Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides for the involuntary detention and treatment of persons with specified mental health disorders. Under the act, when a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to themselves, or gravely disabled, the person may, upon probable cause, be taken into custody and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. Existing law authorizes a county behavioral health director to develop procedures for the countys designation and training of professionals who will be designated to perform the above-described provisions.

This bill would instead require a county behavioral health director to establish and implement procedures governing the countys designation and training of professionals who will be designated to perform the above-described provisions. By imposing additional duties on county behavioral health directors, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides for the involuntary detention and treatment of persons with specified mental health disorders. Under the act, when a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to themselves, or gravely disabled, the person may, upon probable cause, be taken into custody and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. Existing law authorizes a county behavioral health director to develop procedures for the countys designation and training of professionals who will be designated to perform the above-described provisions.

This bill would instead require a county behavioral health director to establish and implement procedures governing the countys designation and training of professionals who will be designated to perform the above-described provisions. By imposing additional duties on county behavioral health directors, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides for the involuntary detention and treatment of persons with specified mental health disorders. Under the act, when a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to themselves, or gravely disabled, the person may, upon probable cause, be taken into custody and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. Existing law authorizes a county behavioral health director to develop procedures for the countys designation and training of professionals who will be designated to perform the above-described provisions.

This bill would instead require a county behavioral health director to establish and implement procedures governing the countys designation and training of professionals who will be designated to perform the above-described provisions. By imposing additional duties on county behavioral health directors, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides for the involuntary detention and treatment of persons with specified mental health disorders. Under the act, when a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to themselves, or gravely disabled, the person may, upon probable cause, be taken into custody and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. Existing law authorizes a county behavioral health director to develop procedures for the countys designation and training of professionals who will be designated to perform the above-described provisions.

This bill would instead require a county behavioral health director to develop procedures for establish and implement procedures governing the countys designation and training of professionals who will be designated to perform the above-described provisions. By imposing additional duties on county behavioral health directors, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides for the involuntary detention and treatment of persons with specified mental health disorders. Under the act, when a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to themselves, or gravely disabled, the person may, upon probable cause, be taken into custody and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. Existing law authorizes a county behavioral health director to develop procedures for the countys designation and training of professionals who will be designated to perform the above-described provisions.

This bill would instead require a county behavioral health director to develop procedures for the countys designation and training of professionals who will be designated to perform the above-described provisions. By imposing additional duties on county behavioral health directors, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law requires the housing element to consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Existing law requires the housing element to include, among other things, an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints that are relevant to meeting these needs. Existing law establishes the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program (HHAP) for the purpose of providing jurisdictions with grant funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges, as specified.

For a local government that does not receive funding to address the population of individuals who are unhoused pursuant to certain state programs, pursuant to HHAP, this bill would require the assessment to include, among other things, specified data regarding the population of individuals who are unhoused the most up-to-date data on the number of individuals who are unhoused and a description of key actions that will be taken to reduce the number of individuals who are unhoused based on the data. By imposing additional duties on local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law establishes the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program for the purpose of providing jurisdictions, as defined, with one-time grant funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges, as specified.

This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to address homelessness.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 16

Author: Blakespear (D), et al.

Amended: 8/28/26

Vote: 21

SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 10-0, 4/22/25

AYES: Wahab, Arreguín, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Dahle

SENATE FLOOR: 29-2, 6/3/25

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Jones, Strickland

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Hurtado, Niello, Reyes, Seyarto, Valladares

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Passed, 8/31/26

SUBJECT: Mental health: involuntary commitment

SOURCE: California State Association of Psychiatrists

DIGEST:

This bill requires, instead of permits, a county behavioral health director to establish and implement procedures for designating and training persons to initiate involuntary detentions.

Assembly Amendments

delete the Senate provisions of this bill and add provisions related to a county behavioral health director’s ability to establish and implement procedures for designating and training persons to initiate voluntary detentions, specifically:

1. Require, instead of permits, a county behavioral health director to establish and implement procedures;
2. Specify that a passive monitoring and review process that responds to and investigates complaints and grievances satisfies the requirement in current law that counties include their process for monitoring and reviewing designated professionals; and,
3. Prohibit provisions in this bill from being construed to limit county authority to establish criteria and procedures governing designation of professionals.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act to end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of persons with mental health (MH) disorders, developmental disabilities, and chronic alcoholism, as well as to safeguard a person’s rights, provide prompt evaluation and treatment, and provide services in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the needs of each person. Permits involuntary detention (detention/detain) of a person deemed, as a result of a mental health disorder, to be a danger to self or others, or “gravely disabled” by a peace officer; professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment; a specified member of the attending staff of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment; members of a mobile crisis team designated by the county; or, a professional person designated by the county. [Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) §5000, et seq. and §5150(a)]
2. Defines “gravely disabled,” for purposes of evaluating and treating an individual who has been detained or for placing an individual in conservatorship, as a condition in which a person, as a result of a MH disorder, a severe substance use disorder (SUD), or a co-occurring MH disorder and SUD (MH/SUD), is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, shelter, personal safety, or necessary medical care. [WIC §5008(h)]
3. Permits a county behavioral health director to develop procedures for the designation and training of professionals who can initiate involuntary detentions of individuals for up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county. [WIC §5121]
4. Defines “designated facility,” “facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment,” or “facility designated by the county to provide intensive treatment” as a facility (that is not a hospital or clinic) that meets designation requirements established by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), including, but not limited to:
   1. Psychiatric health facilities, psychiatric residential treatment facilities, and mental health rehabilitation centers licensed by DHCS;
   2. Provider sites certified by DHCS or a mental health plan to provide crisis stabilization;
   3. General acute care hospitals (GACHs), acute psychiatric hospitals (APHs), and chemical dependency recovery hospitals licensed by the California Department of Public Health; and,
   4. Hospitals operated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. [WIC §5008(n) and §5404]
5. Indemnifies facilities providing treatment to individuals being detained; the superintendent of the facility; the professional person in charge of the facility and their designee; or the peace officer responsible for the detention of an individual for any action by an individual released at or before the end of the period for which they were admitted throughout the LPS continuum. [WIC §5113]
6. Prohibits licensed GACHs or licensed APHs that are not county-designated facilities; licensed professional staff of those hospitals; or, any physician providing emergency medical services in those hospitals from being civilly or criminally liable for detaining a person who meets LPS involuntary detention criteria for more than eight hours but less than 24 hours when specified conditions are met. [Health and Safety Code (HSC) §1799.111(a)]

