Assembly Concurrent Resolution 86 is a ceremonial measure that recognizes stuttering, frames it as a form of speech diversity, and urges public support for people who stutter. The resolution collects findings about prevalence, emotional effects, and existing advocacy work, and asks Californians to participate in awareness activities.
The measure does not appropriate money or create enforceable duties; it instead serves as a visibility tool for advocacy groups, schools, clinicians, and local governments. For stakeholders evaluating operational impact, the only explicit administrative step is the Legislature’s instruction to transmit copies of the resolution for distribution.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes a commemorative observance recognizing stuttering and sets out legislative findings about its prevalence, impacts, and history of advocacy. The resolution encourages public participation and inclusiveness but does not change statutory rights or funding.
Who It Affects
People who stutter and their families gain public recognition; advocacy organizations and clinicians receive a visibility boost they can use for outreach. Local governments, schools, and community groups are invited (but not required) to hold events or awareness activities.
Why It Matters
Ceremonial recognition reduces stigma, legitimizes advocacy messaging, and can be a low-cost lever to increase public- and private-sector attention to communication disorders. Practically, it creates an occasion advocacy groups can cite when seeking partnerships or discretionary support.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
ACR 86 compiles a set of ‘whereas’ findings—statistical estimates, statements about emotional and professional impacts, and historical notes about prior national proclamations—and uses those recitals to justify a formal observance. The core operative language asks Californians to support the stuttering community and to observe a named awareness week; it does not direct agencies to adopt regulations, allocate funds, or create programs.
Because the measure is a concurrent resolution, its legal effect is declarative, not regulatory. It carries the persuasive weight of the Legislature’s voice: state and local actors may choose to follow the suggestion, and private organizations can use the designation to promote events or education, but no legal compulsion or budgetary authorization follows from the text.The resolution also includes a small administrative instruction—transmit copies of the resolution to the author for distribution—and is filed with the Secretary of State as Chapter 107.
That procedural language is typical for ceremonial resolutions and produces negligible fiscal or operational impact for state agencies.In practice, the resolution’s value will be measured by how advocacy groups, school districts, clinical networks, and local governments mobilize around the observance. Organizations can leverage the state’s recognition to run public education, workplace inclusion trainings, or school outreach; conversely, the designation may highlight gaps where stakeholders will press for concrete resources in subsequent budget or policy proposals.
The Five Things You Need to Know
ACR 86 is an Assembly Concurrent Resolution (No. 86) that the Legislature adopted as a ceremonial declaration.
The resolution designates May 9–15, 2025 as National Stuttering Acceptance Awareness Week in California.
The text contains multiple recitals: it cites that roughly 1% of the world’s population stutters and about 3,000,000 Americans do so, and it frames stuttering as a form of speech diversity.
The measure contains no appropriation, does not create enforceable rights or regulatory duties, and the legislative record indicates no fiscal committee referral.
The resolution directs the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to transmit copies to the author for appropriate distribution and is filed with the Secretary of State as Chapter 107.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings on prevalence, impacts, and history
The resolution’s preamble assembles factual and normative statements—prevalence estimates, descriptions of emotional and professional harms, recognition of advocacy work, and a historical reference to a 1988 presidential proclamation. Those findings function as the Legislature’s rationale for the observance and supply advocacy groups with a concise legislative record they can cite in outreach or fundraising.
Ceremonial observance and encouragement
The operative clause proclaims a week of observance and encourages Californians to support the stuttering community. Because the language is hortatory—inviting action rather than commanding it—it creates public recognition but imposes no new legal duties on state agencies, local governments, employers, or schools.
Transmission and filing
The final clause instructs the Chief Clerk to provide copies of the resolution to the author for distribution; the resolution was filed with the Secretary of State as Chapter 107. This is a minimal procedural direction common to ceremonial measures and signals that the Legislature expected the author and advocacy groups to use the document for publicity and outreach.
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
- People who stutter — receive increased public recognition and reduced stigma, which can improve social inclusion and access to community support.
- Advocacy organizations (state and local) — gain a formal state-level reference point to promote events, recruit volunteers, and support grant applications or private fundraising.
- Schools and speech-language pathology providers — receive an occasion to organize educational programs and outreach that can identify students in need of services and promote supportive classroom practices.
- Families and caregivers — get heightened public awareness that can translate into greater community understanding and informal support networks.
- Employers and HR practitioners — obtain a low-cost entry point to enhance inclusion training and workplace accommodations, using the observance as a rationale to review communication-access practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- Legislative staff and the Chief Clerk’s office — assume minimal administrative duties to file and distribute copies; costs are procedural and typically absorbed within existing budgets.
- Advocacy groups and nonprofits — may face short-term resource strain if demand for events, counseling, or information spikes after the proclamation and they lack immediate funding to scale services.
- Local governments and school districts that choose to act — any outreach, training, or events prompted by the observance will require staff time and possibly discretionary funds.
- Healthcare providers and clinics — may encounter increased referrals or requests for speech services, creating capacity pressures absent additional funding or staffing.
- Employers asked to expand inclusion training — could incur training costs or administrative burden if they respond to the observance with new programs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between recognition and resourcing: ACR 86 boosts visibility and can reduce stigma, but without funding or binding mandates it risks becoming a symbolic substitute for the concrete programs, staffing, and insurance or educational supports people who stutter often need.
The most consequential limitation of ACR 86 is its ceremonial form: the resolution signals legislative support but does not allocate funds or mandate programs. That makes it a useful publicity tool but a poor instrument, by itself, to close service gaps.
Stakeholders should not expect the observance alone to change access to clinical services, school-based supports, or health insurance coverage.
The resolution’s framing choices also create trade-offs. Presenting stuttering as ‘speech diversity’ emphasizes inclusion and destigmatization, but it leaves open how stuttering will be treated in disability-policy contexts where medical classification may matter for eligibility and accommodations.
Finally, because the text ‘encourages’ action rather than directing it, the outcome will depend entirely on private organizations and local actors choosing to follow through—an uneven implementation path that risks symbolic recognition without commensurate investment in services or measurable outcomes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.