Assembly Human Services Committee, Thursday, April 23, 2026
Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Assembly Human Services Committee California State Assembly
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 1
we will take it up for a vote. It does enjoy a do pass rank recommend do a recommendation of do pass, and, I do think it's a creative way to address childcare for your locality, and it's for your loc locals to decide how it's done. Alright? Thank you.
Redner 1
Alright. Let's go on to file item number two, a B1579 by Samir Ramos. So you may begin when you're ready.
Redner 5
thank you, mister chair. And I would like to start off by accepting the committee amendments, and thank you and your staff for, working with our team on this bill. Today, I am I am presenting AV fifteen seventy nine, which aims to expand the current children's crisis pilot program to include additional CDSS approved crisis residential models. At its inception, the Children's Crisis Pilot Program was set to build a comprehensive, replicable crisis continuum system for youth within the highest needs. And today, that vision still remains, but it's out of reach in so many areas in the state of California for our youth.
In practice, not a single agency in the state of California has been able to successfully set up a children's crisis residential program. The inability is not because counties and providers lack commitment, but because the current model is not working. Across the state, CCRPs have proven financially and operationally unsustainable due to staffing requirements and cost structures. As a result, CCRPs have effectively stalled the development of crisis continuums. AB fifteen seventy nine seeks to remedy these issues by increasing access through flexible, functional, equivalent, clinically appropriate residential options, expanding the Children's Crisis Pilot Program to include services such as short term residential treatment programs or psychiatric residential treatment facilities, counties and providers can implement programs that are clinically appropriate and sustainable without compromising safety or quality care.
Redner 17
Simply put, this bill is an expansion aimed at ensuring that every child has timely access to the right level of care in the least restrictive settings possible. We are asking for flexibility with purpose, not a compromise on quality. AB fifteen seventy nine ensures counties can fully utilize available funding and move forward with viable models and build the crisis response systems that our youth need today and what was envisioned when the state set forth a commitment to fund this pilot program. With me to testify on the bill today is Joan Miller, deputy director of family and children services, and Leticia Galen, chief executive officer of Seneca Family of Agencies.
Redner 1
Alright. Thank you very much. Whichever witness wants to go first, you have two minutes each, please.
Redner 4
Good morning, chair chair and members. On behalf of the San Francisco County Human Services Administration, Family and Children Services Division, I am here in strong support of Assembly Bill fifteen seventy nine. The goal of the Children's Crisis Continuum pilot program was to increase capacity for crisis care for foster youth and to build a system that is replicable across California. However, the current statutory language limits residential crisis services to a single model, the Children's Crisis Residential Program, which has proven financially and operationally unstable and unsustain excuse me, unsustainable for the eight pilot counties, including San Francisco. Without passage of AB fifteen seventy nine, counties will remain unable to provide a critical component of a true crisis continuum within the pilot, a short term therapeutic residential option for foster youth in crisis, leading to continued overreliance on hospitals and emergency departments.
AB fifteen seventy nine provides a practical solution by expanding allowable program types while giving pilot counties the flexibility to implement the approach that best meets the needs of the foster youth for whom they are caring. This flexibility is not a departure from the pilot's vision. It is what makes the vision replicable statewide. Importantly, this does not lower the standard of care. CDSS approval remains required, and the bill preserves the accountability structure needed to serve youth with the most complex needs.
Redner 16
It also requires any comparable program to demonstrate the capacity to safely stabilize youth in crisis through enhanced staffing, stronger clinical support, and coordinated system involvement. Lastly, San Francisco County, along with most other pilot counties, lost significant implementation time under the existing statutory requirements. AB fifteen seventy nine also provides the additional time needed to fully utilize our pilot grant funding rather than losing those resources due to delays beyond our control. We strongly support this bill and respectfully ask for your support.
Redner 9
Good morning, Chair Lee and members of the Human Services Committee. I'm Leticia Galleon, and I serve as CEO of Seneca Family of Agencies. Seneca is a nonprofit agency providing intensive and comprehensive behavioral health education and placement services for children and their families across 19 counties in California. Seneca was a proud cosponsor of the original Children's Crisis Continuum pilot program legislation, and we've been partnered with both San Francisco and Monterey Counties since the grant awards in 2023. With our partners, Seneca has worked diligently to operationalize every component of the continuum.
Redner 6
Despite that, we have not been successful in executing on the vision of the children's crisis residential program model due to the regulatory challenges. Indeed, there is not a single children's crisis residential program in the state even outside of the pilot program. While we await longer term solutions for that license type, counties are unable to stand up the very services the pilot requires even as the need for crisis care grows. Yet there are viable solutions. AB fifteen seventy nine neither eliminates nor changes the intention of the crisis residential component of the pilot program.
Instead, it ensures it can actually be delivered. Providers like Seneca are already providing crisis residential levels of care using the short term residential treatment program license. AB fifteen seventy nine preserves accountability of the providers and protection of the youth. The state must still review and approve the program design. The providers must demonstrate that what is built is still highly individualized, offers enhanced staffing ratios, and is functionally equivalent to the crisis residential program the pilot required.
Without AB fifteen seventy nine, the pilot program will not fulfill its intent simply because we are letting licensing barriers get in the way of the services available to young people who need them most. We are committed and ready to actualize what is envisioned, a comprehensive, responsive system of care for youth with the most complex needs. AB fifteen seventy nine allows us to do just that. Thank you.
Redner 1
Alright. Thank you. Now do we have members of the public who wish to testify in support of file number two, AB fifteen seventy nine? This comes from microphone, name, organization, and, your support.
Good morning. Adrian Schultz representing the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, proud cosponsor in support.
Redner 9
Good morning. Brian Bagley, City and County San Francisco family and friends family and children services division, and I strongly support.
Redner 10
Good morning. Megan Salazar with Just Advocates, a proud cosponsor, and we strongly support.
Redner 7
Good morning, Sylvia. Soleisha here on behalf of the city, I'm sorry, on behalf of the board of supervisors for the county of Fresno and also here on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco in support. Thank you.
Redner 12
Good morning, mister chair and members. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in proud support.
Redner 1
Alright. Before we go on to opposition, we do have a quorum now. So, madam secretary, I'm gonna ask you to call the attendants so we can establish quorum.
Redner 1
And thank you to some way Aaron's and Rubio for subbing in today. Thank you. Now let's move on to opposition to the bill. If there is any primary witness opposition, please come up to the desk.
Redner 26
Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is Chantal Johnson, and I am the directing advocate at the Youth Law Center, a nonprofit legal advocacy advocacy organization that works to transform foster care and juvenile justice systems so that young people and families receive the support they need to thrive. We are respectfully opposing a b fifteen seventy nine. The bill fundamentally departs from the original intent from the Children's Crisis Continuum Pilot Program. That program was designed to fill a gap in care for youth experiencing behavioral health crises with small, short term, community based settings specifically tailored to stabilize youth and return them to their families settings as quickly as possible.
Redner 17
AB fifteen seventy nine moves us away from that vision. It allows pilot funding to be used for existing facility types such as such as short term residential treatment, programs and the potentially psychiatric residential treatment facilities, settings that were never intended to serve as substitutes for crisis residential programs. These facilities are either not designed for acute crisis stabilization or are far more restrictive and institutional than what youth need in a moment of crisis. Critically, the bill removes key safeguards. Children's crisis residential programs are small, serving just four youth at a time with a ten day maximum stay and a twenty four hour mental health care.
In contrast, these facilities this bill would allow can be much larger, have no meaningful limits on the length of stay, and may not provide the same level of specialized immediate crisis care. We are deeply concerned that this bill would effectively incentivize greater reliance on large institutional settings, settings that can be disruptive, isolating, and in some cases, to youth while diverting resources away from community based solutions that we just know are more effective. If the challenge is financial viability, and we've met many times with the sponsors, the solution should be to invest in making these crisis programs work, not to lower the standard of care or abandon the original model altogether. For these reasons, we join a coalition of partners from the National Center for Youth Law, Disability Rights California, and the National Health Law Program who all respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you so much.
Redner 1
Alright. Thank you. Now do we have, members of the public who should just fight in opposition to the bill? Please come with the microphone. Alright.
Seeing none, I'm gonna ring back to committee for questions, comments, or motions.
Redner 1
Alright. The bill's been moved and seconded. Any questions? If not, I'll invite the author to close.
Redner 5
Thank you so much. And this is an opportunity to bring some solutions to counties and give them options to get drastically needed resources to our our youth that are out in the state of California. I ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
And I appreciate the bill, the author bringing this bill forward and your commitment to working with youth. I know you'll continue to hear all sides and work on this issue. The bill has been moved by Assemblyman Rutongipa and seconded by El Hawari. Madam secretary, please call the roll on file number two.
Redner 14
File item two, a b one five seven nine. The motion is due pass as amended to the assembly appropriations committee. Lee?
Redner 14
Eljourri I. Rubio? Aye. Rubio I. Arons?
Aye. Arons I. Tonga pa? Aye. Tonga pa I.
Redner 1
Six zero, that bill is out. Thank you. So, ma'am, we will leave the roll open for Absa members. Next, file m number three, AB1628 by Michel Rodriguez. Alright.
Whenever you're ready, Michelle.
Redner 47
Thank you. Mister chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of California's most vulnerable newborns and mothers.
Redner 1
One one second. Someone, you might wanna put your mic a little closer to you, and if we can ask the room to, hush for a second. Alright. Go ahead.
Redner 20
California's most vulnerable newborns and mothers who need our support. I'm honored to present a b sixteen twenty eight, the Keeping Infants From Danger Act, which extends California's safe surrender window from seventy two hours to thirty days, providing mothers with the time and space necessary to make safe, informed decisions during one of the most vulnerable moments of their lives. California has long been a leader in compassion driven, evidence based policy, and a b sixteen twenty eight builds on that legacy. No woman should be compelled to make such a life threatening life altering decision while still recovering physically, emotionally, and mentally from childbirth. We understand that postpartum depression, medical complications, and emotional distress do not get resolved within seventy two hours.
And in fact, for many mothers, the most difficult moments arise days or even weeks after delivery. It's essential that our laws reflect that reality. This is life a life saving measure that meets mothers where they are, offering support instead of limitation and ensuring newborns have the opportunity for safe and secure future. AB sixteen twenty eight, a women's caucus party bill, maintains full confidentiality for mothers while strengthening protection for newborns statewide. By updating this law, we reduce the risk of unsafe abandonment and ensure that in moments of crisis, a safe and lawful option is accessible.
Joining me today to offer testimony is Obed Franco on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association.
Redner 18
Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is Obed Franco. I'm here today on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association of California. I'm testifying in support of a b sixteen twenty eight, the keeping infants from danger act. We would like to thank the author, the author's staff, the chair, and committee staff for their work on this important and sensitive issue.
Redner 21
California safe surrender law has been in place for over two decades and has created and was created to prevent infant deaths by providing a safe, legal, and confidential option for surrender. This measure builds on that foundation by extending the surrender window to thirty days, recognizing that medical recovery, postpartum conditions, and other challenges do not always occur within the first few days following birth. Fire departments across the state serve as designated safe surrender sites, and personnel are often among the first to receive these infants. These departments understand the responsibility that comes with that role and the importance of maintaining a system that is accessible, confidential, and focused on safety. Providing additional time helps ensure that individuals are able to access this option when it is needed while main while maintaining the protections that have made the safe surrender program so effective.
For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you. Now do we have any members of public who should testify in support of this bill? Please come up to the microphone.
Redner 6
Thank you. Don Kefke on behalf of the Child Abuse Prevention Center and California Family Resource Association in support.
Redner 1
Great. Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses in opposition to this bill? Any members of the public who wish to sign opposition to the bill? Seeing that, I'm bringing it back to the committee for questions or comments.
Redner 3
I just wanna thank the author for the bill, and I'm proud to be a coauthor of this bill. As a mental health professional, I think it's important to allow more time for new mothers to, you know, get through a certain phase that's a crisis and extend that time to avoid them having regrets later of something. So thank you. Thank you.
Redner 1
Alright. Well, thank you, Assemblyman Rodriguez. I know this is something you're very passionate about, and you talked to many of us very early on. So I appreciate you working on the safe surrender sites and extending the timeline. So this does enjoy a a a eye recommendation from me, and it has been properly moved by Assembly Aaron's and seconded by Assemblyman Garcia.
Madam secretary, please call the roll on file item number three.
Redner 14
File item three, a b one six two eight. The motion is due passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee?
Redner 14
Castillo, aye. Calderon? Elhwari? Aye. Elhwari, aye.
Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Arons? Aye.
Arons, aye. TongaPa? Aye. TongaPa, aye.
Redner 1
Six zero, that bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Alright. So we'll now go to file number 4AV1634Davies. Alright.
You can begin when you're ready.
Redner 23
Thank you. And I just wanna say thank you for having the consideration of letting me go. I have a feeling that plane took off. So but that was very kind of you. Alright.
Thank you, mister chair. And members, I rise today to present a B1634 relating to the have a heart, be a star, help our kids license plate program. Members, this is a bill that has passed through this committee unanimously twice, and our colleagues in the senate has passed the same bill through their human service committee twice. We worked diligently with the committee this year to simplify the funding formula, but otherwise, the language is largely consistent with prior versions. This bill places emphasis on funding programs aimed at unintentional injury preventions, intending positive and equitable outcomes.
Many of the injury categories addressed by the bill such as vehicular safety, drowning prevention, and gun safety, disproportionately affects low income and marginalized communities. AB sixteen thirty four increases strategic funding for child abuse prevention, childhood injury prevention, and childcare by doing two key things. First, it updates the DMV pricing of kids specialty license plates, which has not been adjusted since 1992 and is far below other specialty plates. Increasing these fees should significantly grow the child health and safety funds. Second, a B1634 allows legacy specialty license plates owners to use the four kids plates symbols to personalize their plates, bringing in new revenue to support kids safety programs while also benefiting environmental programs supported by legacy plates.
But at its core, this bill addresses long standing equity and how kids plates funds are distributed. Currently, statute does not guarantee that all 58 counties receive their fair share. AB sixteen thirty four utilizes that existing fifty eight first five county commissions to help distribute funding for childhood injury preventions and childcare providing recruitment and training at the community level. At the same time, a b sixteen thirty four ensures the Department of Social Service child care licensing division and the Department of Public Health Injury Prevention Branch continues receiving funding to carry out their critical work. Members, we also made important structural improvements in response to concerns raised last year.
Last year's analysis repeatedly referenced funding being tied to counties opting into receiving these funds based on the survey which created barriers to access. That structure is removed in this bill. Instead, funding distributed to all 58 counties, ensuring every community can benefit. We also addressed concerns about complexity. The previous framework included multiple layers like the 75%, 17%, and eight apportion structures, population thresholds, and participation triggering, which made programs difficult to administer.
This bill replaces that with a clearer structure, including defined allocations such as 22.5% to the fifty eight first five community commissions with straightforward distribution formulas. Equity is no longer conditional. Previously, access dependent on whether counties opt in, which risks leaving some communities behind. Now the analyst reflects a system where funds are distributed to all 58 counties, ensuring consistent statewide access. At the same time, the bill preserves accountability.
Redner 48
The Department of Public Health continues its oversight role with oversight and accountability reported annually, ensuring programs integrity remains intact. Finally, the bill strengthens the funding model overall. It's not only modernized outdated fees, but also expands participation, generating more total resources to support child safety, injury preventions, and childcare. This bill takes a structure that was conditionally complex and uneven, and it makes it automatic, simpler, and statewide. With me today to testify and answer technical questions about the bill is Steve Barrow, state program director of the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health, who also helped craft the original 1992 kids plate program.
Redner 24
Thank you, chair and members of the committee. I was on the team working with Jackie Speer when she was in sitting in your seats. When we created this program, we created it originally because there was no child care licensing, division in California, and we successfully used this funding stream to do that. The problem is over the years, the Department of Motor Vehicles could not raise the price of these to keep the more money coming into the program, because it's in statute law. So this bill corrects that.
