, a lack of regulations allowed caregivers to just give up and demand an ex immediate extraction. AB 2247 was tasked specifically to create a youth centered process to stop this. This was done in partnership with the youth law centers quality parenting initiative, and has been several years of, targeted advocacy. The law mandates that before an agency can uproot a youth, specific criteria must be met.

Agencies are legally required to provide a fourteen day written notice to everyone on that youth's team, including their attorney. And before that youth is moved, mandatory placement preservation strategies strategies must be implemented. These strategies are youth centered and focused on front loaded care at the time of placement, conflict resolution, mental health check checks, direct support for resource families, convening a child and family team meeting to actively mediate and preserve the home.

Sometimes a placement change is necessary for safety, and AB 2247 does not prevent those vital emergency moves. Instead, it requires agencies to ask, what can we do to preserve this placement before disrupting another child's life, often for the umpteenth time.

That shift from reacting to a crisis to actively preventing an unnecessary move is why AB 2247 is so important. It also built crucial system accountability. It created a formal process allowing youth to call the foster care ombuds office to officially add their own account of the placement change in their case file so violations could be independently investigated and used to improve practice across the state through training, technical assistance, and quality improvement so that agencies do not continue repeating the same mistakes.

AB 2247 was intended to provide to take a step forward to providing real structural stability, allowing foster youth to stop operating in survival mode. Stability is about confidence and positive positivity.

It ensures that they have consistent therapy, doctors, uninterrupted access to vital resources, preservation of those really key relationships that you can't replace, and a continuous circle of support. Ultimately, it sets our youth up to pursue their highest hopes and dream, whether that's college, career, or stability. That's all I have today. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I'm gonna invite Assembly Gibson to join us on the dais if, he would like. And then we're gonna move on to some questions. Since this is the the spirit of this hearing is an oversight. I'm gonna ask you some questions as from the sponsor kind of perspective on the bill, and I'm gonna invite my colleagues to ask questions as well.

Alright.

But first question I wanted to ask, you know, as a sponsoring organization eight years on, which parts of the law do you think are working as intended, and where do you think implementation has fallen short of what you envisioned?

There's a lot that, could be done to better support implementation. A few step forward.

A few steps that we've seen in the right direction include, the CANS assessment, the child and family, needs and strengths assessment, which are being rolled out across the state, which is basically a strength and needs based assessment of a young person so that that placement can continue to invest in the things that are working for that youth, whether that is supporting a relationship that they're they're have a hobby, an activity, something academic, as well as identifying key needs.

CFTs are often not implemented to a high degree of its Fidelity, which is something that we are seeing a lot of progress being made across the state, although there is more that is needed.

In order for a CFT to really function the way that it's intended under the purpose of this law is to make sure that it is a youth centered process, meaning that young people are included in this conversation, that the folks around them are not making decisions around their their placement or other things that impact their life without including their voice in it.

Other things that we are seeing that are working well is there's more trans transparency around placement decisions and also the requirement for agencies to actually document the preservation efforts that are made. There's more that can be done to support and making sure that those preservation efforts are aligning with best best practices, especially as it pertains to the needs of young people as well as access to, technical assistance for, for counties.

Alright. Thank you. When TYC sponsored this bill, because youth identified placement spilling the abrupt the abruptness of moves is a harm which, you know, both you and the seller talks about. From what youth are talking to you about today, has a day to day experience of placement change improved compared to the back then?

Yes. So now there's a lot more protections in place to prevent a youth being moved, unnecessarily. I've seen this I work in five different counties in California. So, Sacramento, Yolo County, Butte, Taheemann, Glenn. I have seen you specifically in Sacramento County that, have experienced challenges within their placement, and, their parent has initiated a fourteen day notice, parent has initiated a fourteen day notice, which is an entire week longer than the previous seven day notice.

And I have seen that actually lead to placement preservation efforts taking place so that that CFT meeting happening, those young people receiving needed supports, whether it is therapy, whether it is reevaluating their medication, or just determining if there's other things going on in the home, mediation being provided. So I've seen several placements. I've only been with the organization for about four years now.

