Existing law prohibits discrimination in any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state, or by any state agency, that is funded directly by the state, or that receives any financial assistance from the state, based upon specified personal characteristics.

This bill would also prohibit discrimination based upon housing status, as defined.

Date of Hearing: April 26, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 920

Author:(Bryan) – As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill would add “housing status” to the list of protected characteristics in Government Code section 11135, which prohibits any program administered or funded by the state from denying full and complete benefits to, or otherwise discriminating against, someone on the basis of certain protected characteristics. The bill defines “housing status” to mean the status of experiencing homelessness.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Costs in the low millions of dollars (General Fund) for staffing for the Civil Rights Department (CRD) to review and investigate incoming complaints of discrimination based on housing status, and to conciliate, mediate, or prosecute those complaints of discrimination. As discussed below, costs are somewhat uncertain because they are dependent on the number of complaints of discrimination based on housing status received by CRD.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author:

Adding housing status to California’s anti-discrimination law advances the civil rights of people who are unfairly discriminated against simply because they are experiencing homelessness. It will help to ensure that our broader solution framework for solving homelessness continues to be rooted in care, supportive services, compassion, affordable housing, and local innovations that build on the core needs of people who are unhoused – while simultaneously protecting our most vulnerable neighbors from senseless discrimination that runs counter to those goals.

1. Prohibited Discrimination. California has a robust network of laws protecting against discrimination. One of those laws, Government Code section 11135, provides that no one shall, on the basis of certain protected characteristics, be denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or subject to unlawful discrimination under, any program that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state, or is funded or receives financial assistance from the state. Characteristics and conditions protected by this law are sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, age, mental disability, physical disability, mental condition, genetic information, marital status, and sexual orientation. This bill would add “housing status,” defined as the status of experiencing homelessness, to the list of characteristics protected by Government Code section 11135. The bill would prohibit any program administered or funded by the state from discriminating against someone because they are experiencing homelessness, and prohibit the program from using someone’s homelessness as a basis for denying them full and equal access to benefits provided by the program.
2. Enforcement of Discrimination Complaints. CRD is responsible for enforcing Government Code section 11135 by investigating complaints of unlawful discrimination and resolving them through conciliation, mediation, or prosecution. Under this bill, if a person submits a complaint to CRD stating they were unlawfully denied full access to a benefit provided by a state-funded program because of their housing status, CRD must investigate the complaint and, if it has merit, resolve the complaint, often through mediation or prosecution by CRD personnel. Alternatively, a person may enforce Government Code section 11135 by filing a civil lawsuit against a state-funded program that unlawfully discriminated against them based on their housing status.

Costs resulting from CRD’s enforcement of this bill are somewhat uncertain because they depend on the number of complaints submitted to CRD alleging unlawful discrimination due to housing status. CRD reports it receives fewer than 50 complaints annually under Government Code section 11135, but CRD anticipates this bill’s new protection for housing status may spur a significant increase in the number of complaints filed with CRD. Although the number of future complaints that will be made as a result of this bill is unknowable, given the magnitude of the homelessness crisis in California, CRD’s prediction of an increase in claims resulting from this bill seems reasonable.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 28, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Brian Maienschein, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 920

Author:(Bryan) – As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2023

SUBJECT: Discrimination: housing status

KEY ISSUE: should “housing status” be added to lists of protected characteristics in the statute that prohibIts state-operated and state-funded programs from discriminating on the basis of those characteristics?

SYNOPSIS

Existing law provides that no person shall be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any state-operated or state-funded program or activity on the basis of certain protected characteristics, including sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, age, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation. This bill would add “housing status” to this list of protected characteristics. The bill defines “housing status” to mean the status of experiencing homelessness, which in turn is defined in reference to other state and federal statutes and regulations. Beneath these layers of definitions, “homelessness” means what we usually think it means: an individual or family that does not have a primary nighttime residence that is designed to be residence (i.e. not a subway station or similar structure). The definition also includes persons living in a temporary shelter, who would be homeless but for the shelter.

The author’s background information documents the general problems that the homeless face, not least of which are the indignities and violence they encounter on a daily basis. This bill, of course, cannot address all of the problems; rather, it is a more measured response that seeks to end discrimination against the homeless in state-operated or state-funded programs or activities. Apparently, the author and supporters are primarily concerned with state-funded housing and safety net programs, particularly ones that have an address requirement. This does not mean that people experiencing homelessness would automatically qualify for those programs; but it does mean that the benefits of such programs could not be denied to an individual for no other reason than their housing status. The bill is supported by dozens of social justice groups and those who advocate for the homeless and the poor. There is no registered opposition to this bill.