It it doesn't take it out of statute law, but it allows for the pricing to go from nineteen ninety two levels up to the twenty twenty six levels as other specialty license plates. You'll you'll somebody play save the whales and all that. It will double the amount of money. It also takes advantage of partnering with a very important other specialty plate, the legacy plates, by allowing them to personalize their plate with the four symbols, the heart, the star, the plus sign, and the handprint, which you see on the roads. You'll you wonder what is that plate?
Well, these those are kids plates. When Jackie Spearow created this program, we had no money in the pot. And people said, oh, it's not gonna raise enough money to do anything strategically good. We raised over $90,000,000 just by the vehicle owners buying choosing to buy this plate. So this bill increases the amount of money in the in the fund by bringing the the pricing up from $19.92 to $20.26, partnering with the legacy plates.
Redner 4
So that builds our chance to now rebuild and bring in more money for child abuse prevention, childhood childhood safety programs, childhood injury, and and also to help recruit new childcare providers at the local level, which right now, there's not enough money and there's no attention to that. We use the first five county commissions because they're in all 58 counties, and they're made up of people at the at the local level that understand their communities. And you're probably familiar with the first fives in your districts, And this will allow them to have money to put into, like, swim lessons and safe child sleep suffocation prevention, burn prevention, also to
Redner 24
Yeah. So the bill raises more money, creates a much better structure of of how we're distributing the the money in and also keeping the, child care licensing we built with the original program intact and increases the Department of Public Health's ability to do more, childhood injury prevention. So we respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 1
Alright. You only had one witness. Okay. Alright. Do we have any, members of public who wish to sign support of the bill?
Please come to microphone. Any primary witness in opposition? Any members of public who wishes to testify in opposition to the bill? Alright. I'll bring it back to the committee.
So, like, El Hawari.
Redner 26
I appreciate the intent. I have a kid's plate myself. I have a heart on mine. I think right now, we're in a deficit, and it's just really tough to think about redirecting funds outside of state agencies. I think maybe in the future, we could look to that, but I just wanted to share that.
That's why I'll be laying off today.
Redner 1
I didn't did not hear a question directed unless, LORE, you have a question you wanted to ask them. So just wanna be fair to other members. Okay. Is that what you're talking about?
Redner 13
To the other, could you respond to the fees on this? Respond to which? The To to issues in the deficit or anything when it comes to a financial impact.
Redner 24
You know, the thing is is that right now, this money was only meant to be strategic money to help with child abuse, childhood injury, and and childcare issues. And by increasing the amount of money, it allows us to keep the licensing program intact. The there's gonna be more money than they need for administration for their role. And so the extra money, we had to figure out, okay. How do you put this into work at the at the local level, community level?
And so the first five commissions were chosen to utilize the money. It's not really going outside and and wasting money. This is bringing in money. Let me give you an example. At the local level, you give a local community $60,000, they can have they can help 400 children get swimming lessons for drowning prevention.
You give them $50,000, they can help with the local, infant sleep suffocation, programs so that right now, they don't have money to to, to put into that. So it's it is keeping the administration whole that we built with this with this program, but at the same time, we're raising more money to go out to help with child safety programs in all 58 counties. Right now, not only 25 of the counties get any of this money.
Redner 13
But just very, very quickly and to the author, there I believe that there is no impact to the general fund when it comes to the raising of these fees. Okay?
Redner 23
Correct. This is voluntary, so I'm just but just like all the other specialty license.
Redner 13
would be on the individual paying for it, not on the deficit that the future projections of the state of California are. Correct?
Redner 1
Question to the author is then is to clarify and build upon that point, are you changing the appropriation of money that this fund gives to the Department of Social Services in this bill?
Redner 24
No. No. It, matter of fact, it it guarantees that the administrative there's a bunch of administrative issues that Kids Place has always funded within the Department of Social Services. This bill puts in statute a guarantee for for going forward plus any COLA that the legislature decides to provide for them. So it guarantees that the child care licensing that we help build, stays intact.
That's one of the important parts of our child care system to keep people's, children safe. But if you're a 100 families looking for child care in California right now, only 28 of the families are gonna find child care. So this puts money into a practical place in all 58 counties to help the communities recruit new providers so that we will have a bigger pool of providers for working parents than we have right now. So, no, it it doesn't
Redner 1
Well, reflected in language that it submits to me, that is not true because you're halving the appropriation to CDSS. It goes literally half of you're halving the amount that goes from CDSS to other entities that is in the language today.
Redner 24
No. The the the the language that we worked out with your staff over several weeks, and there was a lot of good give and take, The, the amount of money that the Department of Social Service gets, they will get half or more of the new money. You gotta remember the pot right now is
Redner 1
this Right. But this is the hypothetical And I'm I'll allow the author to close before I say those. But I wanna correct the record is that this is a stipulation that there is the revenue growth, and you're saying in the numerical and the raw amount of money, this is your argument that there'll be more in general. But the appropriation itself, the formula, you're halving the amount that goes to the CSS.
Redner 24
Well, that's the language that we worked out with your staff over weeks, and and appreciate all the the work
Redner 1
that they've wanna clarify. Now I'm not asking a question. I'm clarifying that this is the bill in print today. So I just wanna correct for the record that this is a change in formula. So I just wanna correct that.
You said that you brought up a very good point that this is a
Redner 1
Again, wasn't asking a question, but, again, I'm clarifying that you're talking about the raw numerical dollars will change, but the percentage of its allocation has changed as well. So the bill itself, you've changed the allocation of the percentage. Alright. Are there any other questions or comments from committee members? If not, I'll the bill was motioned.
Yes. The bill was moved and seconded. I'll let the author close.
Redner 23
Thank you. I I really appreciate that. And and with my colleagues, again, this is this bill is really bringing more income, more revenue to help our children. And one of the biggest things the last few years, which was a good thing that the flavored tobacco ban basically was dropped because we got rid of it, but that was where a lot of funding was going to, these groups. And now with us being able to partner with these other groups together, it's going to be bringing in much more revenue, And it's also been going to go to different types of crisis that we can deal with our kids.
Right now, we're watching childcare not being supported. We're watching daycare not being supported. A lot of these, again and and probably what closest to my heart is the drowning prevention when if you're not aware of it, the number one death of children is from infants to five years old. Number one death. Number the second number two death is from six years old to 14.
There are so many children and kids out there that don't have the opportunity to have swimming lessons to be able to save themselves, to know, CPR, and this is one of the top things that it does. And we're talking about children's lives, and we know what's happening here. So I I would ask that she would consider this. Again, this is not costing the taxpayer anything. It would be more revenue because of us partnering together.
That will come forward even if you wanna give it a one year and see how that works. But to deny right now when we have a debt when there's a deficit and they're cutting every program for our kids, this is one that actually will allow the taxpayers on their own to actually help fund. So I respectfully ask for an eye vote. I thank you.
Redner 1
Alright. Thank you, Samuel Davies, for presenting this bill. This is a bill we've had a lot of back and forth on on the staff level as well, but the crux of the issue is in the formula. I wanna correct the record that there have been very similar bills that have come through here about license plates and allocations of money. That is true.
Many similar of these bills all die in appropriations or held in appropriations, unfortunately. But I do think this is a well intentioned bill, but the reality is what you are doing is, yes, you're increasing the or changing the structure, increasing the fee, but it is, at the end of the day, a reallocation, and this is something that has been an issue where we worked out. And it changes it halves the amount of money that goes to our CDSS, which goes to other programs, and then into private nonprofit organizations, which is the crux of my issue that we have been trying to work out for a while. And so that is why I am not supporting this bill today. This bill has a no recommendation from me.
And, also, just to carry on some themes, even from this committee, I have heard before we are concerned about funneling money to private organizations. So this came up when we talked about school and parent advocacy organizations, and we had all this issue come up. And this is a similar theme that comes up over and over again, so that is why I'm issuing a no recommendation on this bill. Hope that we continue to work on this issue and try to figure a path forward on this issue, but I cannot support this bill today. The bill was moved and moved by a similarity to Aguipa, seconded by a similarity to Castillo.
Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 14
File item four, a B1634. The motion is due passed to the assembly transportation committee. Lee? No. Lee, no.
Castillo? Aye. Castillo, aye. Caldron? El Juarez?
Not voting. Eljure not voting. Rubio? Aaron's?
Redner 1
The Bills on call will leave the role for absenteeism. Alright. Next is, I think, a similar with Stephanie Wynn with file item number 5AB1643. Alright. Whenever you're ready.
Redner 10
Let me get this right here. Great. Thank you, mister chair. And members, thank you for allowing me to present a b sixteen forty three. I would like to thank the chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill.
We'll be accepting the committee's amendments. I'd like to begin by clarifying that this bill does not does not force all parents going through a separation into child support. Instead, it it's meant to simplify the process for those parents who voluntarily open a case because they are unable to reach a mutual agreement. AB sixteen forty three helps reduce childhood poverty in California by streamlining the application process for child support services after a court hears and finalizes an order. In the last five years, California's child poverty rate has increased nearly threefold, jumping from 7.5% in 2021 up to 18.6% in 2024.
We know that child poverty may have negative effects on children leading to academic underachievement causing behavioral problems and as well as social and emotional issues which may carry into adulthood. Child support has been one of the most effective anti poverty programs for children, helping to keep 1,400,000 families out of poverty throughout the nation. Unfortunately, California has one of the lowest utilization rates of the program in the country. This bill increases participation in California's child support program by enrolling custodial parents into child support services once a court finalizes a support order unless they opt out. Currently, after a court finalizes a child support order, the custodial parents must go through an additional process requiring them to submit a form to their local child support services officer to register for the program and began receiving payment.
AB sixteen forty three modernizes this process by instead requiring the court to directly transmit the order to the child support services officer to initiate payment unless the custodial parent opts out. Committee amendments clarify the opt out process by requiring the custodial parent to be notified that they have ten days to opt out and by opting out does not affect future participation amongst other provisions. Joining me today is Mike Smitsky, executive director of California Child Support Association, and Dalen Fredrickson, director of Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services to speak in support of the bill and to answer any technical questions.
Redner 1
Before we go to your witnesses, just wanna clarify your accepting committee amendments.
Redner 27
Chair and members, Michael Smitsky on behalf of the California Child Support Association. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. CalCSA represents California's 47 local child support agencies serving all 58 counties with a membership of more than 6,000 child support professionals dedicated to improving outcomes for close to 1,000,000 children and families in the Golden State. When cost of living is taken into account, California has among the highest poverty burdens in the nation with nearly 7,000,000 Californians lacking the resources to meet basic needs. Child poverty is also alarmingly high.
At a time when other human re human service programs are under increasing strain, child support remains a critical resource and often compromises a significant portion of household income and creates economic stability for children. Research also shows that formal child support is associated with better educational, behavioral, and social outcomes for children, including stronger reading and math performance. That is why AB sixteen forty three matters. Child support matters. California's child support program remains underutilized.
Redner 5
Nationally, the program reaches about one in six children, while in California, it reaches only one in nine. With this level of need, we should not be leaving one of our most heavily federally funded support programs underused. AB sixteen forty three is a balanced step to help close that gap by ensuring more children receive the support they deserve while preserving parental choice. Across California, more than 6,000 child support professionals are trained to work directly with families, understand their circumstances, including families that may be experiencing family violence, and respond to their needs on a confidential case by case basis. The child support program also provides families with access to a broad range of services, including legal support at low or no direct costs, which can be far more accessible and affordable than trying to navigate similar proceedings outside the program.
Redner 27
A b sixteen forty three is a measured practical bill that helps connect more children and families to a critical support system at a time when they need it most. Thank you for the opportunity to share the impacts of the bills, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
Redner 28
Chair, assembly members, thank you. My name is Dalen Fredrickson. I am the director of the Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services. AB sixteen forty three is urgently needed because California's child support program is one of the most effective antipoverty tools, yet it remains significantly underutilized. For families at or near the poverty line, child support represents an average of 41% of their income.
In Sacramento County alone, in our county, our department is sending more than $11,000,000 home to families every month. This is money. These are dollars that that, put food on the table, that put, gasoline in the car, and that put shoes on children's feet. Research shows that child support child support reduces child poverty to five by five by five to 9%. Over the past decade, California's child support program has transformed.
We have shifted to a holistic family centered approach, an approach based on right sized, sustainable orders and supportive problem solving. For example, nationwide, half of all child support orders are entered by default, meaning one parent did not participate in the process. Years ago, Sacramento County mirrored that same pattern. But by emphasizing engagement of both parents in Sacramento County, we have cut the default rate to twenty five percent. We're committed to working with both parents to make the program sustainable and work for families.
Redner 45
Despite all the improvements in the program, the program remains underutilized. Fewer than 1,000,000 families statewide are utilizing child support services. If California just matched the national average for participation, we would have more than 1,500,000 cases in the program. So there's significant underutilization of the program at a time when the program is performing better than ever. Many parents simply don't know our services exist.
Redner 28
They assume the court will enforce their order or they feel intimidated about enrolling. Others are discouraged or pressured by the other parent. This is why AB sixteen forty three's automatic enrollment feature is so important. It removes the stigma. It, reduces intimidation.
It ensures parents receiving support by operation of law rather than requiring them to initiate a personal, difficult personal decision. At the same time
Redner 28
An easy opt out for parents who don't need assistance. AB sixteen forty three strengthens families, reduces poverty, and does so without increasing costs to state or taxpayers. So I urge your support
Redner 1
there. Thank you very much. You so much. Now do we have members of the public who should just find support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone at this time.
Redner 24
Nassio Guerrero, director for the Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Services and California Child Support Association board member in support.
Redner 6
Natalie Dillon, director of the Calusa Saturiolo Regional Child Support Agency and board member for the California Child Support Association in support.
Redner 30
Leanne Peck, director for Solano County Department of Child Support Services and California Child Support Association board president in support.
Redner 31
Crystal Quinn's behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in support.
Redner 11
Good morning. Sylvia Saleisha here on behalf of the board of supervisors for the county of Solano and also on behalf of the board of supervisors for the county of San Joaquin. Thank you.
Redner 6
Patricia Bartlett, director of the Yuba County Department of Child Support Services, in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Please come to the desk if you'd like.
Redner 18
Good morning. Hello, chair and members. My name is Rebecca Gonzales, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and a member of the Truth and Justice and Child Support Coalition, which represents 30 plus organizations. The Western Center and the coalition have an opposed unless amended position on a b sixteen forty three. We wanna thank the author and sponsors for offering amendments to the bill.
While we appreciate the amendments provide more clarity about the process and ensure more information will be shared with child support obligee parents, unfortunately, the amendments do not entirely resolve our concerns. Our main concern is that the structure of the bill still provides that opting in to child support enforcement services is the default. As revised, the bill will increase parent participation in the registry and provide an opportunity for parents to request services. It is therefore not necessary to deem all registry submissions as applications for enforcement services. Even with the amendments, the bill undermines parent choice.
Although services provided by local child support agencies are invaluable to many families, many parents may prefer to have more informal arrangements in order to preserve family dynamics and not create unnecessary tension. Or they may not want their co parent to be subject to the mandatory enforcement practices used by local child support agencies, which can include wage garnishments and tax refund offsets. Lastly, they might not want to pay the annual service fee, which is required. We also opine that deeming all child support registry submissions as applications for enforcement services does not comply with federal law, which requires a parent to affirmatively apply. Lastly, the amendments do not resolve our concerns about parents with sensitive individual circumstances who may not wanna disclose them in the portal.
We don't believe having a checkbox about domestic violence in an unstaffed portal is effective or safe, and it does not comply with best practices. The best way to address concerns about potential DV or other sensitive issues is to allow parents the choice to opt in so they could do so on their own terms. We appreciate the engagement with the author's office and the sponsors, and we hope to continue these conversations. Thank you.
Redner 1
Alright. Thank you. Now do we have any, members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill? Please comment to the microphone.
Redner 32
Khoisi Turn on behalf of Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in opposition unless amended.
Redner 1
Okay. Now I'm gonna bring it back to the committee for questions, comments. Alright. Bill's a move and seconded. Any question or comment?