But in in the four years that I've been here, I've seen several placements, be preserved instead of, you know, a youth having to move to a different county. Unfortunately, in smaller counties and more rural counties, I have not seen the same level of success.

I have seen placement changes continue to be weaponized against youth, youth basically being threatened with being removed for, you know, typical challenges that that we're faced with teens, like, you know, cleaning up your bathroom in the morning and things like that that escalate unnecessarily and just make it impossible for that youth to remain in the home.

Also, those youth are not always educated on what their rights are around advocating for themselves or even being able to make that call to the ombuds office to make sure that their rights are not being violated in the process of placement preservation or placement changes.

Alright. Thank you. I'm gonna ask one more question and see if, my colleagues have any questions. But one of the key provisions of AB 2247 back then was also prohibiting the middle of the night placement that brought placement changes. Do youth still do youth report that middle of the night or pull from school moves have become less common in 2018 now?

Are we seeing a lot less of that now? Or yeah.

Yeah. If in my experience, we have not seen any overnight moving taking place that there we've seen substantial reductions in that. Sorry. Was there another part of your question? No.

That's okay. That's the crux of it. I'm gonna see if Assembly, Gibson, or Pellerin have any questions. This one, Gibson, go for it.

First of all, same. Thank you very much for your testimony, and thank you for sitting in that seat right there when I presented the bill in 2018. And thank you very much, Mister chairman, for convening and sharing this very important oversight hearing. I'm interested around the social workers' part because they play a major role from your lens, and for the four years that you have been in the position with the organization.

First of all, same. Thank you very much for your testimony, and thank you for sitting in that seat right there when I presented the bill in 2018. And thank you very much, Mister chairman, for convening and sharing this very important oversight hearing. I'm interested around the social workers' part because they play a major role from your lens, and for the four years that you have been in the position with the organization.

Can you talk about from your experience of what you've heard and in the spaces you've been in, have relationships gotten better or strengthening, around the social workers' responsibility?

Can you talk about that from your lens and what you've heard and in the conversations in the rooms that you've been in, since this bill has been implemented, 2247?

So we do see a lot of shifting towards those youth centered practices and, again, including young people in those conversations, especially those CFTs and also using CFTs, child and family team meetings as a protective measure and something that is proactive. So something that's not just revisited during times of conflict or stress or transition, but something that is is planned for ahead of time and continuously revisited.

And so social workers having that tool and also those documentations the documentation of the preservation efforts is beneficial to social workers as well. I think this also has lended itself to just more success and just access to, like, behavioral health services. When there's more trust in that youth centered process, there's more communication around certain those needs, which makes it easier for that social worker to help fill in those gaps.

One other follow-up question. With the children and family team meetings that they're expected to to meet, Do you think that the youth feel comfortable in those meetings and sharing?

Yeah. Unfortunately, I can't say yes to that across the board. I think there's more to be done to structure CFTs in a way that actually matches the intent, which is, again, not best practice of being youth centered, creating that safe space for a young person to share that those meetings are correctly facilitated, that they're facilitated by folks that are neutral so that that youth can actually be heard. I haven't been seeing a lot of that.

I still hear from youth that, you know, don't feel comfortable speaking up in those meetings or they feel like they're being talked at and not talked with.

So I think there's more that can be done in that area.

Okay. So you think so what do you think the barrier is? They just don't feel comfortable because of what?

I think, to to be honest, I think it's kind of an intimidation thing where, you know, you're the youngest person in the room. Everybody around you is either a professional or somebody that has, you know, has a con contractual obligation to you. I don't feel that youth always feel safe in those spaces. A lot of times, our youth report feeling like their social workers or their CFTs are kind of taking the side of the foster parents and not necessarily the young person's experience.

I think where there has been, I guess, growth in that area is the ability for a young person to have a supportive person in their CFT meeting, a supportive person of their choice, whether it is a peer, a sibling, a mentor in the community.

I've been a part of a few CFT meetings myself, and that can go a long way into making sure that those young people feel comfortable. I think also young people are not always aware of their right to have that advocate in the room with them to help make sure that that space is safer for them to share. So I think all those things kinda contribute.