This bill:

1. Requires, instead of permits, a county behavioral health director to establish and implement procedures for designating and training persons to initiate detentions.
2. Specifies that a county’s passive monitoring and review process that responds to and investigates complaints and grievances satisfies the requirement in current law that counties include their process for monitoring and reviewing designated professionals.
3. Prohibits this bill from being construed to limit the authority of a county to establish criteria and procedures governing designation, provided those criteria and procedures are consistent with all the provisions in law concerning the designation of persons.

Background

According to the author of this bill:

California has invested significant resources in mobile crisis teams and other alternatives to law enforcement to improve emergency response to behavioral health crises. But these efforts depend on clinicians who are authorized to initiate involuntary detentions when necessary. Although current law allows counties to establish procedures to designate professionals, it does not require them to do so. As a result, qualified clinicians in many counties face unclear or unavailable pathways to receive authority to detain individuals, leaving crisis response teams dependent on law enforcement. This bill addresses this gap by requiring every county to establish clear procedures governing eligibility, training, and oversight. By requiring clear pathways while preserving county authority to set standards, this bill will help build the clinical workforce needed to provide individuals experiencing behavioral health emergencies with timely, appropriate care.

LPS Act detentions and those authorized to initiate. The LPS Act provides for detentions of varying lengths of time for the purpose of assessment, evaluation, and treatment, provided certain requirements are met, such as an individual being taken to a county-designated facility. Typically, one first interacts with the LPS Act through a detention initiated by a peace officer or other person authorized and trained through each county’s designation process—if a county has opted to develop procedures for their designation process, as current law is permissive. According to information provided by the sponsors of this bill, of the state’s 58 counties: 27 counties have policies and procedures that list disciplines eligible for designation; 16 counties have policies and procedures, but do not identify the discipline or professional experience required to be designated; three counties have not developed designation procedures; and, 12 counties did not respond to their inquiry.

Current law permits designation procedures to include such things as: specifying the license types, practice disciplines, and clinical experience of professionals eligible to be designated; the initial and ongoing training and testing requirements for eligible professionals; the application and approval processes, including the timeframe for initial designation and procedures for renewal; and, the county’s process for monitoring and reviewing professionals to ensure appropriate compliance with state law, regulations, and county procedures. If the designated person determines an individual cannot be properly served without being detained, they must submit to the treating designated facility in writing the circumstances under which the individual’s condition was called to their attention and state that they have probable cause to believe the individual meets criteria for detention. The professional person in charge of the county-designated facility is required to assess an individual to determine the appropriateness of the detention prior to admitting the individual. If the designated facility admits the individual for further evaluation, the individual can be detained for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment.

Subject to various conditions, an individual can subsequently be detained for an initial up-to 14 days for intensive treatment, an additional up-to 14 days (or an additional up-to 30 days in counties that have opted to provide this additional up-to 30-day intensive treatment episode), and ultimately a conservatorship, which is typically for up to a year and may be extended. Throughout this process, existing law requires specified entities to notify family members or others identified by the detained individual of various hearings, where it is determined whether a person will be further detained or released, unless the detained person requests that this information is not provided. Additionally, a person cannot be found to be gravely disabled if they can survive safely without detention, with the help of responsible family, friends, or others who indicate they are both willing and able to help. A person can also be released prior to the end of intensive treatment if they are found to no longer meet the criteria or are prepared to accept treatment voluntarily.  

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill results in costs of an unknown amount likely hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to county behavioral health agencies, to develop procedures related to designation. Additional cost pressures, potentially high hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, annually, for counties to comply with new obligations to manage notifications of denials and revocations of designation and to conduct training, oversight, and management of newly designated persons to the extent the counties implement the newly developed procedures. The County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA) and the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators (CAPAPGPC) jointly estimate costs of this bill to counties would total $1 million to $2.7 million upon implementation and up to $2.4 million annually thereafter (local funds). Although this bill indicates costs may be state-reimbursable, CBHDA and CAPAPGPC state the bill creates an unfunded mandate.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/28/26)

California State Association of Psychiatrists (source)

California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians

City of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/28/26)