Oh, okay. Alright. Yeah. I'll invite the author to close.
Redner 10
Thank you. Thank you, mister Chai. I wanna thank the opposition for being here as well too. I think at the end of the day, we look at this. When you've got parents who are going through a separation or divorce, the children are always the one that everybody looks to.
Right? And many times when there is mediation that goes on and the parents are able to figure that out, that's always the best case and that's always fantastic. In this situation, we are not forcing anybody into child support if they're going through a separation in any ways. We're engaging in the fact of being able to offer more services, making it easily available. As somebody who, speaks English as a second language, as somebody who's always afraid of paperwork and going through the whole government process, fortunately, now I'm at the point where I can ask the questions.
I can fill out the documents and and know the pathway, but you've got a lot of families that are fearful of completing extra paperwork, that are fearful when they have to engage in situations such as this. And what we're trying to do is make it more simple. Childhood poverty is a thing. Is this the whole part of the reason why why there is childhood poverty? No.
Redner 25
But it is a small portion. When there's a single mom, single father that has custodial over the kids and they're not receiving that extra income, that plays in a role that plays a role in this child's upbringing. That plays a role in this child's ability to be able to get fed, have a roof over their shoulder, be able to do all those activities that we see other kids be able to do, and that pulls into their adulthood as well. What we're trying to do is make sure that this family, this single parent, has the resources and services that he or she needs to be able to make sure this child or their children have an opportunity to thrive. And so this bill, this is in the right direction, and this is part of the reason why we wanna be able to continue to help these families that are going through a situation, which is the probably the worst part of their life when they have to go through this with their parents and see their parents go through this with that.
Redner 1
wanna thank the author bringing this bill forward and working with our committee to do quite substantive amendments on this one. I think we're getting all the right direction. I know you continue to engage everyone, all stakeholders in this issue, but, ultimately, what we're trying to do is take the friction out of the child support, all the child support systems. And so I think it's a really good thing, and we're working in the right direction. We're collaborating on that, and so I hope that I continue to move forward with this issue.
I do have a do pass as amended recommendation today, and, again, I wanna thank you for working collaboratively with the committee. So, the bill was moved by Assemblyman ReCasillo. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 14
File file item five, a b one six four three. The motion is due pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee?
Redner 1
Six zero. That bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for apps members. Alright. Next, we're going to Assemblyman Solace.
You have file number 6AV17O8. Whenever you're ready.
Redner 15
Thank you, mister Yeah. You, mister chair and committee members. It's a big week this week. Cal City is in our Sacramento building Representing so many cities throughout California. And, you know, also, I miss, sitting as a sub, mister chair, on this committee, so I was, hoping that it would be a sub for today's meeting.
Redner 15
Right. Know? We can't we can't do an upgrade all the time. So happy that they're that they were chosen today. With that, again, I'm grateful to you and the committee for the I'm grateful for to you and the committee for the great work on on our bill.
Redner 44
AB 17 o eight seeks to improve the existing homeless housing assistance and prevention program known as HAP by ensuring that smaller jurisdictions have the opportunity for more meaningful engagement, strengthening regional collaboration on homeless solutions. Currently, only 14 of the state's 483 cities can access HAP funding directly, there's no statutory requirement for direct HAP recipients to equitably and meaningfully engage for allocated funds to smaller cities in our region. As a result, many cities, mid sized cities lack a clear path and resources even as they invest significantly local dollars to address homelessness. After working very closely with stakeholders and the housing committee, a b 17 o eight was amended to address concerned around funding uncertainty to ensure that any changes are not too burdensome. This work and engagement will continue as we move forward.
Redner 15
I especially wanna thank my local cities of Lakewood, Paramount, and Bellflower in my district for helping us take stakeholder feedback and development amendments. Cities are in front line ensuring that they bring dollars from their general fund dollars to ensure that our in house community are dealt with not only in a humane way, but also in a responsible way. I would also like to emphasize that not nothing in a b 17 o eight requires allocation of funding for smaller cities. That measure simply requires a region to do this analysis and consider how we can better support smaller cities willing to do their part of regional solutions. As we continue to advocate to renew investment in HAP, a b seventeen o eight builds a framework that ensures, that is future program rounds that we can more fully, integrate smaller cities as active partners in regional coordination and planning.
As the state continues to demand meaningful results in addressing homelessness across California, there needs to be a stronger support framework to help smaller cities continue serving their unhoused residents. I am proud to introduce our amazing and wonderful city of Lakewood, mayor, Cassandra Chase, to my right and city of Moreno Valley mayor, Ulysses Cabrera, to my left to testify in support. We also have Caroline Grinder who will from the League of California cities available for any technical questions.
Redner 40
Thank you. Good morning, chair and members of the committee. I am Cassandra Chase, mayor of the city of Lakewood, and I am honored to speak in strong support of a b seventeen o eight, sponsored by the League of California Cities. In Lakewood, homelessness is personal. Our city has committed real resources to this work.
Redner 34
$75,000 for two part time homeless liaisons, nearly half $1,000,000, $500,000 annually for shelter beds at the Belshan Shelter, and year round prevention through Project Shepherd, which helps vulnerable residents with food, utilities, and housing stability. We are committed. What we lack is consistent direct access to state funding that lets us sustain and grow what is working. AB 17 o eight changes that. It requires regions to engage directly with cities like ours to assess gaps and to identify funding pathways.
For smaller cities, this bill creates a clear transparent process to apply for and access state resources. That mechanism does not currently exist. Homelessness is a regional challenge. The response must include every city. AB 17 o eight positions us as full partners in that solution.
And with additional state support, Lakewood can deepen our work with service providers and ensure our unhoused neighbors receive consistent, meaningful care. The city of Lakewood respectfully asks for your I vote on a b 17 o eight. Thank you.
Redner 3
Hello, honorable chair and members of the committee. My name is Ulysses Cabrera. I'm the mayor of the city of Moreno Valley out in the Inland Empire, and I'm here in support of a b seventeen o eight sponsored by the League of California Cities. In Moreno Valley, we have taken a proactive approach to addressing homelessness, investing significant city resources, and pursuing every available local, state, and federal funding opportunity. From 2019 to 2025, the city invested approximately $1,400,000 in our general fund and $500,000 in community foundation funds for homeless services.
Redner 35
In addition, we've sustained ongoing services through federal funding, allocating about $22,000,000 from 2019 to 2025 from programs such as CDBG, community project request funding, emergency solutions grants, and emergency rental assistance program. Those investments are making a real difference in Moreno Valley. In 2025 alone, the city reported a nearly 30% reduction in our homeless population. We have focused on community identified solutions, deploying proactive outreach, partnering with local nonprofits, and investing in public safety. The city maintains an internal quality of life operations team that conducts twice weekly outreach in collaboration with the Moreno Valley Police Department, the Riverside University Health System, the Salvation Army, and the Path of Life.
Additionally, the city convenes a monthly homeless task force that brings together internal departments and key community partners to coordinate outreach, align services, and strengthen collaboration. We have also prioritized long term solutions through programs like our homeless to work program, which is supported by wraparound services through the homeless assistance program. This ongoing partnership with the Salvation Army is crucial to the community and help unhoused individuals overcome barriers to employment and permanent housing. In our recently adopted operating budget, the city council approved two full time positions dedicated to leading the city's homeless initiatives. But even with these investments and strong partnerships, there are limits to what cities like ours can do without reliable access to state resources.
While programs like HHAP are critical, cities like Moreno Valley do not have a clear pathway to receive those funds. As the legislature considers future investments in the HHAP program, it is important not only to sustain funding but also to ensure the program is structured to maximize its impact for all jurisdictions, not just the largest ones. For these reasons, the city of Moreno Valley fully supports a b 17 o eight and respects respectfully asks for your I vote.
Redner 1
You so much. And you're up here for technical okay. Technical assistance. Now do we have members of public who should just find support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone.
Redner 1
Alright. Alright. The commentary comment hour starts now. There we go. Name and organization, please.
Redner 37
Isha Ayr on behalf of the city of Redwood City, the city of Carlsbad, and the city of Thousand Oaks. Thank you. In support.
Redner 11
Sylvia Soleigh Shah here on behalf of the city of Santa Monica, city of West Hollywood, and the city of Oroville, all in support.
Redner 2
Chair members, Luis Sanchez here on behalf of the city of San Bernardino in support. Thank you.
Redner 33
Bindu Mokamala with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter in support.
Redner 13
Jeremy Bubnick, direct oh, I'm sorry. Jeremy Bubnick, city of Moreno Valley support.
Redner 32
Hawaii State Turn Coalition of California All for Rights Organization in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Well, Moreno Valley rolling in deep today. Samuel Jackson would have been proud. Yes, sir. Do we have witnesses in opposition?
Please come up to the desk or microphone, whichever you prefer. We're in a stop position? Okay. Do we oh, okay. Yeah.
Go for it.
Redner 16
Good morning, Nicole Curry, on behalf of the office of Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Redner 1
Alright. Do you have any other members of the public who wish to, voice our opposition to the bill? Any other opposition? Okay. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee.
Any questions or comments?
Redner 1
Any questions, comments? No? Alright. Or okay. First, to summarize, we're talking about then vice chair Kasiya.
Redner 13
I just wanna thank the author. I think when we're planning some of these smaller municipalities, need some help, and so they should be factored in. And, you know, it's crazy to think that 300,000 is considered small, but it is for California. You know, for a lot of the other states, it's the largest city in that state. So, again, just thank the author, and I appreciate you bringing the bill.
Redner 3
And I just wanna thank the author for the bill. I see the support here. And one of my cities in my district, which is 1% of my district, is the city of Gran Terrace. So I'm gonna just name Gran Terrace.
Redner 3
you know, it's a small little part, and I feel they always get overlooked. So thank you.
Redner 15
Thank you, mister chair. And I think there's no better evidence in Moreno Valley and Lakewood as two prime examples of the work they're doing literally in their cities to be a partner with the state, to be a partner with our region. And I think the the whole conversation of of the spirit of this conversation is how do we bring equity to all cities and specifically those that are doing the groundwork. This week, when I saw the governor, I I literally said, we need to ensure that, you know, we bring equity to the cities that are doing the work, and we we we support them and not punish them for doing the work. So I wanna just commend all of these throughout California for doing that, and we wanna be partners with our big cities as well because this isn't a regional problem for all of us to address, and we need to, again, without a doubt, bring that humane perspective on house community.
And as a local mayor myself, this is also a personal commitment to ensure that our small cities get their fair share of support as they combat, and and deal with this issue directly, and and, again, bringing that humane perspective. And, to tell cities, thank you, and thank you all for your support. Looking forward to an Iowa today.
Redner 1
Well, thank you so much, Leon, for bringing this bill forward. It does have an eye recommendation for me today. And I did, of course, already see this in housing committee, but I didn't voice my comments at the time yet because I wanted to save it for this time. I do really appreciate this because I do think as someone that represents the large cities, San Jose that gets this, and also smaller cities that do not are not eligible for HHAP, I think it is important that we look at the results first, not just about the large cities. The large cities themselves, yes, do need a lot of support, and we should be supporting those.
But homelessness is not exclusive to small large cities alone. And I think as you have two great witnesses today talking about the programs you do locally, I mean, that those expenditures are, percentage wise, quite significant of your budget. And I think HHAP, rightfully so should be open to competition in that sense. I mean, there's no guarantee that Liquid will compete better than Los Angeles or San Francisco, but it's still all in there. And I wanna point out that, you know, I understand the opposition's concern that this is a very limited pool of money that opens up more subscriptions, so it's become oversubscribed, and that is true.
But we also have to fight for the budget because in the current governor's budget, there is no HAP money right now, and many of us in this room are fighting for the HAP money to come back. And I think having the advocacy of our big city mayors and our small city mayors altogether of all sizes probably boost the the success of us bringing HAP back. So I think this is a good way to approach the pro approach the program, but also approach a large fiscal question too. And I think in the future, you know, we'll continue to work on this program so that more cities get the support they need. But, you know, these are I wanna acknowledge the opposition's concern.
That is just mathematically true, but it doesn't mean that this is not a good idea. So it does enjoy an eye record for me today, and I'm happy to support it. It was, moved by Samurai Tanguipa and seconded by Samurai Castillo. Madam secretary, please call the roll on a b 17 o eight.
Redner 14
File item six, AB1708. The motion is due passed to the assembly appropriations committee. Lee?
Redner 14
Elhurie, not voting. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, I. Arons?
Aye. Arons, I. Tongva? Tonga paw, aye.
Redner 1
Alright. Five to zero. We will leave the role open for perhaps some members so that bill is out.
Redner 1
Thank you. Alright. Next, we'll go to assembly member Sharp Collins. Understand there's a transit issue, so we're gonna let Sharp Collins come up.
Redner 42
Alrighty. This morning yes. Good morning. Good morning, chair and members. Today, I'm here to present assembly bill twenty three ninety five, a bill that fosters equity throughout the state by increasing access to the state child support debt reduction program.
California carries more than 6,000,000,000 in government old child support debt, much of which is actually, exacerbated by the 10% interest rate on which is one of the highest within the nation. People get into these types of debt because the parent paying child support must repay the government assistance their child receives. The result of this government reimbursement comes at, at at the expense of a child that will actually lose his money, meaning the parents will be losing the money for which they can actually provide. This can be a harmful situation as as the child is already eligible for government assistance due to their custodial parent's income. The debt reduction program was created to assist these low income families who have become paralyzed by their debt situation.
Redner 15
However, the program lacked the uniformity as local child support agencies have varying methods of administrating the program. This causes some parents to miss their opportunity to participate in a program that could assist them in providing for their child. My bill will ensure that local child support agencies have readily available program contact information, establishes a clear timeline for processing cases, and allow parents in the opportunity to to contest agency action. So with me here today to testify in support is Rebecca Gonzales, policy advocate for Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Khoi Sattern for from the Coalition of California World for Rights Organizations reading a testimony on behalf of Demont Hampton from Van Nuys, California. Before I turn it over to them as well, please note that we are in ongoing conversations with with the California Child Support Association who are in opposition, and we do believe that we can find some type of middle point as we continue to move forward to work on the bill.
Redner 1
And I appreciate that acknowledgement. Alright. Two minutes to each to each witness, please.
Redner 18
Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez, once again, with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We are a cosponsor of this bill under the umbrella of the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition. This bill creates enforceable statewide standards to ensure the existing debt reduction program and child support truly helps low income parents who qualify based on their income and assets to settle their government owed debt. For over forty years, California has required parents who receive CalWORKs to repay those benefits by intercepting their child support.
Families receiving CalWORKS generally only receive $100 for one child or $200 for two or more children of their monthly child support, while the government keeps the rest. When noncustodial parents cannot afford to pay this debt, as was mentioned, California adds a 10% interest rate, and, low income parents are $6,000,000,000. They owe $6,000,000,000 in government owed debt. Past studies show that 95% of this government owed debt is uncollectible, and the bulk of the state owed arrears are owed by parents with extremely low incomes. In many of the cases, the children are now adults and the parents are in their fifties and sixties.
Redner 10
This bill improves the existing program by ensuring statewide uniformity and improving access and removing barriers by requiring publicly available statewide standards that could be enforced through the department's existing complaint resolution process, report requirements to evaluate the uniformity and effectiveness, require all local child support agencies to post the application to the program on their website, have a designated phone number or email and send a notice to parents who are potentially eligible, require applications to be acted upon within set time periods, and requiring repayment options be provided to applicants based on statewide eligibility and repayment standards. Lifting the burden of government owed child support debt from parents has shown to reduce employment barriers, improve housing status and credit scores, and more importantly, improve parent child and co parenting relationships. This bill is a common sense improvement of existing program, which creates uniformity so parents are able to benefit from the program equally regardless of what county they live in. For these reasons, we ask for your support of this bill. Thank you.
Redner 32
Hi, chair and committee members. Khoisei Turn, legislative advocate for the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. We're also cosponsors of AB twenty three ninety five, and I'm reading, DeMont Hampton's, testimony. Good afternoon, honorable committee members. My name is DeMont Hampton, and I live in Van Nuys.