SUMMARY: Adds “housing status” to list of protected characteristics in Government Code Section 11135. Specifically, this bill:

1. Adds “housing status” to the list of protected characteristics in Government Code Section 11135, which provides that no person shall be denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any state-operated or state-funded program on the basis of the following protected characteristics: sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, age, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation.
2. Defines “housing status” for purposes of the above to mean the status of experiencing homelessness, as defined in specified state and federal statutes and regulations.

EXISTING LAW provides that no person shall be denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any state-operated or state-funded program on the basis of the following protected characteristics: sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, age, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation. (Government Code Section 11135.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: According to the author, the “routine discrimination against unhoused people runs counter to our state’s important goal of providing dignified housing and care for all Californians, including our most vulnerable neighbors who are experiencing homelessness.” In support of AB 920, the author contends:

[AB 920] will protect unhoused people from being targeted, persecuted, or denied access to programs and benefits by the state, or a state-funded agency, simply because of their housing status. Adding housing status to California’s anti-discrimination law advances the civil rights of people who are unfairly discriminated against simply because they are experiencing homelessness. It will help to ensure that our broader solution framework for solving homelessness continues to be rooted in care, supportive services, compassion, affordable housing, and local innovations that build on the core needs of people who are unhoused – while simultaneously protecting our most vulnerable neighbors from senseless discrimination that runs counter to those goals.

“Protected Characteristics” under California’s Anti-Discrimination Statutes. California has several statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of enumerated characteristics. Originally, these statutes prohibited discrimination on the basis of supposedly “immutable” traits such as sex, race, or national origin. Over the years, the Legislature has added to the list of “protected characteristics” to include such things as age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or Veteran status. These protected characteristics appear, albeit with slightly different contents, in several Civil Rights and anti-discrimination statutes, including the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code Section 51), the Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civil Code Section 51.7), and in the employment and housing provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and related sections of the Government Code.

This bill amends just one of those statutes: Government Code Section 11135. This statute provides that no person, on the basis of a protected characteristic, shall be denied the full and equal benefits of, or face discrimination under, “any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state.” In short, the provision applies not only to state-operated programs, but also to any “program or activity” that is funded in whole or in part by state funds.

While clearly this applies to any state-operated program or state agency, it can also apply to contractors, grantees, or private entities that receive state funds to carry out programs or activities. For example, the California Department of Housing and Community Development operates the Multifamily Housing Program that provides low-interest loans to entities – both nonprofit and for-profit – to construct affordable housing for low-income and very-low-income individuals and families. Under Government Code Section 11135, this program cannot discriminate on the basis of a protected characteristic – which would include housing status, as defined, under this bill. However, this provision (and therefore this bill) does not apply to private housing that was not constructed with the aid of public money. Such restrictions on state-funded projects are quite common; they reflect the simple proposition that if a private person or entity draws from the public till, some mandatory policy objectives might attach.

Some federally-funded public assistance programs already prohibit discrimination against people experiencing homelessness. In addition to housing discrimination in public and state-funded housing, the author and sponsors are also concerned about discrimination against the homeless in the provision of social benefits otherwise available to people in need. CalWORKS is a public assistance program that provides cash aid and other services, including food stamps, to eligible families who have children. For the most part, these benefits go to eligible families who have children in the home. However, because many of these programs receive both state and federal funds, they must follow federal regulations. For example, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) and Cal FRESH provide food stamps to people in need. Because most people who receive this aid are housed, the program asks for a residential address to which benefits, or information about them, may be sent. However, under federal regulations, a person cannot be denied participation in the state-level SNAP programs (i.e. CalFRESH) just because they are homeless. Federal regulations expressly provide that the state SNAP agencies, “shall not require an otherwise eligible household to reside in a permanent dwelling or have a fixed mailing address as a condition of eligibility.” (7 CFR Section 273.3.) This does not mean that the programs cannot ask applicants for an address – they have good reason for doing so for a variety of reasons – but they cannot deny food stamps solely because the applicant has no permanent address or dwelling.

Thus, as applied to state-operated or state-funded public assistance programs, the premise of this bill mirrors the reasoning of existing federal regulations. Indeed, it seems counterintuitive to suppose that a state-funded program for people in need would exclude the neediest. Making “housing status” – defined as “homelessness” – a protected characteristic under Section 11135, does not mean that every state-funded housing or public assistance program will be prohibited from asking for an address or making any distinctions between the housed and unhoused in calculating benefits. Obviously, a public or state-funded private program offering rental assistance could insist that there be a rental unit to which assistance will apply. However, this bill may cause some state-operated or state-funded housing and assistance programs to reevaluate their policies to ensure that they do not discriminate against applicants on the basis of housing status alone.