California State Association of Counties

California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and

Public Conservators

County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California

Rural County Representatives of California

Urban Counties of California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP), as the source, states that this bill advances California’s efforts to ensure behavioral health crises receive a clinical response whenever possible rather than defaulting to a law enforcement response. CSAP argues that counties may designate qualified professionals, but procedures vary significantly across the state, and some counties lack clear standards altogether. Many counties do not publicly identify which practice disciplines are eligible for designation, and the absence of clear county procedures can leave law enforcement as the default responder for individuals experiencing behavioral health crises, contrary to California's investment in clinically based crisis response systems. CSAP says this bill promotes greater consistency, transparency, and accountability across California. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria echoes these arguments. The California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians states that requiring counties to develop procedures for designating and training professionals to detain individuals is critically important to decriminalize the MH system and to improve response time for needed treatment, as they treat patients every day who wait for hours and sometimes days.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: CBHDA, CAPAPGPC, the California State Association of Counties, the Rural County Representatives of California, and the Urban Counties of California oppose as a coalition based on the August 17 amendments, which they argue substantially change the nature of this bill and significantly increase state and county costs. The coalition’s concerns are that this bill:

• • Creates ambiguity about whether counties retain their discretion on who they designate, contradicting Assembly Health Committee amendments, which were removed on the Assembly floor;
  • Triggers a new state mandate, as counties do not currently receive dedicated funding resources for LPS-related activities, by shifting how counties designate individuals from permissive to mandatory. Per August 17 amendments, counties estimate that costs would increase significantly due to increased oversight, administration, and reporting burdens. (Counites estimated that the prior version of the bill would cost the state $1 million to $2.7 million, and $2.4 million annually thereafter; and,
  • Increases law enforcement involvement in mental health crisis response, as any time an individual is detained outside of a treatment facility, it is highly likely that a clinician will rely on law enforcement to detain and transport an individual to a designated treatment facility. It may also increase the justice system’s involvement as individuals who are placed on holds are likely to be charged with assaulting officers when resisting detention.

Prepared by: Reyes Diaz / HEALTH / (916) 651-4111

8/31/26 22:03:39

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 16

Author:(Blakespear)

As Amended Ver:August 28, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires, rather than permits, a county behavioral health director to develop and implement procedures for the county's designation and training of professionals who will be designated to cause an individual to be taken into custody and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. States that counties are not limited in the criteria and procedures they establish governing designation provided they are consistent with existing law. Specifies that a passive monitoring and review process that responds to and investigates complaints, to the extent deemed appropriate by a county, satisfies the requirement that a county develop and implement a process for monitoring and reviewing professionals designated by the county to ensure appropriate compliance with state law, regulations, and county procedures.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS

Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act involuntary detentions. The LPS Act provides for involuntary detentions for varying lengths of time for the purpose of evaluation and treatment, provided certain requirements are met, such as that an individual is taken to a county-designated facility. Typically, one first interacts with the LPS Act through a "5150" hold initiated by a peace officer or other person authorized by a county, who must determine and document that the individual meets the standard for a hold. A county-designated facility is authorized to then involuntarily detain an individual for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment if they are determined to be, as a result of a mental health disorder, a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled. The professional person in charge of the county-designated facility is required to assess an individual to determine the appropriateness of the involuntary detention prior to admitting the individual. Subject to various conditions, a person who is found to be a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled, can be subsequently involuntarily detained for an initial period of intensive treatment up to 14 days, an additional period of 14 days (or up to an additional 30 days in counties that have opted to provide this additional up-to 30-day intensive treatment episode), and ultimately a conservatorship, which is typically for up to a year and may be extended as appropriate. A person can also be released prior to the end of intensive treatment if they are found to no longer meet the criteria or are prepared to accept treatment voluntarily.

Throughout this process, existing law requires specified entities to notify family members or others identified by the detained individual of various hearings, where it is determined whether a person will be further detained or released, unless the detained person requests that this information is not provided. Additionally, a person cannot be found to be gravely disabled if they can survive safely without involuntary detention with the help of responsible family, friends, or others who indicate they are both willing and able to help.

County-designated facilities vs. non-designated facilities (NDFs). Individual counties are responsible for determining whether General Acute Care Hospitals (GACHs), Psychiatric Health Facilities, Acute Psychiatric Hospitals, and other licensed facilities qualify to be designated facilities for evaluating and treating individuals placed in involuntary detentions. DHCS is responsible for the approval of designated facilities as determined by the counties. Counties generally have the discretion to implement how facilities are designated, but facilities are required to uphold proper care of the patient and a patient's civil rights throughout the process of detention. The intent of the LPS Act is for authorized individuals to take those whom have been placed on a 5150 hold to a designated facility, but if one does not exist, or a person is suffering another condition that requires immediate emergency medical services, the person is transported to the nearest facility, which is often an emergency department that is in a NDF.

NDFs are permitted to involuntarily detain an individual for eight to 24 hours for evaluation and treatment if they meet the criteria under the LPS Act, until the individual is either safely released or transferred to a designated facility.

According to the Author

California is investing heavily in mobile crisis teams and other alternatives to law enforcement response for people experiencing behavioral health crises, but these efforts depend on the availability of qualified clinicians who are authorized to perform functions under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150. Although current law allows counties to establish designation and training procedures for these professionals, it does not require them to do so. As a result, designation processes vary significantly across the state and may create unnecessary barriers for qualified clinicians. The author argues this bill is a workforce and accountability measure that requires counties to maintain transparent procedures for designation, training, and oversight while preserving local control and existing patient protections.