My child support obligations began in 1995. And over time, because I could not pay the full amount, my child support arrears just ballooned. My debt just got so high that I felt like I was stuck in a hole. My children are in their thirties, and I had over a $100,000 in child support arrears, most of it interest. Also, all of my arrears were assigned to the government and not owed to my children.
Over the last decade, I have been on a fixed income. Every month, child support garnished $50 from my Social Security. It was important for me to address my child support arrears because they held me back from growing in life. I could not move forward while I had such a big debt. Over the years, I talked to child support workers and family law facilitators about my arrears, but no one ever told me about the debt reduction program.
It wasn't until I went to Neighborhood Legal Services that an attorney told me about the program. At first, I couldn't get even get a copy of the application. When I asked my child support caseworker about it, she told me that in order to apply, LA Child Support had to first audit my account, which it could take up to a year. After the audit was complete, child support sent me a copy of the application. I returned the application and took three more months to receive a response.
Redner 20
When my application was approved, they told me that I had to make a payment within thirty days. They would not show me a copy of the debt relief agreement until I made the payment. Luckily, I was able to make the payment and sign that agreement, and today, all of my child support debt has been resolved. AB twenty three ninety five will help other people like me resolve old and burdensome government old debt child support debt. It will make sure people know about the debt reduction program.
Redner 32
It will make sure there are clear rules to follow to and apply and qualify, and it will make sure that people do not have to wait for months and months to get the relief they qualify for and move forward in their lives. Yeah. Respectfully, yes, we're right. Alright. Thank you.
Redner 1
Now do we have any members of the public who wish to to sign support of the bill? Please come with the microphone. Yes.
Redner 37
Senator Robacho. With NTAL Poverty California, where sponsors of the bill is well in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses opposition to this bill? Please come up to yep. Please come up to the desk or microphone, whichever you prefer. Alright.
Two minutes each, please, and whoever wants to start, you can get started.
Redner 27
Okay. Chair members, Michael Smitsky on behalf of the California Child Support Association. First and foremost, I wanna thank the author and the sponsors for their willingness to come to the table. Cal CSA and our professionals are committed to getting the cope program correct, and we look forward to future conversations. Just, I think, two things for the committee during discussion.
The Department of Child Support Services is working on a debt management program that encompasses uncollectible debt and COPE. It includes COPE because, that is actually a decision that is broader than, what was required under the legislative mandate. So they are working on that, we would like the opportunity to have some more of that data as we proceed in that. And I appreciate the consideration of extended implementation dates to reflect some of that data. I also wanna ask the committee to keep in mind the families on the other side of these cases.
So while the bill focuses on state owed arrears, changes in the space do not occur in a vacuum. Many parents who are raising children without consistent support are already making impossible choices to cover rent, food, transportation, utilities, and school needs. In many cases, they go into debt to provide for their children, and the creditors that they rely on are far less forgiving than the child support program. For that reason, policy in this area must be balanced carefully so that efforts to address obligor hardship do not unintentionally disregard the hardship of parents and families who've been waiting for support. Here today, we have Amy who is a parent receiving support and a mom, and she will add some comments as well.
Thank you.
Redner 19
Good morning. Thank you. My name is Amy Casal. I'm here representing myself as a mother. I am speaking out in opposition to a b twenty three ninety five.
This bill is written entirely from the perspective of the obligor. I did wanna share that any compromise of arrears is a direct financial hardship for the family receiving support. With full pass through now in place, arrears go directly to the parent raising the child even when they're adults. When you make it easier to compromise debt, you are not helping families. You are asking them to take yet another financial loss after years of being under supported.
The arrears affected by this bill typically come from years of noncompliance. And by the time we get to debt compromise, many of these children are adults. Unfortunately, there's a fundamental misunderstanding that children child support and debt loss child support debt loses its purpose once children turn 18. In the world of parenting, that couldn't be farther from the truth. When the support didn't show up for years, I didn't get a 75% discount on my bills and didn't get a compromise on my rent or on any other things that I needed to do to support my children.
Redner 39
As the primary parent for two children that live with me, including one adult and one minor, consistent support, including arrears, raised my income to help me qualify to finally buy my first home. Our home provides the stability we need for a successful future. It also allows my eldest the option to live at home while they continue establishing themselves as a responsible adult. Collection on arrears is the long term recovery for the years I spent carrying the financial burden alone. This bill to enhance the ease of applying and qualifying for a compromise threatens collection on arrears that would be paid directly to the family.
Redner 19
This bill also proposes to make optional also proposes to make it optional for debtors to be compliant with their current obligation even on past due arrears. By making compliance optional for a debt compromise, a b twenty three ninety five sends a message. You are actively creating the new creating a hardship for families and signaling to obligors that they can ignore their current duties while fishing for a discount on their past ones. I spent years dealing with a parent who ignored every agreement or order until a real consequence was on the line. This bill rewards that disengagement.
It punishes the proactive parent by handing yet another free pass to one who chooses to ignore their financial responsibility for years. AB twenty three ninety five is a legislative hardship for families. With the implementation of pass through, arrears now go directly home to families, including myself. As written, this bill is a direct hit to the financial integrity of the household and overlooks the receiving parents' perspective entirely. The debtor had yet the debtor had years to be proactive, is now asking for a fresh start at the expense of the hardship and the stability of the family.
Redner 19
Thank you. Receiving parents and their children shouldn't have to face further financial hardship today because the other parent chose not to be present for decades. I urge the committee to reject this bill, prioritizing the parent who did the work, carried the burden, and continues to support their children into adulthood into adulthood must be the number one priority.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Now do we have any, members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill? Please come to the microphone.
Redner 29
Ignacio Guerrero, director for the Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Services and California Child Support Association board member, in opposition unless amended.
Redner 30
Leanne Peck, California Child Support Association board president. Oppose unless amended.
Redner 28
Dalen Fredrickson, director of the Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services. Oppose unless amended.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now we'll bring back to the committee members for questions or comments. Senator Rubio?
Redner 41
Yes. I do have a question about the arrears. I was unaware that that it does go back to the family. Is that correct? So
Redner 18
Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. If I can address that. So people who are formally on CalWORKS, recently, they are passing those through if they could collect that debt, but not for people who are currently on CalWORKS.
If you're currently on CalWORKS, only $100 goes to the family for one kid, 200 goes to the family for two kids, and the rest becomes owed to the government. So, you know, over time, people have had a lot of debt. Only recently did they start right sizing child support orders, so it really is based on what people could pay. So over the years, this debt has just grown and grown and grown.
Redner 41
Yeah. No. But I'm not asking about the debt. I'm asking about the arrears
Redner 41
That we're not excusing to to the the witness' point. Yeah. That by excusing it, now we're taking some of those arrears from the family members. And, you know, I I agree with, you know, trying to help people, but if it's hurting the to the point that the mom was making is, you know, hurting her after she did everything possible to make sure that she raised her children. And then now, you know, that money's not going to to her or to her kids.
Redner 18
If if you don't mind. So the debt reduction program already exists. It exists right now, and they try to help you know, they try to figure out how people could get a handle on their debt, maybe pay a portion of it, and, you know, make it so that, you know, that's there could be hopefully some contribution. This bill really just puts uniform standards on it because our counties, operate it differently, and we don't want people to have a different experience depending on what county, they live in. And so as you heard about DeMont Hampton, he was going through this existing program.
It took a very long time for him to figure out a settlement to his debt. He did eventually. So we just want this existing program to work better. May I ask And we're talking about very low income
Redner 27
of the advantages of how the program is currently established is it does allow flexibility with a case by case basis. Part of child support that I think is nuanced, you know, across our cases is that a lot of times we have the flexibility to approach things on an individualistic case by case basis, and I think that's critically important to understanding the fundamentals of each family dynamic, as they come across. So I think in principle on some of the concepts of standardization, we would be in favor. There's just ones that we'd like to work on behind the scenes about making sure ensures that there's a local flavor and context to each one of these cases.
Redner 41
Okay. So so, again, the concern for me is, you know, understanding what what our our witness is saying is if that is going to be taken away, and I understand the $102,100 doesn't matter, really, because that money's owed to them. And it is really unfair that that, you know, if there's there's money gonna be taken away I'm substituting today, by the way, just to be clear. But I I am interested, in not putting more of a burden on the parent that has done the right thing because we all know that, unfortunately, we have those people that are not paying child support, then all of a sudden, we're gonna come and rescue them, you know, years and years, you know, years afterwards while the the the money should have rightfully still have gotten to the kids. Even if they're in their thirties, that money belonged to them.
So I don't want to put extra burden on folks, but if if you're saying that and I trust, assembly member Sharp Collins, that this can be worked out so that there is no, you know, unintended consequence, if you will, of taking money from those those parents that are taking care of the kids. Mhmm. If that do you think that that can be worked out?
Redner 27
I believe we can work with the author and the sponsors to come to an agreement.
Redner 18
Okay. Well, we're and we're very close here. It's just, a matter of time Mhmm. To get the amendments in, but I do think we're very close.
Redner 41
Yeah. Yeah. No. And that's why I'm asking because I'm not used to seeing both you know, I'm like, wait. What's happening here?
Redner 27
We'd like we'd like to work together to do what's in the best interest of the family, whether they're together or separated. In this case, you know, we we understand the parents receiving support have a fundamental concern, but we also at the same time, we don't wanna put obligors in a position where they can never escape out of that circumstance. So we're very, very mindful of that. And the child support program increasingly has become more family centric and is approaching cases in that way. We spend more time per case now than we did five years ago by a significant margin.
Redner 41
And and thank you. And I appreciate that, though. You know? But, again, my always my, you know, my concern because I've seen so many cases where where, the the parent is not receiving the child support or they'll send a $100 and it's like, oh, you know, and the parent is supposed to be grateful for that small amount of money. Kids eat every day and, not just once once in a while.
And, again, my concern is to make sure that that, you know, some of these cases as well are not just all of a sudden being bailed out because they were responsible, to their children and to or to their families and you know, prior to this hardship. Hardship.
Redner 18
Right. If I can say one last thing Absolutely. On So just to just to make it clear, that parents who are currently on CalWORKS, it is the the practice or the policy of the state that they only get a $100 if it's one kid or $200 if it's two kids, and the rest goes back to the government to pay back for benefits. So that's the way the program runs in California right now. I think both both of us, the Cal CSA and Western Center, would love to see full pass through.
That is our ultimate goal Right. That all child support goes directly to the families.
Redner 41
But but if there's no pass through, though, and it's being sent back to, you know, to the government, you know, is that gonna decrease the pot of money that's available for CalWORKs because now we're not receiving the the I guess I don't think families should pay for CalWORKs. I think families who
Redner 18
are owed child support should get their child support. We agree with that. Yeah.
Redner 41
Well, but right. But then Yeah. The they are on CalWORKs. Right? And we are in a tough budget situation, and we're cutting CalWORKs.
Redner 18
So Which is yeah. That's why we're not doing full pass through this year, but we'll come back. And I think we'll both come back, actually.
Redner 41
Well, I just wanna make sure that, you know, I hear you, and I wanna make sure that parents are not put in that situation because of you know, we're trying to
Redner 41
And I understand the hardships, but parents that support the kids go through hardships as well. So thank you.
Redner 1
Alright. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Assembly Review. Do we have any questions or comments from committee members or motions from members?
Alright. I will ask the author to close then.
Redner 42
Thank you for the robust the robust conversation, assembly member. I really do appreciate that. I would also like to acknowledge to my witness that I do hear you as well. Mhmm. And we will continue to work at this so that way we we can move forward.
So, with that, you know, assembly bill twenty three ninety five is about making sure that government works for for the people to make their lives just a bit easier. And I'm saying that again because I wanted you to know that we're gonna continue to work together to get this right to make sure that families can have exactly what what what they need to have. So thank you, chair and members, I respectfully ask for an I
Redner 1
I wanna thank the author for working on this important issue, and you heard a lot of good robust conversation today that I do have a lot of faith that working through the different committees too, they're gonna continue to work together to try to find a solution out there. So I do appreciate the the questions raised today on this issue. I do have an eye recommendation. The bill was moved by Assembly Aaron's and seconded by Assemblyman Ahwari. Madam secretary, please call the roll on this bill.
Redner 14
File item 15, a b two three nine five. The motion is due passed to the assembly appropriations committee. Lee?
Redner 14
Castillo not voting. Calderon? Eljore? Aye. Eljore aye.
Rubio? Aye. Rubio aye. Arons? Aye.
Arons aye. Tongapaw?
Redner 1
40, that bell's out, we'll leave the roll open for ops members. Thank you.
Redner 1
Alright. Next, we're gonna go assembler Shyvoh, and then I see assembler Patterson is here with us. So it'll be Shyvoh then Patterson.
Redner 30
Thank you so much, mister chair and members. I am proud to be authoring a b nineteen fourteen this year, which will require local governments to include childcare in their planning efforts. I wanna start by accepting the committee amendments. Thank you. And and just say, you know, affordable access to child care supports a healthy child's development.
My first job actually out of college was working for a head start program, a tribal head start program. And I there was a lot of new brain research coming out at the time talking about how important early childhood education and support is on a lifetime of development. And so we wanna make sure that parents can go to work and school and help businesses in our economy thrive and have a safe place for their kids. But millions of American families are struggling to find just affordable, reliable, quality child care that they can depend on. And although California has made significant investments in child care in the recent years, the supply demand gap persists.
One in seven children who are eligible for services actually receive those services. This means that one point eight million children who are eligible are not receiving child care services. Without access to child care support, a single mother of an infant who is a school aged child in California will spend 61% of their income on child care. As the cost of living continues to rise and threats to cut funding from federal government programs continue, we are faced with additional barriers to affordable child care. That's why it's increasingly important to examine child care accessibility and as communities plan for growth and infrastructure needs.
To address this state's child care crisis, all levels of government must be involved in prioritizing planning for their communities and child care needs. Instead of relying solely on ad hoc solutions to address child care accessibility, AB nineteen fourteen is a promising strategy to promote greater consistency and consideration for child care in earlier stages of local planning while preserving local discretion. Requiring local governments to develop a child care plan is crucial. It supports economic development by enabling workforce participation. It attracts families and talent.
Redner 27
It promotes healthier, family friendly communities, and it aligns land use and with community needs, ensuring that equitable access and reducing traffic, integrating child care facilities near homes, jobs, and transportation. As we saw from the fires in Los Angeles, it's also really critical that we include child care in disaster planning and resilience strategies to ensure that children are cared for before, during, and after disasters so they have access to safe, healthy learning environments. Today, I have with me Shelly Mazer, Vice President for ECE Advisory and State Policy at the Low Income Investment Fund and Sacramento City Councilman and chair of the Sacramento County Head Start Board, Eric Guerra.
Redner 33
Good morning, Chair Lee, committee members, staff. I am doctor Shelly Mazar. I'm the vice president of advisory and state policy at the Low Income Investment Fund. LIF is a national CDFI with a vision that everyone live in a community of equity, opportunity, and well-being. We seek to achieve this vision by investing in affordable housing and child care facilities as we recognize that both are essential community infrastructure.
Redner 44
Both make it possible for local communities to maintain economic diversity and stability for families. We are pleased to sponsor AB nineteen fourteen to ensure cities and counties recognize the role that child care facilities play in communities and that to promote access to care, cities and counties need to plan. We're grateful to Assembly Member Schiavo for authoring this bill, to the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, for being a co sponsor, and to staff for working with us to make some clarifications. As a former city council member myself, I'm committed to helping build communities by building the supply of childcare. We believe that, like housing, childcare supply building requires planning and that cities and counties can support that through including child care in their general plans or by creating a separate child care plan.