A broader question of civil and human rights. This bill seeks only to prohibit discrimination against people experiencing homelessness in state-operated and state-funded programs. Yet, as the support letters and background information provided to Committee suggests, the problems run deeper. For example, the background information calls out the public and private violence, harassment, and criminalization that unhoused people face on daily basis. This bill, which only addresses programs covered by Section 11135, cannot ameliorate all of those conditions. While this bill may not be the appropriate vehicle, the Legislature may at some point consider whether “housing status” should also be added to the list of protected characteristics in the state’s civil rights statutes, including the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code Section 51) and the Ralph Civil Rights Act. (Civil Code Section 51.7.) The former prohibits a business establishment from discriminating against a person on the basis of that person’s protected characteristics; the latter provides that all people shall be free of violence or intimidation on account of their protected characteristics. Neither statute includes “housing status” among its list of protected characteristics. In 2015, the Legislature attempted to address these broader issues with AB 5 (Ammiano), which would have established a “Homeless Persons Bill of Rights.” The measure died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, apparently due to the estimated costs of fulfilling its promises.

At the federal level, in July of 2021, U.S. Representative Cori Bush introduced into Congress the “Unhoused Bill of Rights,” a resolution that, among other things, called upon Congress to do the following:

[U]phold, protect, and enforce the civil and human rights of unhoused individuals, including the human rights to housing, universal healthcare, livable wages, education, employment opportunities, access to public facilities, free movement in public spaces, privacy, confidentiality, internet access, vote, freedom from harassment by law enforcement, private businesses, property owners, and housed residents, and equal rights to health care, legal representation, and social services without discrimination based on housing status.

This bill may not achieve all of Representative Bush’s aspirations, but it may be a decent start.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: A large coalition civil rights groups, social justice groups, and organizations advocating on behalf of people experiencing homelessness and poverty support AB 920. The coalition argues that AB 920 will “protect unhoused people from being targeted or denied access to programs and benefits by the state, or a state-funded agency, simply because they are unhoused.” Although every person in California should have “the right to participate fully and equally in society free from discrimination . . . this right is denied to many residents simply because they are unhoused.” The coalition adds that our failure to ensure that all Californians have “universal access to a safe, permanent, and affordable place to live, many state and local governments continue to harass, displace, and segregate unhoused people,” has disproportionately harmed people of color.

In short, the coalition believes that AB 920 will accomplish three important objectives: (1) protect the health, wellbeing, and dignity of unhoused people who are harmed and sometimes killed by discriminatory policies and initiatives; (2) affirm California’s commitment to equal protection under the law and the right of all people to full and equal participation in society; and (3) shift priorities towards real solutions, including safe, affordable, and permanent housing.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

ACLU California Action

All Home

Bay Area Legal Aid

Black Lives Matter - Los Angeles

California Association of Mental Health Patients' Rights Advocates

California for Safety and Justice

Centro Legal De LA Raza

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)

Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement

Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement (COPE)

Consumer Attorneys of California

Corporation for Supportive Housing

Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH)

Disability Rights California

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund

East Bay Yimby

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California

Grow the Richmond

Housing California

Housing Is a Human Right - Orange County

Housing Rights Center

How to ADU

HPP Cares

Initiate Justice

Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice

Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective

Inner City Law Center

Institute to Develop Equity, Advocacy, and Leadership (IDEAL)

Justice in Aging

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley

Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles

Legal Aid of Marin

Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership (LARRP)

Mountain View Yimby

Napa-Solano for Everyone

National Alliance to End Homelessness

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

National Housing Law Project

Nikkei Progressives

Northern Neighbors Sf

Oakland Privacy

Orange County United Way

Peninsula for Everyone

People for Housing - Orange County

People's Budget Orange County

Progress Noe Valley

Public Advocates

Public Interest Law Project

Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness

Safe Place for Youth

San Francisco Yimby

San Luis Obispo Yimby

Santa Cruz Yimby

Santa Rosa Yimby

South Bay Yimby

Southside Forward

Stop the Musick Coalition

Stronger Women United

SV@home Action Fund

Union Station Homeless Services

University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law Homeless Advocacy Clinic

Venice Community Housing Corporation

Venice Justice Committee

Ventura County Yimby

Western Center on Law and Poverty

Western Regional Advocacy Project

Yimby Action

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334