Arguments in Support

The California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP) supports this bill stating that county procedures governing designation and training vary significantly across the state, and some counties lack clear standards altogether. Many counties do not publicly identify which practice disciplines are eligible for 5150 designation or the qualifications required to exercise this authority. CSAP argues that, in practice, the absence of clear county procedures can leave law enforcement as the default responder for individuals experiencing behavioral health crises, contrary to California's investment in clinically based crisis response systems. CSAP concludes that by promoting statewide consistency and strengthening clinically based crisis response systems, this bill helps ensure that Californians experiencing psychiatric emergencies receive timely evaluations from appropriately trained professionals.

Arguments in Opposition

The County Behavioral Health Directors Association, the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians and Public Conservators, the Urban Counties of California, the California State Association of Counties, and the Rural County Representatives of California oppose this bill. The coalition states that under current law, counties have discretion about whether and who to designate to place and release an involuntary hold under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150. This discretion is critical to save lives, protect the public, and to prevent abuse of the powers afforded under LPS with immunity. They argue that, as amended, this bill creates ambiguity about whether counties retain this discretion. They also contend that counties do not currently receive dedicated funding resources for LPS-related activities due to the discretionary nature of the statute overall. The coalition states that this bill would change that precedent by shifting how counties designate individuals to a mandatory one, thereby triggering a new state mandate. Finally, they conclude that, though this bill’s impact has been framed as an effort to reduce law enforcement involvement in the 5150 process by expanding the numbers and types of individuals who may place an LPS hold, this bill will actually increase law enforcement involvement in behavioral health crisis.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, costs of an unknown amount, likely hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to county behavioral health agencies, to develop procedures related to Section 5150 designations. Additional cost pressures, potentially high hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, annually, for counties to comply with new obligations to manage notifications of denials and revocations of 5150 designations and to conduct training, oversight, and management of new designations, to the extent the counties implement the newly developed procedures. CBHDA and CAPAPGPC jointly estimate costs of this bill to counties would total $1.0 million to $2.7 million upon implementation and up to $2.4 million annually thereafter (local funds). Although this bill indicates costs may be state-reimbursable, CBHDA and CAPAPGPC state the bill creates an unfunded mandate.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 29-2-9

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO: Jones, Strickland

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Hurtado, Niello, Reyes, Seyarto, Valladares

ASM HEALTH: 14-0-2

YES: Bonta, Sanchez, Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Caloza, Carrillo, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Patel, Patterson, Celeste Rodriguez, Schiavo, Stefani

ABS, ABST OR NV: Johnson, Sharp-Collins

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sharp-Collins

UPDATED

VERSION: August 28, 2026

CONSULTANT: Logan Hess / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0004426

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 16

Author:(Blakespear)

As Amended Ver:August 28, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires, rather than permits, a county behavioral health director to develop and implement procedures for the county's designation and training of professionals who will be designated to cause an individual to be taken into custody and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. States that counties are not limited in the criteria and procedures they establish governing designation provided they are consistent with existing law. Specifies that a passive monitoring and review process that responds to and investigates complaints, to the extent deemed appropriate by a county, satisfies the requirement that a county develop and implement a process for monitoring and reviewing professionals designated by the county to ensure appropriate compliance with state law, regulations, and county procedures.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS

Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act involuntary detentions. The LPS Act provides for involuntary detentions for varying lengths of time for the purpose of evaluation and treatment, provided certain requirements are met, such as that an individual is taken to a county-designated facility. Typically, one first interacts with the LPS Act through a "5150" hold initiated by a peace officer or other person authorized by a county, who must determine and document that the individual meets the standard for a hold. A county-designated facility is authorized to then involuntarily detain an individual for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment if they are determined to be, as a result of a mental health disorder, a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled. The professional person in charge of the county-designated facility is required to assess an individual to determine the appropriateness of the involuntary detention prior to admitting the individual. Subject to various conditions, a person who is found to be a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled, can be subsequently involuntarily detained for an initial period of intensive treatment up to 14 days, an additional period of 14 days (or up to an additional 30 days in counties that have opted to provide this additional up-to 30-day intensive treatment episode), and ultimately a conservatorship, which is typically for up to a year and may be extended as appropriate. A person can also be released prior to the end of intensive treatment if they are found to no longer meet the criteria or are prepared to accept treatment voluntarily.

Throughout this process, existing law requires specified entities to notify family members or others identified by the detained individual of various hearings, where it is determined whether a person will be further detained or released, unless the detained person requests that this information is not provided. Additionally, a person cannot be found to be gravely disabled if they can survive safely without involuntary detention with the help of responsible family, friends, or others who indicate they are both willing and able to help.

County-designated facilities vs. non-designated facilities (NDFs). Individual counties are responsible for determining whether General Acute Care Hospitals (GACHs), Psychiatric Health Facilities, Acute Psychiatric Hospitals, and other licensed facilities qualify to be designated facilities for evaluating and treating individuals placed in involuntary detentions. DHCS is responsible for the approval of designated facilities as determined by the counties. Counties generally have the discretion to implement how facilities are designated, but facilities are required to uphold proper care of the patient and a patient's civil rights throughout the process of detention. The intent of the LPS Act is for authorized individuals to take those whom have been placed on a 5150 hold to a designated facility, but if one does not exist, or a person is suffering another condition that requires immediate emergency medical services, the person is transported to the nearest facility, which is often an emergency department that is in a NDF.