Along with the rest of the country, California is facing a child care crisis exacerbated by the lack of facilities, workforce shortages, and inadequate funding. We have a multifaceted problem that requires multifaceted solutions. AB nineteen fourteen offers one by engaging cities and counties in further planning for the needs of their community by planning for child care. My own city, Redwood City, has included child care in their general plan since 2010, as the city continued to plan for growth in both housing and its economic base. This legislation would not require jurisdictions to build child care, rather to work with the community to plan for and support child care facilities and programs.
Across the state, we are seeking ways to increase the supply of child care through work with cities. Planning for child care is one piece of a complicated puzzle, and we ask for your support.
Redner 8
Thank you, chair and members. Eric Guerra, councilman for the city of Sacramento and chair of the Sacramento County, set a head start. Child care functions are a core public infrastructure that enables workforce participation, economic stability, and healthy child development. This legislation presents a necessary policy response for California's persistent child care sore shortage. And across face significant barriers when attempting to secure reliable and affordable childcare.
Redner 23
Many regions lack sufficient licensed providers, forcing parents to join long wait list, reduced work hours, and leave work leave the workforce entirely. As a legislative staffer here, I faced those two year long wait lists when we were having our first, child as well here. That's why, the city of Sacramento and every city should have in their guiding document a general plan, in the general plan, the the conditions of childcare. In the city of Sacramento, we've included it in multiple areas under workforce development from cradle to career, understanding that it's also an important part of our economic development. The second, also a new development in commercial corridors and ensuring that when we're growing as a city, we're planning for the needs that families will live in communities and will will inevitably need childcare near transit options as well.
Redner 8
And also the requirement that multifamily housing developments have as part of one of their consideration factors, the need to respond to child care. And also our land use section, when we require public and neighborhood servings serving uses, we require the consideration of of pharmacies and grocery stores. We should also be including childcare. Yet childcare, it needs work as a region. Here, people live in West Sacramento, but they live in the city.
As a parent, you look for childcare close to home or close to work. This is why every city should have it in their general plan. AB nineteen fourteen addresses the structural gap in the state, and we urge your I vote to make sure that every family and every parent has the ability for accessible, affordable childcare. Thank you.
Redner 1
Alright. Thank you very much for your testimony. Now do we have do we have members of the public who wish to testify in support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone.
Redner 31
Crystal Quintons, behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, practical sponsor of the bill.
Redner 45
Melanie Dodson, CEO, executive director, four c's of Sonoma County in support.
Redner 1
Alright. Any other members of public who should decide in support of the bill?
Redner 1
Do we have any members do we have any opposition to this bill? Any members of public who should speak in opposition to bill, please come up to the microphone. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee for questions, comments. Assembly member Arons, do you have
Redner 22
Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. I wanna thank the the assembly member for bringing this bill forward. I think it's so critical that, you know, we address childcare and these issues, and wanna thank our San Jose council member, Pamela Campos, who's been working with me on raising this issue much more forcefully, especially in our Silicon Valley where we feel the affordability crisis and the childcare crisis, I would argue, more acutely than other areas given our high cost of living in in our region. And I would love to be considered to be a coauthor if you you'll have me.
Thank you so much for bringing this forward.
Redner 13
Yeah. I just wanna thank the author. I I'm in a respectful opposition to it, and and mainly it's because I just believe it paints with a really broad brush. And and I believe the city council member has stated, if if a local city in a local jurisdiction wants to implement it into their general plan, they have the ability to do so right now. I've been meeting with a lot of, like, cities and other local municipalities where we have similar bills like this that require whether it's farm worker housing or different types of housing.
And now the cities are getting pushback from when they submit their their general plan, they're saying, what we the state is telling us to put this type of housing in, but we have zero farm workers. And yet now it's in noncompliant. And and that's the same thing where where I see that there are other cities that again, if they can consider it, they should be able to do so right now. And what I'm hearing quite a bit is a lot of cities and other local municipalities and jurisdictions are potentially gonna file a lawsuit against the state of California and taking the route of unfunded mandates. And I I just believe that this puts another one.
While I understand the need when it comes to childcare, I I think we should provide funding from the state, incentivizing, and looking at it to allow these other local municipalities to to do so and adopt that style instead of just telling everybody from the statewide, like, you will implement this into your plan if it really doesn't fit the regional needs. And so and that's just the way I think about it was since I represent such a large diverse area. Just to we've gotta give some of the cities a little bit more freedom to make the right decisions for them. So thank you.
Redner 30
Thank you so much. I think, you know, last I checked, there's kids in every community who might need childcare. But I think, you know, this does have a lot of flexibility, and I I understand your concerns that you're raising, but this has a lot of flexibility. It can either be in the general plan or a separate plan that can be identified as a child care plan. But, you know, what we're finding is that it's just not happening.
Communities are not choosing to do it, except for one great community over here that we found in the whole state.
Redner 30
we you know, as was discussed at our last hearing, Assembly Member Stephanie talked about how she pushed for child care to be in a development that was happening in San Francisco. And the only reason that that happened was because Catherine Stephanie thought it was a good idea and pushed for it, but it was not part of a larger plan. It was not part of a larger discussion. And I think that we just have to be really intentional about this. This was something that this is something that cost people more than their mortgage, child care.
And people make huge life decisions based on whether or not they can afford child care. You know, in my own case, my ex husband, he was transitioning jobs, and we chose at that time for him not to work because it was it was too expensive to pay for childcare, and better for him to just go back to school and take care of
Redner 30
one. And, you know, and that sets families back. It it gets to an affordability, issue for all of us. And so this is just asking for a conversation to happen, for there be thoughtfulness and intentionality about it to see what is the need, and it leaves freedom for every community to decide what makes sense for them, but really make sure that there is actually a discussion, that people are brought together to talk about what the needs are and that there's a plan behind it. So respectfully request an I vote, and thank you.
Redner 1
Alright. Thank you. I wanna thank the author for bringing this bill. I know you took a lot of amendments and did a lot of conversations in the previous committees to work on this point where now there's minimal or no opposition to it formally. And I do really wanna commend you for this even though it has been quite difficult policy wide or politically wise, I don't think it's a difficult policy.
Redner 36
I do think as our cities grow and California grows, it is necessary and vital to plan for human infrastructure growth. Just like we plan, of course, for housing, for health care, and fire, and all these things, the human infrastructure of taking care of our kids is so important. And it really makes ensures, and I hope this little bipartisan kind of push, is that California is pro family and pro child because we are not intentional about being pro children, pro family. That, you know, belies everything else on housing growth or population growth if you're not supporting families. That's fundamental to it, and that's why I think this bill is so important that it makes cities, as you said, be intentional about planning not just for new people in general to to come in, but also what is the human infrastructure to support them, not just the jobs and not just the home part, but also, like, what happens to their children.
Redner 1
Right? Because I think too much of that seemed too starkly in terms of jobs and housing imbalances or like that. So I'd really do I would like to spill. I would like to be as a joint author with you and to help you get this all the way through to the end because it is a novel but very much needed approach. And, we are looking for a motion and a second on this one.
Redner 1
Alright. The bill is moved by Assembly Erins and seconded by Assembly Al Hawari. This enjoys a I recommendation. Madam secretary, please call the roll on this bill.
Redner 14
File item eight, a b one nine one four. The motion is due pass as amended to the assembly appropriations committee. Lee?
Redner 1
Four to one, we'll leave that role open for Absa members. Thank you. But that bill is out.
Redner 1
Alright. Next, we will go to Samuel Patterson's final item number 10AB2171. AB2171. Alright. Whenever you're ready.
Great.
Redner 12
Thank you, mister chair and, members, and for sticking around on a Thursday, now afternoon. Appreciate it. Appreciate the opportunity to present a b twenty one seventy one, which is a bold but very important bill. Unlike other bills that share similar bull, goal, this bill creates a narrow exemption within both the CalFresh program and California Food Assistance program to prevent the use of these funds for sweetened beverages and candy. Given the opposition from a number of industry groups, including many people I respect, it might have been easier for me to walk away and be done with it.
But I would say that very few things are more important to me than our health, and especially individuals more likely to have negative health outcomes. We talk a lot about this in health committee, actually, something that I had an opportunity to learn about myself, which is social determinants of health. Some things pointed out by some opponents or in the analysis are that there are other reasons individuals qualifying for SNAP have worse health outcomes. When it comes to dirty air, we don't say, hey. You know, let's sit idly by.
When it comes to lack of access to water, we don't sit back and say, hey. You know what? Let's not address this. When it comes to redlining, lack of quality schools, we don't sit back. We act.
And this is an issue where we need to act. Obesity is the leading cause of preventable death. A 2014 study by the Mayo Clinic found that SNAP participants have a lower dietary quality than income eligible nonparticipant counterparts. In other words, people that qualify for SNAP but are not on SNAP actually have better dietary they have a better diet. And just the following year, actually, seventy four percent of CalFresh recipients themselves say they support removing sugary drinks from the program.
A 2026 study just this year by the American Journal of Preventative Medicine found that policies just like this re quote, reduce health disparities between income groups while reducing health care costs. And in 2020, they said SNAP restrictions would substantially decrease obesity and diabetes. A systemic review of seven studies showed that all seven confirmed that removing sweetened beverages from SNAP would lower its consumption, and six of those studies showed a significant decrease. California has been pioneering some of the most forward thinking policies to increase healthy foods in our communities, and we've done that in a bipartisan manner. Why?
Because we all recognize that unhealthy foods have extremely negative impacts on not only the health of individuals, but society in general. During COVID, California started offering free breakfasts and lunches to every student. Why? Because it might be the only meal kids eat. Two years ago, we banned toxic artificial dyes, and just last year, we banned ultra processed foods in school lunches.
In both cases, I was one of the first Republican coauthors of those measures because unhealthy foods have an impact on so many things. The legislature has been very clear. We need to strengthen our food supply and ensure that children, in particular, have healthy options. California's work in this area has been bipartisan and landmark, with members on both sides of the aisle supporting bringing more access to high quality nutrient dense foods. The foods covered by this bill are sweetened beverages and candy, which have little nutritional value and negative health impacts.
I'd like to close by saying, you know, I mean, just on a personal story, and I understand, you know, when I was growing up, there was a time where at the time, we called them food stamps. And, I was on those. You know, my family was on those growing up. And so I understand about the, you know, the, discrimination that can occur, you know, as a result of use you just using these products, and and this is how some people look at it. It's a critical program, but let's not continue to feed individuals these sugary beverages with that program.
With me in support, have Timothy Madden on behalf of the California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology and Ryan Spencer from CPMA.
Redner 40
Thank you, chair and members. Tim Madden representing the California chapter of the American College of Cardiology in support of AB 2,171. Our support for limiting sugary beverage sugary drinks and candy and food assistance programs is rooted in the preventive medicine model. Using public policy as a tool to lower the risk of chronic health chronic heart conditions before they require medical intervention. There is little debate on the impact of sugary drinks and candy on a person's cardiovascular health.
Regular consumption of sugary beverages and candy is strongly linked to stroke, heart attack, heart failure, as well as irregular heart rhythm, not to mention diabetes and other conditions. For children, limiting sugary drinks and candy early can prevent the development of long dietary habits that lead to early onset heart disease. Over the years, speaking with cardiologists, they share seemingly daily conversations with patients facing significant cardiovascular challenges. After having a heart attack or facing a major heart procedure or even just seeing their cardiovascular health slowly worsen, they ask what they can do to improve their health. As the discussion centers on eating habits, sugary beverages, and candy consumption is commonly a major contributor to their condition.
Redner 13
It's the habit that is leading patients to these cardiovascular challenges. If patients can't create better eating habits, the long term benefits are undisputable. AB twenty one seventy one is an opportunity to help create better habits that will lead to a longer, healthier life. We urge your I vote.
Redner 36
Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Podiatric Medical Association, CPMA, in support of AB twenty one seventy one. Podiatrists have a direct and often urgent perspective on diet related diseases. They treat the downstream consequences of poor nutrition every day, particularly in patients with diabetes. High sugar consumption contributes to poor glycemic control, which significantly increases the risk of neuropathy, chronic wounds, infection, and ultimately lower extremity amputations. These are not abstract outcomes.
They are life altering and, in many cases, preventable. From a clinical standpoint, foot health is inseparable from metabolic health. Elevated blood glucose impairs circulation, delays wound healing, and reduces body's ability to fight infection, conditions that disproportionately manifest in the lower extremities. As a result, dietary patterns, especially excessive sugar intake, directly influence whether a patient maintains mobility or progressives towards disability. We believe AB 2,171 will help address many of these downstream health issues and prevent subsidizing products known to undermine health and drive chronic disease.
Redner 28
In doing so, this bill supports healthier choices, reduces long term health care costs, and helps prevent the very complications podiatrists are working to treat. For these reasons, CPNA is proud to support AB 2,171 and asks for your vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Now do we have members of the public who should testify in support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone in support of the bill. Okay. Do we have primary witnesses in opposition? Please come up to the desk.
Alright. Two minutes each, please. Whoever wants to start first can go first.
Redner 43
Okay. Good morning, chair members. Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. While we support the author's goal of improving health outcomes, we do not believe a b twenty one seventy one will help our state achieve that goal. The SNAP program, known in California as CalFresh, is our state's most important anti hunger program serving over 5,000,000 Californians.
Data shows that being enrolled in CalFresh improves health health outcomes and reduces health care costs for low income people. This is because the program is already addressing the top barriers to healthy eating, affordability, and access to nutritious foods. Research shows that policing the food choices of low income consumers does not improve dietary outcomes, meaning this bill will fail to achieve its intended goal. It will also make CalFresh less effective at reducing food insecurity while creating stigma, confusion, and shame amongst recipients for simply being poor. Looking at other states that have already passed these snap food restrictions, the implementation has proven to be complex and costly.
Redner 41
This is administrative time and money that we should continue to prioritize for the critical HR one implementation to minimize the harmful impacts of the administrative cost shift and time limits that we know will result in millions of Californians losing CalFresh benefits and going hungry. Furthermore, a b twenty one seventy one directly conflicts with the existing state law, which reflects California's commitment to recipient dignity and equal treatment of those using CalFresh by stipulating that the state Department of Social Services shall maximize all available food choices for CalFresh recipients. Beyond the legal conflict with state law, implementing this bill would require CDSS to apply for a food restriction waiver from the USDA. There's currently a five state lawsuit that was filed against the u USDA this March challenging the Trump administration's authority to approve these waivers. In fact, the USDA has consistently refused to approve snack food restriction waivers under all previous Republican and Democratic administrations due to their questionable effectiveness effectiveness, feasibility, and legality.
Redner 43
AB twenty one seventy one would put California in the position of pursuing a waiver that has been rejected by every previous administration and is currently being litigated in federal court. For these reasons and more, a broad coalition of Calfrac stakeholders oppose this bill, and we respectfully urge your no vote on a b twenty one seventy one.
Redner 46
Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Guadalupe Lopez, an independent grocer. For over thirty years, I have provided families with access to quality and affordable food. I stand in opposition AB twenty one seventy one. This proposal is a benefit restriction bill, not a nutrition education bill.
If we want healthier communities, we might must start early by teaching children that food is nourishment. Education creates a lasting change. We can teach our kids that a snack can be an apple, a carrot, or a banana, not just chips or candy. Product definitions are too bland for a retail operation. A drink is prohibited if five grams or more of sugar is added, but allows drinks that have over 50% use with far more sugar.
It creates real challenges for grocery store. Our checkout systems do not identify levels of fruit or levels of sugar. They simply scan product categories. There is no clear definition of candy. This will lead to confusion, delay, and customer disputes every single day.
Business will face costly system updates, training, compliance, and even losing our license. But the main question, will this improve health? From my experience, the answer is no. What works is education and incentive programs. My store implemented the first incentive program in Santa Clara County, Double Up Food Box, now part of the GASNIP Fruit and Veggie program.
Redner 42
I have seen firsthand how it works. The snap matching dollars encourage families to buy more fruits and vegetables. Today, families can receive up to $60 a month in matching funds. It may not seem like a match, but for for struggling families, it can mean the difference between food on the table or going to bed hungry. This program improves health and straighten local economies.
