Appropriations Committee advances amended human-trafficking bill that raises penalties, creates survivor fund

Assemblymember Schultz presented Assembly Bill 379 on May 7 before the Assembly Appropriations Committee, saying the bill strengthens penalties and victim supports for human trafficking and solicitation offenses. “With the amendments before you today, AB 379 makes the following changes,” Schultz said, listing expanded sentencing authority, new loitering offenses, upgraded fines for businesses, and a survivor-support grant funded by collected penalties.

The bill would: authorize felony punishment (a “wobbler,” meaning a prosecutor could charge felony or misdemeanor) for solicitation of a minor when the adult is more than three years older than the minor; create a misdemeanor loitering-with-intent offense related to commercial sex; require people convicted of solicitation who receive probation to take a required educational program; increase civil penalties available against establishments that allow trafficking from the current ranges to higher maximums (for example, raising some fines from $1,000–$10,000 to $3,000–$25,000 as stated by the author); deposit collected fines into a Survivor Support Fund administered through a new grant program at the California Victim Compensation Board; and create a vertical-prosecution grant program to encourage local district attorneys to staff specialized units that follow trafficking matters from investigation through prosecution.

Survivors and community organizations offered extended opposition testimony in the hearing. Maxine Dugan, identified as a long-time sex worker and speaker for a service-providers legal education project, said enforcement tends to fall on people of color and low-income people and criticized the reliance on fines and enforcement-focused interventions that she said lacked accountability. Sonoma, executive director and co-founder of the Sidewalk Project and identified as a survivor, described a participant who was killed during a police encounter and said that criminalization and increased law enforcement focus would not protect survivors; Sonoma urged a public-health approach and asked the committee to oppose the bill.

Other opposition witnesses included representatives of community organizations and survivors who said the bill risks criminalizing people who have been trafficked or who do sex work to survive, that fines and enforcement historically fall on marginalized communities, and that prevention requires housing and services rather than expanded criminal penalties. The ACLU California Action was also recorded as opposing.

Committee members questioned the author about implementation and funding. In response, Schultz said he supported vertical-prosecution grants and would work with budget chairs to secure funding; he also emphasized prosecutors have longstanding tools (citing Penal Code section 288.3) and noted data showing limited historic use of the specific loitering statute addressed in the bill (the author said there were fewer than 10 arrests statewide in 2023 under the referenced penal section and approximately five convictions, per California Department of Justice data cited in committee). Committee members expressed divergent views: some called the bill a step forward that should be funded with budgeting priorities for victim services; others said further changes were needed to ensure children and survivors are fully protected and not further harmed by criminal enforcement.

Schultz closed by saying the bill “substantially improves our approach to combating human trafficking and child exploitation in the state of California” while acknowledging it will continue to be amended. The committee moved the bill forward on a roll call; the transcript records members not voting at the time of the initial roll call and subsequent vote changes noted in the record. The committee’s record shows the measure advanced out of the committee for further consideration.

Why it matters: AB 379 combines criminal-law changes, civil enforcement authority against businesses, and a proposal to funnel civil penalties into survivor services. Opponents said the enforcement focus risks harming the communities the bill intends to protect and asked for more investment in housing and survivor-centered services. Supporters and the author highlighted stronger prosecutorial tools and new funding for survivor grants and vertical prosecution as necessary to hold traffickers and complicit businesses accountable.

What’s next: The author said he will work with budget leaders to request funding for the proposed vertical-prosecution grant program and engage with stakeholders to refine the bill as it moves through the legislative process.