NDFs are permitted to involuntarily detain an individual for eight to 24 hours for evaluation and treatment if they meet the criteria under the LPS Act, until the individual is either safely released or transferred to a designated facility.

According to the Author

California is investing heavily in mobile crisis teams and other alternatives to law enforcement response for people experiencing behavioral health crises, but these efforts depend on the availability of qualified clinicians who are authorized to perform functions under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150. Although current law allows counties to establish designation and training procedures for these professionals, it does not require them to do so. As a result, designation processes vary significantly across the state and may create unnecessary barriers for qualified clinicians. The author argues this bill is a workforce and accountability measure that requires counties to maintain transparent procedures for designation, training, and oversight while preserving local control and existing patient protections.

Arguments in Support

The California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP) supports this bill stating that county procedures governing designation and training vary significantly across the state, and some counties lack clear standards altogether. Many counties do not publicly identify which practice disciplines are eligible for 5150 designation or the qualifications required to exercise this authority. CSAP argues that, in practice, the absence of clear county procedures can leave law enforcement as the default responder for individuals experiencing behavioral health crises, contrary to California's investment in clinically based crisis response systems. CSAP concludes that by promoting statewide consistency and strengthening clinically based crisis response systems, this bill helps ensure that Californians experiencing psychiatric emergencies receive timely evaluations from appropriately trained professionals.

Arguments in Opposition

The County Behavioral Health Directors Association, the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians and Public Conservators, the Urban Counties of California, the California State Association of Counties, and the Rural County Representatives of California oppose this bill. The coalition states that under current law, counties have discretion about whether and who to designate to place and release an involuntary hold under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150. This discretion is critical to save lives, protect the public, and to prevent abuse of the powers afforded under LPS with immunity. They argue that, as amended, this bill creates ambiguity about whether counties retain this discretion. They also contend that counties do not currently receive dedicated funding resources for LPS-related activities due to the discretionary nature of the statute overall. The coalition states that this bill would change that precedent by shifting how counties designate individuals to a mandatory one, thereby triggering a new state mandate. Finally, they conclude that, though this bill’s impact has been framed as an effort to reduce law enforcement involvement in the 5150 process by expanding the numbers and types of individuals who may place an LPS hold, this bill will actually increase law enforcement involvement in behavioral health crisis.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, costs of an unknown amount, likely hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to county behavioral health agencies, to develop procedures related to Section 5150 designations. Additional cost pressures, potentially high hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, annually, for counties to comply with new obligations to manage notifications of denials and revocations of 5150 designations and to conduct training, oversight, and management of new designations, to the extent the counties implement the newly developed procedures. CBHDA and CAPAPGPC jointly estimate costs of this bill to counties would total $1.0 million to $2.7 million upon implementation and up to $2.4 million annually thereafter (local funds). Although this bill indicates costs may be state-reimbursable, CBHDA and CAPAPGPC state the bill creates an unfunded mandate.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 29-2-9

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO: Jones, Strickland

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Hurtado, Niello, Reyes, Seyarto, Valladares

ASM HEALTH: 14-0-2

YES: Bonta, Sanchez, Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Caloza, Carrillo, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Patel, Patterson, Celeste Rodriguez, Schiavo, Stefani

ABS, ABST OR NV: Johnson, Sharp-Collins

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sharp-Collins

UPDATED

VERSION: August 28, 2026

CONSULTANT: Logan Hess / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0004426

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 16

Author:(Blakespear)

As Amended Ver:August 17, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires, rather than permits, a county behavioral health director to develop and implement procedures for the county's designation and training of professionals who will be designated to cause an individual to be taken into custody and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. States that counties are not limited in the criteria and procedures they establish governing designation provided they are consistent with existing law.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS

Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act involuntary detentions. The LPS Act provides for involuntary detentions for varying lengths of time for the purpose of evaluation and treatment, provided certain requirements are met, such as that an individual is taken to a county-designated facility. Typically, one first interacts with the LPS Act through a "5150" hold initiated by a peace officer or other person authorized by a county, who must determine and document that the individual meets the standard for a hold. A county-designated facility is authorized to then involuntarily detain an individual for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment if they are determined to be, as a result of a mental health disorder, a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled. The professional person in charge of the county-designated facility is required to assess an individual to determine the appropriateness of the involuntary detention prior to admitting the individual. Subject to various conditions, a person who is found to be a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled, can be subsequently involuntarily detained for an initial period of intensive treatment up to 14 days, an additional period of 14 days (or up to an additional 30 days in counties that have opted to provide this additional up-to 30-day intensive treatment episode), and ultimately a conservatorship, which is typically for up to a year and may be extended as appropriate. A person can also be released prior to the end of intensive treatment if they are found to no longer meet the criteria or are prepared to accept treatment voluntarily.

Throughout this process, existing law requires specified entities to notify family members or others identified by the detained individual of various hearings, where it is determined whether a person will be further detained or released, unless the detained person requests that this information is not provided. Additionally, a person cannot be found to be gravely disabled if they can survive safely without involuntary detention with the help of responsible family, friends, or others who indicate they are both willing and able to help.

County-designated facilities vs. non-designated facilities (NDFs). Individual counties are responsible for determining whether General Acute Care Hospitals (GACHs), Psychiatric Health Facilities, Acute Psychiatric Hospitals, and other licensed facilities qualify to be designated facilities for evaluating and treating individuals placed in involuntary detentions. DHCS is responsible for the approval of designated facilities as determined by the counties. Counties generally have the discretion to implement how facilities are designated, but facilities are required to uphold proper care of the patient and a patient's civil rights throughout the process of detention. The intent of the LPS Act is for authorized individuals to take those whom have been placed on a 5150 hold to a designated facility, but if one does not exist, or a person is suffering another condition that requires immediate emergency medical services, the person is transported to the nearest facility, which is often an emergency department that is in a NDF.