Redner 46
If we truly want better outcomes, we must invest in education and expand incentive programs, not impose restrictions that create a stigma and confusion. Lasting change doesn't come from limiting choices. I respectfully urge you to reconsider AB twenty one seventy one. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. And welcome to the capital, Luffy. Alright. Members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill, please come into the microphone.
Redner 13
That's right with the California Association of Food Banks in strong opposition, also giving me twos for Courage California, Grace Social and Medical Services, Sirius Community Project, Saturated in His Love, the Can Manufacturers Institute, and the Public Interest Law Project.
Redner 13
Good afternoon, chair members. Jason Bryant on behalf of the National Confectioners Association. We're in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 43
Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 34
Amanda Kirchner on behalf of County Welfare Directors Association in opposition.
Redner 36
Thank you, chair members. Elmer Lozardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in opposition.
Redner 30
Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association also in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 32
Khoisi Turn with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. People should not be dictated like the communist Soviet Union in strong opposition.
Redner 38
Good morning or afternoon. Sherry McHugh representing the American Beverage Association in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 23
Good afternoon. Taylor Trifo on behalf of the California Grocers in opposition.
Redner 47
Thank you, mister chair Jackie Anas. We have the California Fuels convenience alliance, respectively opposed.
Redner 16
Good afternoon. Elise Landon with Dairy Institute of California with an opposed unless amended position to narrow the definition of candy.
Redner 12
Mister chair and members, Tiffany White with SEIU California in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 41
Thank you. Yes. No. And I appreciate the intent with the sugary drinks, but people in positions like that, obviously, diabetes is an epidemic, and I, again, understand that. But I I was a teacher for a long time, and kids are mean.
They make fun of others. And I think that on top of the fact that I don't think this will change many minds, I think that the mental health of young kids is also at stake when they're getting bullied or being point you know, pointed out. You said you were on on assistance. Those kids point out that they're poor, if you will, or getting shamed because of their situation. And I, you know, I see how it could play out with the kids, but also the definition is also, I understand the candy and sugary drinks, but there's cakes and cereals have high content of sugar as well.
You know, are we going to say, you know, this kind of cereal and not that kind of cereal? We have, you know, some juices, and I know you there's a definition in here about what kind of juices, but some of them are natural. It's not added, sugar, but a lot of orange juice, is higher in content of sugar. So I just think that that this approach is not gonna deter you know, although you you said some of the the the data, I, don't see how that's going to prevent people from, from eating those types of foods when you have others available. Trust me.
Redner 29
I am a snacker myself, and sometimes I wonder, when my diabetes is gonna, set in because I am, terrible at when I eat those foods. And even though I don't, anyway, I just don't think that that this is going to deter people from from, you know, being or actually encourage people to be healthy, which I think that's the intent of this is. You know, what would you know, I know that there's an amount of of of SNAP that encourages more fruits and vegetables. That those are the types of programs that we should be investing in and which will help our our our Central Valley folks and the the farmers is by encouraging more fruits and vegetables to be eaten as opposed to trying to deter them by doing this. We've had many, many allerations it it'll I can't say that word anymore.
Redner 41
But versions of this, you know, trying to put put taxes on sugary drinks as well. That has come a few times and has failed. It's hard for me, coming from a lower income community, that, you know, people are telling, you know, just because they're poor, telling us what we should and shouldn't eat. So with that, I don't think I can support the bill.
Redner 2
I I have been. Yes. Clean clean that up. You know? Right.
Right. And then,
Redner 41
you know, and people quite enjoy coming to my office because of the amount of sugary snacks I have. So thank you.
Redner 1
lot of talking about did you do you wanna comment on the film? And not on a Silvia Rubio.
Redner 1
Sorry, Ruby. You don't have to. Ruby, you don't have to. Alright. Let's let's let someone ask questions.
Redner 13
Well, I also hear all the concerns as well. I I did just wanna ask to the author, like, how much does the average person on CalFresh spend on the foods that AB 21, 71 seeks to limit?
Redner 12
You know, it's it's interesting you say that because we were actually looking into that information a little bit. Not so much that, but how much how much of the revenue that you're bringing in is from Snap. So I did I I actually had an opportunity to ask one of my restaurant owners about this, actually. Because initially, our bill prohibited using it at restaurants. But actually, one of the places that we would that you'd see these being used is at restaurants, but 6% at a particular fast food restaurant was was from SNAP benefits.
Redner 30
But, you know, one thing I wanna mention on that is that it's interesting that you can buy from fast food restaurant, which I'm I'm not exempted them, you know, in my amendments. But, but you can't buy a hot, fresh prepared meal at a at a grocery store, you know, which I think has, you know, in in a lot you know, whether it's Costco or whether it's a small, you know, that in in Napa, we had the the Mexican grocery stores, you know, that they would also have, like, freshly prepared, you know, tacos and things like that. You know? And I think that's that's a problem. There's a lot of problems with how this is implemented statewide, by the way.
Redner 12
But I don't know the exact answer to your question. I just happened to ask one of our restaurant owners what percentage of their revenue was from that.
Redner 13
Yeah. And I know you and I have talked about, you know, health is wealth, and a lot of that starts with the fuel that you, put in as well. I know that numerous organizations too and a lot that have come to speak to me as well, they've they've talked about just the lack of a clear definition on what they see as their reason to oppose this bill. Have any of the organizations offered, whether it's specific amendments or ways we can provide clarity? And it's something that I ask personally because I grew up on Snap, EBT, pretty much my entire life, and I've shared with everybody before.
I could take bus 93 to Palm in Hillsdale, and that's where the Wick Center is. And I remember grabbing all of the services that that I needed when I was in growing up in North Highland. So I do believe that we need to figure out a way to make sure that a lot of low income families also have health and nutrition as a vital resource because if we can prevent it at a young age and help people there, I think that is something that we can definitely work on. So, again, back to the question, has there been a clear definition or others that have tried to help you?
Redner 12
Yeah. You know, the one concrete suggestion other than just wanting the bill to go away was was from McDonald's franchise owners. And I that's a good point. You know? So we we included that or we excluded prepared amendments to take out restaurants for that for that reason.
So, obviously, we're willing to work with anybody that has an interest in that. So
Redner 13
And that's for me, a big portion is, I think, with a large coalition, you know, that we could figure out something that, especially working with the medical groups, where we could definitely get to a point where we're we are promoting and living by the code that health is wealth and helping people there. So thank you. Alright.
Redner 22
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you. Well, I I just think it's it's I think it's important to just recognize I think this is a really important issue, and I I really do wanna echo and see I know that your heart is in the right place, and I would love to continue working with you on these issues, actually.
Perhaps we can work on something together in a bipartisan fashion next year because, frankly, this doesn't get enough attention, hunger, and helping helping on these poverty issues, especially when it comes to lack of food for our impoverished Californians. It doesn't get enough bipartisan attention. I I grew up on food stamps when they were yellow and blue and green and booklets. And I remember not wanting to stand in the free and reduced lunch line at school, and many of us would rather go hungry than face the stigma. And I do worry about a lot of these implementation issues that are echoed by by the opposition.
Redner 11
So I won't be able to be supportive of this due to a lot of the stigma factors and the underlying factors really of that really caused the, you know, individuals to not eat healthy, including food deserts, education, lack of access issues. But I'd I'd love to work with you on this issue further. But I would also just remiss to say that we need more bipartisan support on the federal level to not cut CalFresh, to to not cut, vital hunger assistance programs in the state of California that's that's dramatically affecting your constituents and mine. So if we can work together on the state level to actually find ways to address these issues, not only in the state of California, but to really push back against the draconian cuts that are hurting, really hurting, and possibly killing individuals from not being able to access food in the future budgets, I would love to work with you on that. Thank you, mister chair.
Redner 1
If sorry. No. Not not this time. It's only if, authors ask for questions. Sorry.
Seeing no other comments, I'm gonna invite the author to close.
Redner 12
Great. Well, thank you, mister chair. I really appreciate the opportunity to bring this bill today and because I thought the conversation is really important one to have on on this topic. And I think, you know, honestly, you know, just talk about some of the the complexities that a couple of my colleagues talked about in implementation and, you know, sort of like the discrimination we were talking about and things like that. I mean, those are important issues that I think, you know, do need to be addressed as we move in this forward.
We didn't have a lot of help on this bill, by the way, you know, as a side note. And and I don't really blame anybody on that. You know, there's lots of thousands of bills, and I didn't necessarily ask for a ton of help. Right? But but I wanted to talk about this issue because, you know, I don't really think it's acceptable to say, hey.
Look. You know, we should just accept that some people are gonna have unhealthy foods and things like that. I mean, there are 22 states. It's not like we're an outlier in in considering this. There's 22 states that have some type of restriction on this.
And and we also shouldn't accept, you know, that the federal government over multiple administrations has has turned this down. I mean, California has done many of things that, you know, federal government has said, no. This is you know, we don't wanna do this, but we do it anyways. And then, you know, usually litigation comes as a result. Right?
And some of those I don't agree on. But but I do wanna say I am definitely interested in in working on this topic in the long run. I think there are a lot of programs. I think we could offer actually a lot more healthy foods by like, was talking about the warm, prepared foods at grocery stores. You know, these are the types of things that we should we should be discussing as we move forward with this.
But it is something I'm committed to. You know, you always hear when you're going through these bills that there's some kind of, like, alternative. I I read the analysis. It's very good, thorough, detailed analysis on a lot of things that have, you know, historic wrongs in maybe this, you know, these programs. Right?
But that's not what I'm talking about here. And we do have to figure out, at the end of the day, how we get people healthier foods. And I'm happy to work with my Democratic colleagues when our constituents are, we have signed on to multiple resolutions asking the federal government to not make certain cuts, to the most vulnerable people. We have signed on to those resolutions, and we continue to do so. And I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, hey.
You know, I've talked with some chairs of some committees about this, especially on budget. Like, give us a call. We you know, we might be able to call some people, you know, to help with some of these things to make sure our constituents aren't disproportionately impacted on these critical programs. I believe in a safety net. So, anyways, mister chair, I just wanna wrap up by saying, you know, I I wasn't people are gonna be mad behind me right now, but I'm not gonna request a motion on this bill if that if that's okay with you.
Redner 1
Alright. Well, I appreciate you bringing this bill for discussion today. I do trust in your attention that you and I appreciate your attention of trying to make California healthy again. So I really appreciate you trying these efforts and mod and, you know, looking at other states, but the fact is the USDA is going to be taken to sorry. Several other states are taking the federal government to court right now.
There's a lot of inconsistent definitions, and the application of this is very fraught in many ways. You know, I also have some qualms about excluding restaurants when you don't apply the same standards to grocery stores too. It's not a consistent standard when we try to create more consistent universal standards. But it is a worthwhile conversation to talk about how we incentivize more healthy foods, and that's something that, you know, I work on a lot in the human services budget. So I look forward to you voting yes on the budget as well on human services.
So I look forward to you supporting those things.
Redner 1
Yeah. So I last You said I heard you vote for these programs and support them all the time. So I look forward to you voting yes on the budget, but we do a lot of important work to incentivize healthy meals and healthy eating habits. So I
Redner 1
Yeah. Appreciate the opportunity and appreciate you having not requesting a motion today as well as you with the if that is your prerogative. So, so thanks for presenting, and thanks for having all our witnesses in opposition's work coming. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you.
Alright. Next, we'll go to file item 11, a v 2258, Avila Farias.
Redner 38
Okay. Thank you, chair and members. I would like to start off that, I I will increase my my workouts and, try a little better and, my healthy eating habits and, relax a little bit more. So thank you for the educational and the previous one. So thank you, chair and members.
Redner 32
I'm here to present AB twenty two fifty eight, which addresses California's childcare affordability crisis by redirecting underused and underutilized funds to the alternative payment program. California has made significant public investment in subsidizing childcare and early learning programs, including the expansion of early nearly two, 200,000 new slots. However, about 1,800,000 income eligible children across the state do not have subsidized child care. Too often, funds that have already been appropriated to serve families go unspent while eligible families remain on ever growing wait list. Gaps in child care access results in work in a workforce that cannot fully participate, businesses that cannot operate at a full capacity, and an economy that falls short to its potential.
Redner 38
Alternate payment program contracts serve as the primary delivery system for voucher based child care and uniquely are positioned to rapidly enroll families, support parental choices, and deploy available child care funding efficiently. AB 2,258 targets the gap between funding and subsidized child care by requiring the Department of Social Services to identify unspent funds across child care programs and redirect those funds to the APP contractors for immediate use. Child care is essential workforce infrastructure. When families cannot access child care, parents are unable to work, employers face instability, and the broader economy is impacted. AB 2,258 is a practical, fiscally responsible step that maximizes existing resources, strengthens the workforce, and supports California's economic health.
By ensuring that every available dollar is used to serve families, AB twenty two fifty eight moves California closer to move responsive to be more responsive, efficient, and equitable child care system for all. Testifying with me today is Deanne, Michela, CEO of the Thriving Families of California Foundation.
Redner 25
Great. Good afternoon, everyone. Deneen Micheletti, CEO of Thriving Families California, representing a statewide network of community based organizations lifting up the needs of families in all 58 counties in support of a b twenty two fifty eight. I just wanna call out and give thanks to the staff who drafted the analysis. Great job, great background on how we got to here.
Redner 31
Very lengthy, so it was great to get refreshed on all that. At a time when more than 1,800,000 income eligible children in California still lack access to subsidized care, we must be focused on one clear goal, serving as many families as possible with the resources already approved by this legislature. AB twenty two fifty eight is a practical solutions oriented bill that does exactly that. This bill addresses a core challenge in our system, that valuable public dollars already appropriated are not always moving as quickly or as efficiently as families do. In fact, this issue is so significant that at this at this very moment, the senate budget committee is hearing this issue and asking important questions of the administration about why these appropriated funds are going unspent.
Redner 25
That tells us something critical. This is not about commitment. It is about ensuring that approved resources are reaching families in a timely and effective way. Too often, we see a disconnect. Families are waiting for care.
You've heard that throughout the day. Providers have capacity, and legislatively approved funds remain unspent due to administrative barriers and delays. That should not be acceptable, especially given the level of unmet need in our state. AB two a b twenty two fifty eight focuses on timely use of available funds, ensuring that dollars directed where they are needed most to immediately serve children and working families. And to be clear, this bill does not create a new funding stream, and it does not establish long term reserve or endowment accounts.
It is about maximizing the impact of existing legislative investments. For the community based organizations we represent, this matters deeply. These organizations are ready to serve but are too often constrained by a a system that moves too slowly, lacks transparency, and does not always allow resources to be deployed in a real way. At the end of the day, this is about more than a process. It is about a parent being able to go to work, a child having a safe, stable place to learn and grow, and a and an economy that depends on both.
AB twenty two fifty eight helps ensure that every dollar working is intended to serve children and families. On behalf of TFC, thank you, and we ask for your aye vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now do we have members of the public who should testify in support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone.
Redner 45
Melanie Dodson, CEO, executive director of four c Sonoma County. 2,000 kids on our wait list in Sonoma. We support.
Redner 1
Great. Now do we have any, opposition to the bill? Please come forward. Any members of public who wish to testify in opposition to the bill, please come to microphone. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee for questions, comments, motions.
Alright. I'll invite the office to close then.
Redner 1
Alright. Thank you for bringing this bill forward, and thank you sincerely for working with the committee on the amendments and, everything on this bill. The bill has been moved by assembly member Tonkipa and has been seconded by assembly member Arons. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 14
File item 11, a b two two five eight. The motion is due passed to the assembly appropriations committee. Lee?
Redner 14
Lee, I. Castillo? Calderon? Aye. Calderon, I.
El Khoury? Rubio? Aye. Rubio, I. Aaron's?
Aye. Aaron's, Tonga Paw? Aye. Tonga Paw, I.
Redner 1
Five to zero, that bill is out. We'll leave the role open for reps members. Alright. Next, we will go to file number 12AB2309 by assembly member Banes. Alright, doctor Maines.
Whenever you're ready.
