AB 96 sets out the definitional foundation for a certification framework for peer support specialists by defining key terms used in the chapter: “community health worker,” “community-defined,” “core competencies,” “cultural competence,” “lived experience,” and “specialty certificate.” The text explicitly subsumes peer support specialists under the community health worker umbrella (referencing Section 14045.12), enumerates a detailed 11-item core competency list, and identifies the Department of Health Care Access and Information as the department referenced in the chapter.
Why this matters: definitions drive program design. By specifying what counts as lived experience, what core skills a CHW must have, and creating a category for specialty certificates, AB 96 shapes who can qualify for state certification, what training curricula must cover, and how community-rooted practices will be treated relative to empirically validated approaches.
Those choices will affect workforce pipelines, training providers, community organizations, and how behavioral health services integrate peer roles into care teams.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 96 provides statutory definitions that will govern certification and training standards for community health workers and peer support specialists. It lists 11 core competencies, recognizes community-defined practices, and creates a mechanism for program-specific specialty certificates.
Who It Affects
Directly affects peer support specialists, Promotores and other frontline non‑licensed health workers, training and credentialing organizations, state program managers, and health providers that employ CHWs in behavioral health or social services programs.
Why It Matters
Precision in definitions determines certification scope, curriculum requirements, and eligibility for training funding or reimbursement. By enshrining lived experience and community-defined practices, the bill privileges community legitimacy alongside technical skills — which will influence recruiting, supervision, and integration of CHWs into clinical settings.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The section supplied by AB 96 is the blueprint language the state will use when it builds a certification program for peer support specialists and other community health workers. Rather than creating procedures or fees, the text focuses on meaning: it says which job titles and functions are included, what knowledge and skills count as foundational, how cultural competence should be understood, and what counts as lived experience.
Those definitional choices set boundaries for later implementing regulations, curricula, and credentialing tests.
The bill acknowledges both evidence-based practice and community-led practice by defining “community-defined” practices as those accepted by a community regardless of whether they have been measured empirically. That gives regulators permission to incorporate traditions and locally validated approaches alongside formal public health methods.
The core competencies list — 11 discrete domains such as communication, advocacy, outreach, and evaluation — gives a content map for training programs and exam designers.On lived experience, AB 96 adopts a broad approach, listing numerous examples (from homelessness and substance use to military service and LGBTQ+ status) and requiring that a community health worker’s lived experience align with the population they serve. The text also notes that individuals whose lived experience involves behavioral health conditions may require additional training on how to use that experience appropriately in a recovery-support role.
Finally, the statute introduces the concept of a specialty certificate as a higher-level, program-specific credential with tailored learning objectives.Taken together, these definitions create a framework that the Department of Health Care Access and Information (named in the text) will use to write implementing rules: deciding who can be certified, what courses or practicum are required, whether waivers exist for experience in lieu of formal training, and how specialty certificates will be issued. Because the bill is concentrated on definitions, many operational questions — testing standards, fees, accreditation of trainers, reciprocity, and continuing education — are left for subsequent regulation or program design.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill explicitly includes peer support specialists within the statutory definition of community health worker (it references peer support specialists as defined in Section 14045.12).
AB 96 enumerates 11 core competencies (communication; interpersonal/relationship-building; service coordination/navigation; capacity building; advocacy; education/facilitation; individual/community assessment; outreach; professional skills/conduct; evaluation/research; and knowledge base including public health and social determinants).
It recognizes “community-defined” practices — community-accepted methods that may lack empirical measurement — as legitimate for use in the chapter’s programs.
The statute defines lived experience broadly with multiple examples and requires that a CHW’s lived experience align with the community served; it also flags that behavioral-health lived experience may require extra training on using that experience safely in recovery support.
AB 96 creates a separate concept of a “specialty certificate” for focused, program-specific training that goes beyond the foundational core competencies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Community‑defined practices: community legitimacy over empirical proof
This subsection gives statutory recognition to practices that communities have used and accepted over time even if they have not been subjected to formal empirical testing. For implementers, that language clears the way to include culturally rooted methods and locally developed interventions in training curricula or program models without requiring randomized trials or academic validation.