NDFs are permitted to involuntarily detain an individual for eight to 24 hours for evaluation and treatment if they meet the criteria under the LPS Act, until the individual is either safely released or transferred to a designated facility.

According to the Author

California is investing heavily in mobile crisis teams and other alternatives to law enforcement response for people experiencing behavioral health crises, but these efforts depend on the availability of qualified clinicians who are authorized to perform functions under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150. Although current law allows counties to establish designation and training procedures for these professionals, it does not require them to do so. As a result, designation processes vary significantly across the state and may create unnecessary barriers for qualified clinicians. The author argues this bill is a workforce and accountability measure that requires counties to maintain transparent procedures for designation, training, and oversight while preserving local control and existing patient protections.

Arguments in Support

The California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP) supports this bill stating that county procedures governing designation and training vary significantly across the state, and some counties lack clear standards altogether. Many counties do not publicly identify which practice disciplines are eligible for 5150 designation or the qualifications required to exercise this authority. CSAP argues that, in practice, the absence of clear county procedures can leave law enforcement as the default responder for individuals experiencing behavioral health crises, contrary to California's investment in clinically based crisis response systems. CSAP concludes that by promoting statewide consistency and strengthening clinically based crisis response systems, this bill helps ensure that Californians experiencing psychiatric emergencies receive timely evaluations from appropriately trained professionals.

Arguments in Opposition

The County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA) and the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians and Public Conservators (CAPAPGPC) oppose this bill, stating that it will create a new requirement for counties to develop designation and training procedures, which are today optional in statute. Counties currently have local discretion due to the optional nature of these activities in statute. While counties understand the desire to ensure greater consistency around LPS implementation, without the dedicated resources, this bill would create a new unfunded mandate at a time when local and state resources are strained. CBHDA and CAPAPGPC are also concerned that by establishing this section of law as a new requirement, it may create ambiguities related to who could be designated. They argue that counties must continue to retain discretion over which individuals and facilities are designed to involuntarily detain individuals.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, costs of an unknown amount, likely hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to county behavioral health agencies, to develop procedures related to Section 5150 designations. Additional cost pressures, potentially high hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, annually, for counties to comply with new obligations to manage notifications of denials and revocations of 5150 designations and to conduct training, oversight, and management of new designations, to the extent the counties implement the newly developed procedures. CBHDA and CAPAPGPC jointly estimate costs of this bill to counties would total $1.0 million to $2.7 million upon implementation and up to $2.4 million annually thereafter (local funds). Although this bill indicates costs may be state-reimbursable, CBHDA and CAPAPGPC state the bill creates an unfunded mandate.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 29-2-9

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO: Jones, Strickland

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Hurtado, Niello, Reyes, Seyarto, Valladares

ASM HEALTH: 14-0-2

YES: Bonta, Sanchez, Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Caloza, Carrillo, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Patel, Patterson, Celeste Rodriguez, Schiavo, Stefani

ABS, ABST OR NV: Johnson, Sharp-Collins

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sharp-Collins

UPDATED

VERSION: August 17, 2026

CONSULTANT: Logan Hess / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0003733

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 16

Author:(Blakespear)

As Amended Ver:June 25, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires, rather than permits, a county behavioral health director to develop and implement procedures for the county's designation and training of professionals who will be designated to cause an individual to be taken into custody and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. Specifies that a county behavioral health director is not required to designate each individual that meets the requirements specified by the county.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS

Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act involuntary detentions. The LPS Act provides for involuntary detentions for varying lengths of time for the purpose of evaluation and treatment, provided certain requirements are met, such as that an individual is taken to a county-designated facility. Typically, one first interacts with the LPS Act through a "5150" hold initiated by a peace officer or other person authorized by a county, who must determine and document that the individual meets the standard for a hold. A county-designated facility is authorized to then involuntarily detain an individual for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment if they are determined to be, as a result of a mental health disorder, a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled. The professional person in charge of the county-designated facility is required to assess an individual to determine the appropriateness of the involuntary detention prior to admitting the individual. Subject to various conditions, a person who is found to be a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled, can be subsequently involuntarily detained for an initial period of intensive treatment up to 14 days, an additional period of 14 days (or up to an additional 30 days in counties that have opted to provide this additional up-to 30-day intensive treatment episode), and ultimately a conservatorship, which is typically for up to a year and may be extended as appropriate. A person can also be released prior to the end of intensive treatment if they are found to no longer meet the criteria or are prepared to accept treatment voluntarily.

Throughout this process, existing law requires specified entities to notify family members or others identified by the detained individual of various hearings, where it is determined whether a person will be further detained or released, unless the detained person requests that this information is not provided. Additionally, a person cannot be found to be gravely disabled if they can survive safely without involuntary detention with the help of responsible family, friends, or others who indicate they are both willing and able to help.