Redner 16
Thank you so much. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, chair Lee, and the Human Services Committee for hearing assembly bill twenty three zero nine. Last year, the Trump administration abruptly cut off federal funding to Calfresh. EBT stopped working, food banks ran out of supplies as lines stretched around the block and parents skipped meals so their children could eat.
Some states handled this crisis better than ours and better better than others. Bright red Louisiana, the poorest state in The United States with a total state budget of just $12,000,000,000, well, they stepped up. They treated the crisis like the emergency it was and found a $150,000,000 to ensure no SNAP recipient lost one penny of their November food aid. In true blue California, we have a state budget 30 times larger than Louisiana's. We have 5,500,000 Californians who depend on CalFresh, including 2,000,000 children.
One in five residents in my district rely on this program simply to have enough food to survive. So with all this need and all of these resources, what did California do? We put a band aid on a gunshot wound. We sent out press releases instead of EBT. We told everyone how much we cared while doing the least we could.
Redner 8
Frankly, we should be embarrassed that a state led by a governor who has been described as a vocal white supremacist fed their residents while we let our families go hungry. We can't ask our poorest residents to pay the price when politicians fight. A b twenty three zero nine is a promise we will do better next time because with Trump and the White House, I do fear there will be a next time. The bill requires the Department of Social Services to continue funding Calfresh when federal funding lapses during a government shutdown, and it continuously appropriates the necessary resources from the general fund to cover those expenses. Once federal funding is restored, it also requires the department to seek reimbursement of our expenses from the federal government.
Redner 16
For a mother pinching pennies to feed her kids or a senior who eats nothing but top ramen until their benefits reload each month, it is about it is up to us to make sure they don't go hungry. We failed them once. Let's not fail them again. Respectfully asked for Naiva, but with me prior to that, with me in support, I'm proud to be joined by Bindu Mokamala, the policy manager for the National Association of Social Workers California chapter.
Redner 33
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Bindu Makamla, and I serve as the policy manager for the National Association of Social Workers California chapter representing more than nine nine thousand professional social workers across California. And I'm here today in strong support of a b twenty three zero nine. Social workers serve in health care and behavioral health settings, schools, housing programs, child welfare, community organizations, and even the justice system. They work every day with families, older adults, children, and vulnerable communities trying to remain stable through difficult circumstances.
Programs like CalFresh are not just benefits. They are a lifeline, and they are the first line of defense against hunger for about 5,470,000 Californians. Nearly two thirds of participants are in families with children, and more than one third live in households with older adults or per or people with disabilities. Federal changes are already putting that support at risk as nearly 400,000 refugees, asylees, trafficking survivors could lose access alongside with veterans, former foster youth, older adults, caretakers, and people experiencing homelessness. When nutrition benefits are cut or delayed, families are forced into impossible choices.
Redner 49
Money that's meant for rent, utilities, transportation, and childcare is redirected to food, a basic need every household should already be able to meet. Parents already struggling to make ends meet may take on extra jobs, leaving children with less stability at home and greater challenges at school, while older adults may have to ration food or medication. For households already on the edge, missed meals can translate and quickly become missed bills, eviction, homelessness, and worsening behavioral health crises. When families lose access to CalFresh, we see increased reliance on already overburdened food banks, worsening health outcomes, and deeper economic instability. AB twenty three zero nine ensures Californians can continue CalFresh benefits because hunger does not pause when the federal government does.
Redner 33
This bill is about stability, dignity, and prevention, ensuring families receive the benefits they deserve. We respectfully urge your I vote on a b twenty three zero nine. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now do we have members of the public who wish to express their support for this bill? Please come to the microphone.
Redner 46
Good afternoon, chair members. Marty Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.
Redner 13
Good afternoon, chairmembers. Tony Anderson, the Association of Regional Center Agencies in support.
Redner 12
Good afternoon. Jaylen Woodard with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.
Redner 49
Afternoon. Kat Brackman with the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now do we have any opposition to this bill? Any members of the public wish to express their opposition to the bill, please come to to the microphone. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee members' comment. Okay.
Is that what we're talking about?
Redner 13
Yeah. You know, I thank the author, for bringing this bill. I do find it interesting, especially on the comments made that potentially a governor is a white supremacist, but I think we could find out very easily if he is if the Southern Poverty Law Center supports him. So but with that, I I do believe that the changes to h r one really do put things on the states. And what I see when other states like Louisiana and like other ones are actually able to implement $150,000,000 to take care of the Louisiana residents, I I think that's exactly where we're supposed to go.
I think states are looking at what we can do to make sure that we can feed our community better. And I think that this takes a necessary step in removing where I believe is the right thing to do is removing Washington from taking on everything and putting it on our local jurisdictions. And and when you see a state like California that has a budget of over $300,000,000,000, It's up to the state to prioritize, and I think food security is an area that could be really good area that we we get that ball rolling. And so I know what social benefits have done for people here. I think California could do a whole lot better where we could prioritize taking care of our needs, and and I think this actually really just lays the groundwork, for that.
So thank you, and I respectfully move the bill.
Redner 1
Any other questions or comments, members? If not, I will do okay. No? Okay. Alright.
I'll invite the author to close.
Redner 1
for bringing me the vote forward as well. You know, when we did have I wanna clarify. When we did have the federal government shutdown, which was unprecedented in its length and severity of impacting not just California families, but families in Louisiana, Texas, New Hampshire, everywhere across the nation, people really were struggling to get by, and they didn't know when the government would resume their operations. Right? But I do think California, in the time that we had and we anticipated something like this will happen when we were out of session, we fast tracked the money to food banks.
Many grocers and retailers themselves offered free food even at the threat from the federal government saying, if you offer free food to CalFresh recipients, you will might be fine or will punish you. And so many Californians did really step up. I think it is important to examine what is California's role in this, but I do wanna note that, as well, there are many proposals right now in the in the human services budget, which I all obviously invite everyone to vote for the human services budget when it's done, is thinking about what is California's supplementary role. Because in my view, all that money that the federal government was not giving us, which let's say the shutdowns were about a month. It was a billion dollars worth of just CalFresh CalFresh benefits that were not coming to us.
Those were billion dollars of California taxpayer dollars that just were the federal account. So asking Californians to double dip sometimes is challenging, but we always come up and meet the standards. But at the first and foremost is that is legal money that should be ours because it is California money. Just put in the federal account. So even though, yes, we have a large budget, Californians also pay the most.
So we pay the most into other pockets, and that's a federal bucket that should be returned to us. So, I have an eye recommendation on this bill today. The bill was moved by Assemblyman Saghipa, but can I get a second for
Redner 1
Seconded by Assemblyman Arons, and I have a eye recommendation bill. Madam secretary, please call the roll on a B2309.
Redner 14
File item 12, a B2309. The motion is due passed to the assembly appropriations committee. Lee?
Redner 14
Lee I. Castillo? Calderon? Aye. Calderon I.
Aljari? Rubio? Aaron's? Aye. Aaron's I.
TongaPaw? Aye. TongaPaw aye.
Redner 1
That bell is out. Alright. Next, we will go to file item 13, a b 2314 by Sandler O'Neill Rogers. Alright. Whenever you're ready.
Assembly Rogers.
Redner 9
Thanks so much, mister chair. Good afternoon, members. We're here to present a b twenty three fourteen. California has made significant investments in child care. We've heard a number of the bills, really reference this, and and we understand what a crisis it is.
Redner 38
Currently, only 16% of eligible children are enrolled in publicly funded childcare programs through CDSS. What a b twenty three fourteen does is it ensures that every dollar appropriated is used efficiently by creating a clear and timely process for transferring funds where they are most needed and requiring transparency and written responses from CDSS. This bill strengthens the fiscal oversight to prevent resources from sitting idle and ensuring funding decisions reflect real time demand. AB twenty three fourteen also protects families from unnecessary disenrollment, contractor transfers, sibling separation, promoting stability, and continuity of care. By improving access to reliable child care, a b twenty three fourteen supports working parents, strengthens providers, and boosts California's economy.
Redner 9
As all of you know, I have an almost two year old. I think we spent almost $30,000 on child care last year in an area that is already very difficult to afford to live. This bill has the support of multiple child care organizations. With me are two of our champions. We have Adanae Mack, who's the CEO of Child Action.
We have one of my favorite people in the world, Melanie Dodd Melanie Dodson from Four Seas Sonoma County. And then I also wanna thank thriving families for working with us on the bill. They will not be presenting, but they're here for technical assistance if folks have technical questions. So I'll turn it over to the two of you.
Redner 45
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Melanie Dodson. I'm the executive director of Four Seas Sonoma County. Since 1972, Four Seas has worked to ensure that every child in Sonoma County has access to the care and early education they need to thrive. Every day, we sit with families who are working, seeking stability, and trying to do right by their children.
Our role is to help them navigate a system that too often is more complex than it needs to be. One of the greatest challenges we encounter is not a lack of commitment or effort, but a system that is misaligned that with how families actually live their lives. Voucher based child care programs are structured around twenty four month eligibility and twenty four month contracts for for agencies. This is a thoughtful and important policy design that promotes stability and continuity of care for children. However, the way these contracts are administered today does not fully recognize the realities on the ground.
Families do not enter the system neatly at the start of a fiscal year. They come to us every day throughout the year, often in moments of urgency and utilization is based on a family's need. As a result, enrollment happens on a rolling basis, families are at different points in their eligibility, care shifts due to work, housing, life changes, and their children's ages. Yet agencies are required to manage funding within rigid fiscal structures that do not align with the reality or take into consideration the ever changing landscapes. This misalignment is not theoretical.
It is happening right now in Sonoma County. In September 2025, at the current fiscal year, our agency identified that we were projected to run out of funding under our contract. As a community based nonprofit, we made the responsible decision to stabilize services for families that were already enrolled, but the consequences were profound. We've not enrolled a single new family since the fall. The now over 2,000 children on our wait list, many working families have been unable to access care.
Our staff are forced to turn families away. At the same time, other agencies serving Sonoma County have available funds. Those funds could have been shifted to cover the shortfall and serve families immediately, but the system did not allow this to happen in a reasonable timeline or seamlessly. In our community and agency, it's an untenable position. Where families remain unserved, our agency is constrained while other available Sonoma County funds sit unused.
This is not a funding problem. It's a systems problem. AB two three one four is a critical step towards correcting this misalignment. This bill recognizes that child care voucher programs are not static. They are living systems that respond to families in real time.
Redner 22
Contracts must be administered in a way that reflects rolling enrollment. The system must allow for timely flexibility. By aligning policy with practice, AB two three one four allows agencies like ours to enroll families as their need, ensure continuity of care, reduce unnecessary administrative burden, and maximize every available public dollar to serve families. Most importantly, ensures that situations like the one in Sonoma County where families are turned away while funds are allocated to Sonoma County remain unspent does not continue to happen. At four c Sonoma County, we're proud to be part of this system that lifts up families and supports our local workforce.
Redner 45
We have expertise and have built capacity to deliver the expanded services requested of us from the legislature and the governor. But right now, the system is asking us to make a possible choice. Please. AB two three one four helps shift the focus where it belongs from navigating bureaucracy to lifting up families. We respect of respectfully urge your support.
Redner 47
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Adonay Mac. I am the CEO of Child Action right here in Sacramento County. I wanna thank assembly member Rogers for your leadership on this bill. We believe it's really important.
This month, Child Action turns 50 years old. We serve Sacramento community for this lengthy time reaching out to families who need us. Today, we currently reach over 34,000 children, parents, and child care providers annually. Our role is simple. We help families access so parents can go to work, because quality child care impacts everything in every industry throughout our entire county and our region.
Redner 34
Earlier this year, we faced the potential to disenroll over 1,000 children and families who were eligible for our program. They were receiving care, but due to some structural issues, they were at risk for their continuity of care. They were going to lose it. It showed that even when everyone is working in good faith, our team, our member, our providers, our staff, a system can create instability. The core issue is how the system operates.
Redner 47
It can leave funds unspent while families remain on a waiting list. We have a waiting list of over 5,000 children and families, and in some cases, disrupt continuity of care. In this instance, this is not about a lack of funding. The legislature has made an important investment about our child care and investing in it. This is about ensuring that those dollars reach the families when they're needed, and that's a problem with our system.
We believe that a b twenty three fourteen improves alignment, protects continuity of care, and increases transparency. When families lose care, parents don't work, that impacts our economy. We respectfully ask for your support, for a b twenty three fourteen.
Redner 1
Thank you. Alright. Thank you very much. Do we have any members of the public who wish to just find support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone.
Redner 25
Hi. Deneen Micheletti, CEO of Thriving Families California Foundation in support.
Redner 44
Hello. I'm Christina Iftiger. I am standing in representation for the California Child Care Coordinators Association representing all 58 local child care planning councils, and we stand in support and thank the author for the amendments recently made.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now do we have any opposition to this bill? Any members of public who should testify in opposite opposition to this bill, please come forward. Seeing none, I'm bringing it back to the diocese for motions or comments, questions. Alright.
I'll invite the author to close. Great. Thanks so much.
Redner 9
I just wanna thank, committee staff for working with us on the language. Again, thank, thriving families for working with us on the language. And I do wanna also thank CDSS, when we were having these issues a couple of months ago. The department was very responsive in trying to help find a solution forward. It wasn't for lack of will, from their part.
It was the process. And so we are proud to be able to come forward now with a bill to help fix that process and make it easier, to engage with with our locals who are trying to do the right thing, trying to make sure that parents can go to work and try to make sure our kids are taken care of. With that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you very much for bringing this bill forward and working with us. I have I have recommendation. Madam secretary, please call the roll on this bill.
Redner 14
Final item 13, a b two three one four. The motion is due passed to the assembly appropriations committee. Lee?
Redner 1
Thank you. That bill's out five to zero. Assembler, Arons, we're gonna go into the Patrick Aaron show in a in a second over here so you can get situated. But can I get a motion for file number one? There wasn't a motion at the time for that one.
Okay. File number one a b twenty eighty three assembly member Jackson. That bill was moved by assembly member Calderon and seconded by assembly Rubio. Madam secretary, please call the roll on file item number one.
Redner 14
File item one, a b two zero eight three. The motion is due pass as amended to the assembly appropriations committee. Lee?
Redner 14
Lee, I. Castillo? Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye.
El Juarez? Aye. Rubio, aye. Arons? Aye.
Arons, aye. Tongapan? No. Tongapan, no.
Redner 1
And could I ask that a member move the consent calendar? That bill, file number one, is is out four to one.
Redner 1
The consent calendar is moved by assembly member Tongipa, seconded by assembly member Rubio. Madam secretary, please call the roll on the consent calendar.
Redner 37
Bills on the consent calendar, file item seven, a b one eight nine nine, Coloza. File item nine, a b 1983, Rubio. File item 14, a b two 333, Pelerin. A b file item 16, a B2535, Gallagher. File item nineteen, a b two seven six six, Aaron's.
Redner 14
Lee I. Castillo? Calderon? Aye. Calderon, I.
El Juari? Rubio? Aye. Rubio, I. Aaron's?
Aye. Aaron's, I. Tonga paw? Aye. Tonga Paw, I.
Alright.
Redner 1
That's two Aaron's bills out from the consent calendar, just so you know. Alright. So, Samoa, Aaron's, which bill did you wanna start with?
Redner 1
File item 18? Okay. If you wanna start with file item 18, it'd be $27.65.
Redner 1
Okay. File item 172764. I mean, you did very conveniently introduce all your bills sequentially, so it makes it easier, your numbers.
Redner 22
Well, good afternoon, mister chair and members. Under current state law, youth are eligible for extended foster care if they meet one of five participation conditions established by a b 12. However, certain counties, caseworkers, and judges have created requirements for participation in extended foster care programs, which exceed those in state law, including requiring thirty two hours a week of our work or school or volunteer hours beyond legal standards. This bill would address this inconsistency establishing that eligibility for extended foster care may not be denied or terminated due to education or employment requirements that exceed those specific specified in state law. I understand the importance of maintaining our social support systems for foster youth into adulthood.