Community health worker: who is included and why it matters
The bill casts a wide net: CHWs include Promotores, Community Health Representatives, navigators, peer support specialists (per Section 14045.12), violence prevention professionals, and other nonlicensed frontline workers. The definition ties the role to bridging health/social services and the community and requires that a CHW’s lived experience ‘‘align with and provide a connection to the community being served.’’ Practically, this will influence eligibility rules, hiring preferences, and how agencies document a candidate’s suitability for certification.
Core competencies: a concrete curriculum map
This provision lists 11 domains that constitute the foundational knowledge and skills for CHWs. Because the list ranges from communication to evaluation and knowledge of social determinants, training programs will need to design modules across clinical-adjacent and community-oriented topics. Credentialing bodies will be able to use this enumeration to set learning objectives, exam content areas, and practicum expectations.
Cultural competence: system-level expectations
The statute defines cultural competence at the system or agency level, not just individual behavior. That framing implies certification and program standards may extend to employer practices, language access, and organizational policies — not solely worker skills. Regulators and funders can therefore require evidence that agencies using CHWs also pursue structural adaptations to serve diverse populations.
Department designation and specialty certificates
The bill names the Department of Health Care Access and Information as the ‘‘Department’’ referenced throughout the chapter, signaling which agency will write implementing rules. It also creates the ‘‘specialty certificate’’ concept: a higher-level, focused credential with learning objectives tailored to distinct program and population needs. This gives the Department latitude to authorize stacked credentials or program-specific endorsements.
Lived experience: breadth and training caveat
The lived experience definition lists many examples and makes two operational points: that lived experience should connect a worker to the served community, and that those with behavioral‑health lived experience may need additional training on how to use that experience in support roles. That language invites regulators to set limits on peer-delivered interventions and to require safeguards such as supervision, boundaries training, or competency checks for those workers.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Peer support specialists and other CHWs — receive statutory recognition and a curriculum framework that can translate into formal certification, better integration with health systems, and potential pathways to stable employment.
- Community‑based organizations and Promotores programs — gain clearer standards to design training and argue for funding or reimbursement when roles are defined in statute.
- Training institutions and workforce development programs — will see demand for new courses and specialty certificate programs tied to the 11 core competencies and program-focused certificates.
- Clients in marginalized communities — stand to get services that explicitly incorporate cultural competence and community-aligned practices, improving access and relevance of behavioral health supports.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Health Care Access and Information — must draft regulations, create certification processes, and oversee specialty certificates, which requires staffing and budget allocations.
- Employers and service providers (including small CBOs) — face costs to align hiring, supervision, and training with the new competency framework and to support staff through any required certification or specialty coursework.
- Training providers and colleges — must develop new curricula, competency assessments, and possibly practicum placements to meet the statutory competencies and specialty certificate designs.
- Prospective CHWs and peer specialists — may incur time and expense to obtain foundational certifications or specialty certificates, unless the state subsidizes training or recognizes equivalent experience.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to formalize community-rooted peer roles to achieve consistency, professional recognition, and integration into health systems, at the risk of excluding or diluting grassroots practitioners who lack formal credentials. Standardization promotes quality and portability but can impose barriers that undermine the very community connection that makes CHWs effective.
AB 96 is concentrated on definitions rather than procedural detail, which creates two implementation challenges. First, the law legitimizes community-defined practices and broad lived experience but gives little guidance on assessment standards, competency thresholds, or how to reconcile community practices with clinical safety requirements; regulators will need to create objective criteria without abandoning community legitimacy.
Second, the requirement that lived experience ‘‘align with’’ the served community and the caveat about additional training for behavioral-health lived experience create potential gatekeeping points: policymakers must decide whether to accept years of community work in lieu of formal coursework and how to certify judgment and safety for peers who rely on personal recovery narratives.
There are also practical fiscal and legal ambiguities left unresolved. The statute does not specify fee structures, timelines for rolling out certifications, continuing education requirements, supervision models, or malpractice and scope-of-practice boundaries — all issues that affect employers, insurers, and courts.
Finally, by naming the Department of Health Care Access and Information as implementer without budget language, the bill assumes administrative capacity; absent funding, the effectiveness of the framework could be limited or uneven across regions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.