County-designated facilities vs. non-designated facilities (NDFs). Individual counties are responsible for determining whether General Acute Care Hospitals (GACHs), Psychiatric Health Facilities, Acute Psychiatric Hospitals, and other licensed facilities qualify to be designated facilities for evaluating and treating individuals placed in involuntary detentions. DHCS is responsible for the approval of designated facilities as determined by the counties. Counties generally have the discretion to implement how facilities are designated, but facilities are required to uphold proper care of the patient and a patient's civil rights throughout the process of detention. The intent of the LPS Act is for authorized individuals to take those whom have been placed on a 5150 hold to a designated facility, but if one does not exist, or a person is suffering another condition that requires immediate emergency medical services, the person is transported to the nearest facility, which is often an emergency department that is in a NDF.

NDFs are permitted to involuntarily detain an individual for eight to 24 hours for evaluation and treatment if they meet the criteria under the LPS Act, until the individual is either safely released or transferred to a designated facility.

According to the Author

California is investing heavily in mobile crisis teams and other alternatives to law enforcement response for people experiencing behavioral health crises, but these efforts depend on the availability of qualified clinicians who are authorized to perform functions under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150. Although current law allows counties to establish designation and training procedures for these professionals, it does not require them to do so. As a result, designation processes vary significantly across the state and may create unnecessary barriers for qualified clinicians. The author argues this bill is a workforce and accountability measure that requires counties to maintain transparent procedures for designation, training, and oversight while preserving local control and existing patient protections.

Arguments in Support

The California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP) supports this bill stating that county procedures governing designation and training vary significantly across the state, and some counties lack clear standards altogether. Many counties do not publicly identify which practice disciplines are eligible for 5150 designation or the qualifications required to exercise this authority. CSAP argues that, in practice, the absence of clear county procedures can leave law enforcement as the default responder for individuals experiencing behavioral health crises, contrary to California's investment in clinically based crisis response systems. CSAP concludes that by promoting statewide consistency and strengthening clinically based crisis response systems, this bill helps ensure that Californians experiencing psychiatric emergencies receive timely evaluations from appropriately trained professionals.

Arguments in Opposition

The County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA) and the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians and Public Conservators (CAPAPGPC) oppose this bill, stating that it will create a new requirement for counties to develop designation and training procedures, which are today optional in statute. Counties currently have local discretion due to the optional nature of these activities in statute. While counties understand the desire to ensure greater consistency around LPS implementation, without the dedicated resources, this bill would create a new unfunded mandate at a time when local and state resources are strained. CBHDA and CAPAPGPC are also concerned that by establishing this section of law as a new requirement, it may create ambiguities related to who could be designated. They argue that counties must continue to retain discretion over which individuals and facilities are designed to involuntarily detain individuals.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, costs of an unknown amount, likely hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to county behavioral health agencies, to develop procedures related to Section 5150 designations. Additional cost pressures, potentially high hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, annually, for counties to comply with new obligations to manage notifications of denials and revocations of 5150 designations and to conduct training, oversight, and management of new designations, to the extent the counties implement the newly developed procedures. CBHDA and CAPAPGPC jointly estimate costs of this bill to counties would total $1.0 million to $2.7 million upon implementation and up to $2.4 million annually thereafter (local funds). Although this bill indicates costs may be state-reimbursable, CBHDA and CAPAPGPC state the bill creates an unfunded mandate.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: Votes Not Relevant

YES:

NO:

ABS, ABST OR NV:

ASM HEALTH: 14-0-2

YES: Bonta, Sanchez, Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Caloza, Carrillo, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Patel, Patterson, Celeste Rodriguez, Schiavo, Stefani

ABS, ABST OR NV: Johnson, Sharp-Collins

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sharp-Collins

UPDATED

VERSION: June 25, 2026

CONSULTANT: Logan Hess / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0003608

Date of Hearing: August 5, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 16

Author:(Blakespear) – As Amended Ver:June 25, 2026

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a county behavioral health director develop procedures for a county to designate and train professionals who will be designated to detain persons pursuant to Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires, rather than allows, a county behavioral health director develop procedures for a county’s designation and training of professionals who will be designated to detain persons pursuant to Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2. Requires, rather than allows, the procedures for designation and training include, but not be limited to, the following:
   1. The license types, practice disciplines, and clinical experience of professionals eligible to be designated by the county.
   2. The initial and ongoing training and testing requirements for professionals eligible to be designated by the county.
   3. The application and approval processes for professionals seeking to be designated by the county, including the timeframe for initial designation and procedures for renewal of the designation.
   4. The county’s process for monitoring and reviewing professionals designated by the county to ensure appropriate compliance with state law, regulations, and county procedures.
3. Specifies that the above requirements do not require a county behavioral health director to designate each individual that meets the requirements specified in item 1, above.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Costs of an unknown amount, likely hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to county behavioral health agencies, to develop procedures related to Section 5150 designations. Additional cost pressures, potentially high hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, annually, for counties to comply with new obligations to manage notifications of denials and revocations of 5150 designations and to conduct training, oversight, and management of new designations, to the extent the counties implement the newly developed procedures. The County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA) and the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians and Public Conservators (CAPAPGPC) jointly estimate costs of this bill to counties would total $1.0 million to $2.7 million upon implementation and up to $2.4 million annually thereafter (local funds). Although this bill indicates costs may be state-reimbursable, CBHDA and CAPAPGPC state the bill creates an unfunded mandate.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the California State Association of Psychiatrists. According to the author:
   

California is investing heavily in mobile crisis teams and other alternatives to law enforcement response for people experiencing behavioral health crises, but these efforts depend on the availability of qualified clinicians who are authorized to perform functions under Welfare and Institutions Code 5150. Although current law allows counties to establish designation and training procedures for these professionals, it does not require them to do so. As a result, designation processes vary significantly across the state and may create unnecessary barriers for qualified clinicians. SB 16 is a workforce and accountability measure that requires counties to maintain transparent procedures for designation, training, and oversight while preserving local control and existing patient protections.