By ensuring that county eligibility requirements for extended foster care programs remain consistent with statewide standards, this bill will reduce confusion and prevent vulnerable individuals from losing access to housing for dubious reasons. With me today is David Channer, CEO of Better Way, and Zan Santiago from the California Youth Connection.
Redner 6
Thank you, chair and members. My name is David Channer, president and CEO of A Better Way. We're a Bay Area organization that, among other things, provides transitional housing services. I'm also a member of the California Alliance where I work alongside many other agencies that provide the same services, and I am board president at the moment for the California Youth Connection where in all of these capacities, I see again and again youth who work tremendously hard to get through barriers just to reach 19, and then extended foster care becomes a key bridge to their futures. And we are co cap proud cosponsors of this bill along with CYC.
Redner 50
The youth who are willing at the end of an already long journey to go through hoops and fight to get the extended foster care benefits do so because they know the risks of not having them. They understand that people who leave foster care before the age of 19 face much higher rates of homelessness and that staying in foster care with the extended foster care program can decree can sorry. That if that if they stay in, it reduces their, risk of homelessness by up to eighty percent. So they know that this is something that they really are worth, that they're willing to fight for. At the same time, they have faced tremendous barriers by this time, and they don't need extra ones on top of, the already prudent state requirements for this program.
So this is a new law. It's making sure that existing laws and existing benefits are accessible and and are within reach so that these youth can secure their futures. On behalf of a better way, I respectfully, request an I vote, and thank you all very much.
Redner 46
Hey, everyone. My name is Zon Santiago, and I'm a member of California Youth Connection in the Orange and San Bernardino chapters. I was in extended foster care, and I believe AB two seven six four is important because of how many youth who rely on programs like THP, SOAP, and other extended foster care services. Right now, there's too many barriers to accessing these programs. Requirements vary by county.
Redner 51
We often have to wait for social worker approval, and there's additional rules that aren't even in state law. These obstacles make it difficult for young people to fully engage in programs that are meant to support them. Another major issue is long wait list. Youth can spend months waiting with no clear timeline for when help will become available. That kind of delay matters.
When young people are ready for housing instability, they should be wait they shouldn't be waiting months or be denied support because of where they're from. This issue is even more challenging for youth with disabilities or additional needs. The more requirements that exist, the harder it becomes for them to qualify, remain in these programs. The youth who need the most support often face the greatest barriers, which doesn't make any sense. If a b two seven six four is passed, it creates statewide eligibility standards, expand access to housing, programs across counties, and help protect young adults from homelessness.
And assures that where you come from doesn't determine whether you receive the support you need.
Redner 1
Great. Thank you. Now do we have members of the public who wish to express their support for the bill? Please come into the microphone.
Redner 7
Adrienne Shelton, representing the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, proud cosponsor in support. Thank you.
Redner 19
Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support. Good afternoon, chair members. Tiffany Fan on behalf of California Court of Porn and Special Advocate Association, or CAL CASA, in support. Thank you.
Redner 44
Valerie Cain from John Burton Advocates for Youth, proud cosponsor as well, and strong support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Do we have any opposition to this bill? Nope. Do we have any members of the public who wish to come testify in opposition to the bill? Alright.
Seeing none, bring back to committee. The bill was moved by assemblyman Rubio. Any questions or comments? Okay. I'll invite the author to close.
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. It has an eye recommendation for me, and it was moved by Assembly Rubio, seconded by Assembly Calderon. Madam secretary, please call the roll on a b twenty seven sixty four.
Redner 14
Rubio, aye. Arons? Aye. Arons, aye. Tongapaw?
Not voting. Tongapaw not voting.
Redner 1
That bill has four votes. We and it is out. We'll leave the roll open for APSA members. Alright. File item 18, a b twenty seven sixty five.
Go ahead when you're ready.
Redner 22
Thank you, mister chair and members. HR one, the big ugly bill, will do nothing but put hundreds of thousands of our most vulnerable coworkers, neighbors, and friends at more risk of hunger and poverty. AB twenty seven sixty five directs the California State Department of Social Services to seek a waiver for the able-bodied adult without dependent three month time limit and changes to the special needs allowance formula multiplier from $10 per person per month to $15 per person per month while expanding eligibility. As someone who has faced a hunt food and hunger insecurity, as a young adult, and as a child, it's an imperative that we must do all that we can to protect and shield our youth from the inhumane challenges of hunger that are harshly imposed by HR one. With me today in testimony is Corina Ortiz, an individual who has lived experience as a foster youth from Los Angeles, and Tiffany Whiting, senior government, governmental associate at SEIU California State Council.
Redner 39
Hello. Good morning. My name is good morning. My name is Karine Ortiz. I am a former foster youth from the Los Angeles County to here today to speak on support of the a b two seven six five.
As a former foster youth who has aged out of the system and had to learn how to survive on my own at a young age while still trying to stay in school and build a better future for myself. I want to speak painfully about what it means to age out of foster care right now. We are expected to become fully independent overnight, finding housing, secure jobs, stay in school, and build a future. Without the safety net, most young people rely on, no family to fall back, no room for error. And even under those condition, we as foster youth still push forward, but now we're being set up to fail.
Under HR one's work requirements, foster youth risk losing food assistance after three months. Let me be clear. Many of us will not be able to meet these requirements, not because we aren't trying, but because the system we're coming out of has not given us the right stability or resources to do so. So what will happen then? What were we supposed to go out if food runs out?
Redner 2
Hunger does doesn't have a time limit, neither should food assistance, especially with the lack of support. AB two seven six five will help ensure that California uses every available tool to protect foster youth from these cuts by maximizing expectations, seeking federal waivers, and increasing the statewide special needs allowance per month. California has a responsibility to lead and not abandon foster youth. I respectfully urge you to support a b two seven six five so that no young person leaving foster care like myself is forced to go hungry because of policies that fail to recognize our reality. Thank you for your time.
Redner 48
Tiffany White with SCAU California, proud cosponsors of the bill. Really, our intent here is to protect those 14 to 18 and our foster youth and respectfully ask for your I vote here to answer any technical questions you may have.
Redner 1
Awesome. Thank you. Now do we have members of the public who wish to, express their support for the bill? Please come into microphone.
Redner 37
Yes. Senora Robancho with End Child Poverty in California, proud sponsors, also including California Association of Food Banks in support.
Redner 7
Adrienne Shelton representing the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.
Redner 43
Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. Sorry. We didn't have a chance to get our letter in, but wanna register our support now. Thank you. David
Redner 1
Thank you. Now do we have any primary witnesses opposition? Any members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill? Please come forward. Seeing and hearing none, we'll bring you back to the committee.
The bill the bill was moved and seconded, but any questions or comments? Somebody else? Wari? Okay.
Redner 43
I just wanna thank the witness for sharing your story as a foster youth. It's really powerful that you're here to advocate on behalf of not only yourself, but so many others in this situation. Thank you for just continuing to make sure that your voice is heard and that we get to really center the folks who are gonna be most impacted in this work that we're doing. And especially to the author, who's a former foster youth himself, and all the work that he's doing, I love just to be able to support. And if I'm not already, I'd
Redner 1
you. And I see your coauthored request from Assembly Rubio too. Assembly to Tanguipa?
Redner 13
No. Well, again, well, I understand the intent from the author, and you and I sympathize. And we just look at things differently. But the main thing for me is, especially when I look at the definition of able-bodied, working adults, I mean, the minimum requirement, and especially on the twenty hours per week, is either paid employment, volunteer work, job training, education, work fair, or a combination of any of the above. And, well, again, I've grown up on benefits, and and I understand, a lot of the stories out there.
I ran away from home when I was 14 years old. And, you know, for me, it's where we've gotta make sure that we don't perpetuate poverty. As I've grown up and I was caught myself in the social safety net with all the benefits that I was on, but a lot of it seems like we are creating a social safety hammock. And it may not apply to individual cases, but it does apply in the whole. And I remember when I was asking a year ago before HR one and the big beautiful bill, do we measure how many people come off of social benefits?
Redner 19
And what was given to me was no. So if we're not even measuring, if we're successfully pulling people out of poverty, how do we know what we're doing right now is working? And while I understand that HR one is making some large scale changes, adding something as simple as for an able-bodied, non dependent adult, a minimum of twenty hours in whether it's paid employment, volunteer, job training, education, work fair, or any combination of it, I don't think that that's a hard thing to ask for. And, you know, for me, I I'm in opposition to this bill, and and it's just from understanding. You know, we've got to figure out and measure something that pulls people out of abject poverty and not perpetuates poverty.
Redner 13
And so well, I thank the author, and I understand the intent respectfully in opposition of this.
Redner 1
Alright. Any other questions, comments for members? Seeing none, I'll let the author oh, someone called around. Go for it.
Redner 38
Yes. I just wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward, and I'd love to be added as a coauthor.
Redner 22
Thank you, colleagues and members. You know, I I can think of nothing more important in my time in the legislature than to spend fighting and advocating for hunger and homelessness in our foster youth. Because of this, h r one, the big ugly bill, approximately 610,000 CalFresh beneficiaries will be subject to these onerous work requirements. These are veterans. These are people experiencing homelessness that are being attacked by the federal government.
This is not a policy debate. This is cruel. This is not measuring data or keeping people in poverty. This is, this is reckless behavior by the federal government, and, I will consider it my life's work to defend against anyone, who is being attacked, for being poor, and, I'm very proud to author these set of foster bills to protect as many people as we can from the fascist regime. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much, Erins, for authoring this bill as well. I agree that while there needs to be more focus on metric success from the big BS bill, we definitely know what the metrics of failure are. There are quantifiable amounts of people who are going to be disqualified, who are, like you said, veterans and different categories of folks. But, also, we've seen from other states have adopted this that it's all deliberately to basically kill people by a thousand cuts of paperwork as well. And those eliminate people from the program altogether.
And just because they're not on a social safe net doesn't mean they're successful economically. So I appreciate you bringing this bill, and I appreciate Karina for coming all the way here, sharing your testimony and your story, and I have an eye recommendation on this bill. The bill was moved by assembly member Rubio, second by assembly member Al Hawari. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 14
File item 18 a b two seven six five. The motion is due passed to the assembly appropriations committee. Lee?
Redner 14
Elhawari I. Rubio? Aye. Aye. Rubio, aye.
Arons? Aye. Arons, aye. Tongapaw? No.
Tongapaw, no.
Redner 1
Four to one, that bill is out. Alright. Similarly, Arons, we are on the last bill of the hearing. Oh, sorry. That bill was five to one.
That bill is out. And we are on the last bill of the hearing and the last bill of this Patrick Aaron show, filen number twenty, a b twenty seven sixty seven, and you may begin.
Redner 22
Thank you. Thank you, mister chair and members, for, your patience. Thank you to the committee staff for their hard work on this bill. There's no one no committee staff that works harder than than this committee staff in the legislature, and, and we can tell by the committee analysis how much heart and care that you bring. I'm happy to accept the committee amendments, and you have my commitment to continue to work on the finer details of this bill.
AB twenty seven sixty seven clarifies when family finding activities can begin in the timeline of a foster care case. Current law states that family finding must occur within thirty days of removal of a child from their home. However, there are different legal interpretations if family finding can be pre removal can begin pre removal of a child. Different legal interpretations introduce disparities and inequities in care. Disparities in uniting foster kids with kin or family is not just a timeline or equity issue.
It also delays the start of lifelong positive relationships with adults and role models for our state's foster youth. Being someone who is in the foster care system, it is clear to me that we must ensure kids who are removed from their homes are supported as early as possible with kin first care. With me today?
Redner 49
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. My name is Lynea Nelson. I'm a foster adoptive parent in Oakland and the senior directing attorney for the Quality Parenting Initiative of the Youth Law Center, proud sponsor of AB twenty seven sixty seven. Children belong in families. When they cannot safely remain with their relatives I'm sorry.
Redner 35
When they cannot safely remain with their parents, relatives and kin who already know and love them are almost always the best alternative. AB twenty seven sixty seven is about making sure we don't wait too long to find those people. Too often, family finding happens late after a child has experienced multiple moves or after they end up in temporary shelters when they first come into care. AB twenty seven sixty seven addresses that gap by reinforcing something we know works. Family finding must begin as early as possible so there is a plan once the child enters the system.
Redner 49
The bill also addresses equity. Right now, whether family finding happens early or at all can depend on the county where a child lives. AB twenty seven sixty seven creates consistent expectations across counties so every child has the same opportunity to stay connected to family. We wanna thank assembly member Aaron's for championing this issue and the committee for assisting with language to clarify the bill's intent and to address privacy issues. I respectfully urge your I vote.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now do we have any members of the public who should just find support of the bill? Please come to microphone.
Redner 1
Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any mayors of public who should testify in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bring it back to committee for questions, comments, or motions. Assembly member Elhore?
Thank you
Redner 26
again to the author for just your thoughtful legislation around foster care. I'm a foster mom, and I'm so proud to be able to be a foster mother, but I also recognize the importance of having had my daughter be able to find family. And I think what the system really failed at was trying to figure out other ways of being able to place her. It gets a push and push and push. And, ultimately, she was already in her late teens.
But I think it's just really makes a difference to be able to have, standards that really ensure that young people who are removed are able to find and stay with their families. So thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much for bringing the bill forward, and thank you for working with my committee staff. They are indeed the hardest working committee staff in the building. I'm not not biased whatsoever, So, thank you for that. And this is a I recommendation for me. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 14
File item 20, a b two seven six seven, the motion is due pass as amended to the assembly appropriations committee. Lee?
Redner 14
Lee, I. Castillo? Calderon? Calderon, I. Eljwari?
Aye. Eljwari, I. Rubio? Aaron's? Aye.
Aaron's, Tonga Pa? Aye. Tonga Pa, I.
Redner 1
Five to zero. That bill is out. Alright. So members, we will go back to members that have, missed file items, but that was the last item on the agenda today. So I wanna thank the members for participating, and thank you so much for seconding so many bills today, making so many motions.
I look forward to you making a motion on the budget too. It'd be great. It'd be great. It's supporting the budget. Supporting one?
Redner 14
On the consent calendar, current vote is five to zero. El Hwari? Aye. El Hwari, aye. Final vote on the consent calendar, six to zero.
Redner 1
Alright. And may I ask, actually, if we can go through the agenda today to get the absent members?
Redner 14
Final item one, a b two zero eight three. The current vote is four to one. Elhwari?
Redner 14
Elhwari aye. Final vote, five to one. File item two, a b one five seven nine. Current vote is six to zero. Calderon?
Aye. Calderon aye. Final vote, seven to zero. File item three, a b one six two eight. Current vote is six to zero.
Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye. Final vote, seven to zero. File item 4AB1634.
The current vote is two to one. Calderon?
Redner 14
Calderon not voting. Rubio. Final vote, two to one. File item 5AB163 I'm sorry, 1643. The current vote is six to zero.
Calderon? Aye. Calderon aye. Final vote, 7 to zero. File item 6AB1608.
Current vote is five to zero. Calderon?
Redner 14
Calderon aye. Final vote, six to zero. File item 8AB1914. Current vote is four to one. Calderrone?
Redner 14
Calderrone aye. Final vote, five to one. File item 10, a b two one seven one was testimony only. File item 11, a b two two five eight. Current vote is five to zero.
Elhwari? Aye. Elhwari, aye. Final vote, six to zero. File item 12, a B2309, current vote is four to zero.
Eljwari?
Redner 14
Eljwari, aye. Rubio? Final vote, five to zero. File item 13, a B2314, current vote is five to zero. Castillo?
El Joari? Aye. El Joari aye. Final vote, six to zero. Final item 15, a B2395, current vote is four to zero.
Calderon? Aye. Calderon aye. Final vote, five to zero. File item 17, AB2764.
Current vote is four to zero. Elhwari? Aye. Elhwari aye. Final vote, five to zero.
File item 18, final vote, five to one. File item 20, a b two seven six seven, current vote is five to zero. Castillo Rubio, final vote, five to zero.
Redner 1
That concludes today's business on the Assembly Human Service Committee. This committee is adjourned.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.