And then, you know, in some situations where a youth has been kind of, like, getting in trouble for certain things, like cleaning the bathroom. This is a real example, by the way.

A 14 notice is being initiated for a young person because bathroom chores, unfortunately. But when that has been kind of like a a repeated point of contention in the home, it can kinda just be an uncomfortable topic for a young person to really talk about in that space. So, yeah, I think just more supports around that that youth centeredness. However, like, that meeting can be shifted to accommodate the young people. It is challenging with so many members of, so many members on the team.

There's a lot of different schedules to juggle, so it is difficult sometimes to have a CFT meeting that that meets all those needs. But I think I think our counties can do more to make sure that those spaces are youth centered.

It's amazing to me you said fourteen day notice has been issued on a child because of bathroom chores during the time that I brought this bill forward. Notice was given because a child would eat the vegetables or a child wouldn't take a a a bath.

And these children supposed to these parents these false parents supposed to take them in who provide love and, you know, nature a nurturing home and take them in as if they were their own biological children, and they wouldn't do that to their own.

There was a lady, committee members and Chair who was facing, I forgot what state, 20 felony charges because taking in a foster kid and their own children would take baths, and the foster kids would take a shower or bath with a water hose outside. Their own children will eat cooked meals and but eat the scraps of McDonald's for foster kids or whatever her own biological kids wouldn't eat and was facing 20 child endangerment chart felony charges.

Again, another state, not California. But, again, there's a obligation with foster parents, taking in children, treating them as if their own their own biological children. And I'm saddened to hear that at fourteen days notice just because of chores.

Yeah. It still happens.

In 2026. And that's why we create that's why we fight so hard for foster children in the state of California. Thank you very much.

Alright. Thank you, to California Youth Connection for being here. We're gonna transition to our second part of this panel, the in which we're gonna further about the implementation progress. So I'm gonna invite, representatives from the California Department of Social Services, County Welfare Direct Association, and the Children's Law Center. Each panelist will have five to seven minutes.

And following this panel, I will open it up for public comments, for members of the public to make, to make public comments. And also for, and before that, we'll have, member questions as well. So, if the Department of Services wants to start fir oh, okay.

This is it's hello. Good afternoon, Chair and members. This is quite a good legacy bill. Thank you very much for having me here. My name is Sarah Rogers.

I'm with the Department of Social Services and the System of Care branch. I'm here to give an update on our implementation efforts. I think it's really important to start with your comments that the centrality of Fidelity to the child and family team process is really the heart and soul of how this bill, impacts the experience of children in care. At the same time, you know, we had implemented this guidance first through the publishing of ACL 1926.

And this was, you know, about six months after, the the into the new year.

We established the guidance that just informed the placing agencies and the providers of these new requirements. Published guidance, and it essentially informs everyone about the changes. We also changed the interim licensing standards for the STRTP, the short term residential therapeutic programs, to implement the requirements. And, again, that simply reflects the, administrative implementation as it pertains to informing everyone about the requirements.

And the last piece of the initial implementation related to the, office of foster care ombuds person who also established the procedures to receive complaints and respond to those complaints, as they incurred.

So in terms of the data, I will share that the ombuds office has received 280 208 total complaints related to this law so far. And some of those cases were, resolved without investigation. And of those cases that were investigated, there were 36 substantiated items. So and that really, again, is simply when someone is able to identify the process to complain, this does exist for them to have those issues remediated. It remediated.

It still does not reflect a comprehensive framework for implementation or tracking that ensures that it's the consistent experience of foster youth in the state.

So, what I would add is that in passage of the tiered rates proposal, and structure and the centrality of the child and family team and the IP CANS, which is that assessment framework, that's really where you see an initial massive investment in integrating these requirements into all of the efforts for implementing child and family teaming, Fidelity work as well as the IP cans.

And that's where you really see going forward the vision, and the, and the impact of of what the child and family team practices will have in terms of a placement preservation strategy. So, with that, I will mention that the oh, and actually, I do have some data just in terms of the the cans and CFT data.