When we talk about domestic violence, the conversation often narrows to what happens behind closed doors. But that framing misses the public systems that quietly — sometimes cruelly — shape the decisions about whether someone can leave, heal, and rebuild.
Tracee Michelle Porter, one of our Solís Policy Institute fellows, had a piece published last week on AB 969 in the Sacramento Bee, called Here’s how California can do better for domestic violence survivors. It’s about the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, originally designed to help families in need, but when it comes to survivors, it has clearly failed.
Here’s the core problem: CalWORKs has rules that can put survivors in danger. Many survivors may be required to seek child support from their abuser or to meet rigid work requirements while in crisis. Federal law actually allows states to waive those rules for survivors. But California’s implementation of those waivers is failing—inconsistent from county to county, hidden from the people who need it most, and unavailable to entire groups like disabled survivors on supplemental security income (SSI).
View this post on Instagram
AB 969, authored by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez and co-authored by Senator María Elena Durazo, would change that. A survivor-centered bill, AB 969 would standardize the waiver process statewide, requiring counties to tell people about their rights, and expand eligibility so no survivor is excluded simply because of where they live or which benefits they receive.
As Tracee says, “I wrote this piece to call attention to the barriers countless survivors—especially Black, Brown, immigrant, disabled, and poor women—face when seeking safety. California says it protects survivors, but the fine print often says otherwise.” Without AB 969, survivors are left to navigate an arbitrary maze at exactly the moment their lives are most precarious.
And this is unfolding in the middle of a funding collapse. Cuts to the federal Crime Victims Fund — until recently worsened by DOJ restrictions on mentioning race, gender, or LGBTQ+ survivors, which a federal court has now blocked — are forcing California organizations to choose between solvency and their values.
The stakes are clear: either California shores up its safety net now, or it watches more survivors fall through the gaps. AB 969 is a test of whether we can move from progressive rhetoric to progressive governance.