1. Background. The Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act provides for involuntary detentions of persons for varying lengths of time for the purpose of providing evaluation and behavioral health treatment under specified conditions, including that the individual is taken to a county-designated facility and the person making the initial detention has enough evidence to justify the detention. Counties have the authority under existing law to determine which professionals the county wishes to “designate” as having the authority to detain persons for evaluation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 5150, which allows peace officers and designated professionals to involuntarily detain a person for up to 72 hours for an assessment, evaluation and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county, if the person is determined to be a danger either to themself or to others, or gravely disabled, because of a mental health disorder.
2. Opposition. CBHDA and CAPAPGPC jointly state that, for nearly 60 years, counties have been developing procedures to designate and train professionals who will be designated to perform the functions under WIC 5150. The counties note that without dedicated resources, this bill would create a new unfunded mandate at a time when local and state resources are strained.
   
3. Related Legislation. AB 416 (Krell), Chapter 691, Statutes of 2025, requires counties to include emergency physicians as one of the practice disciplines eligible to be designated by the county to cause a person to be taken into custody under WIC 5150.

Analysis Prepared by: Allegra Kim / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 30, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 16

Author:(Blakespear) – As Amended Ver:June 25, 2026

SENATE VOTE: NOT RELEVANT

SUBJECT: MENTAL HEALTH: INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT

SYNOPSIS

The Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act provides for involuntary detentions of persons for varying lengths of time for the purpose of providing evaluation and treatment, so long as specified requirements are met, including that the individual is taken to a county-designated facility and the person making the initial detention has enough evidence to justify the detention. Counties have the authority under existing law to determine which professional persons the county wishes to “designate” as having the authority to detain persons for evaluation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150. Additionally, existing law specifies that counties may develop procedures for the designation and training of professionals authorized to perform these detentions. This bill requires, rather than permits, counties to develop those procedures for designation and training, while still specifying that counties maintain discretion when determining whether to designate an individual professional.

This bill is sponsored by the California State Association of Psychiatrists. Among other things, the Association argues the bill advances efforts to ensure that behavioral health crises receive a clinical response whenever possible, rather than defaulting to a law enforcement response. The bill is opposed by the County Behavioral Health Directors Association and the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators. They contend that this bill limits county discretion, while creating a new unfunded mandate at a time when budgetary resources are constrained. The Assembly Health Committee recently approved this bill by a vote of 14 -0.

SUMMARY: Requires a county behavioral health director to develop procedures for a county’s designation and training of professionals who will be designated to detain persons pursuant to Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires, rather than permits, the county behavioral health director to develop procedures for the county’s designation and training of professionals who will be designated to perform involuntary detentions pursuant to Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2. Requires, rather than permits, that these procedures include, but are not limited to, the following:
   1. The license types, practice disciplines, and clinical experience of professionals eligible to be designated by the county.
   2. The initial and ongoing training and testing requirements for professionals eligible to be designated by the county.
   3. The application and approval processes for professionals seeking to be designated by the county, including the timeframe for initial designation and procedures for renewal of the designation.
   4. The county’s process for monitoring and reviewing professionals designated by the county to ensure appropriate compliance with state law, regulations, and county procedures.
3. Specifies that the above requirements do not require a county behavioral health director to designate each individual that meets the requirements specified in 2).

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the LPS Act to end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of persons with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, and chronic alcoholism, as well as to safeguard a person’s rights, provide prompt evaluation and treatment, and provide services in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the needs of each person. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5000 et seq. All further statutory references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code, unless otherwise stated.)
2. Defines the following for the purposes of the LPS Act:
   1. “Designated facility,” “facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment,” or “facility designated by the county to provide intensive treatment” means a facility that meets designation requirements duly established by the State Department of Health Care Services in accordance with existing law, including, but not limited to, the following:
      1. Psychiatric health facilities licensed by the State Department of Health Care Services.
      2. Psychiatric residential treatment facilities licensed by the State Department of Health Care Services.
      3. Mental health rehabilitation centers licensed by the State Department of Health Care Services.
      4. Provider sites certified by the State Department of Health Care Services or a mental health plan to provide crisis stabilization.
      5. General acute care hospitals licensed by the State Department of Public Health.
      6. Acute psychiatric hospitals licensed by the State Department of Public Health.
      7. Chemical dependency recovery hospitals licensed by the State Department of Public Health.
      8. Hospitals operated by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.
   2. “Gravely disabled” means any of the following:
      1. A condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, a severe substance use disorder, or a co-occurring mental health disorder and a severe substance use disorder, is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, shelter, personal safety, or necessary medical care.
      2. A condition in which a person has been found mentally incompetent under existing law and where specified facts exist. (Section 5008.)
3. Provides that, when a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to themselves, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. (Section 5150 (a).)
4. Provides that, in each county whenever a peace officer has transported a person to a designated facility for assessment under Section 5150, that officer will be detained no longer than the time necessary to complete documentation of the factual basis of the detention and a safe and orderly transfer of physical custody of the person. Requires the documentation to include detailed information regarding the factual circumstances and observations constituting probable cause for the peace officer to believe that the individual required psychiatric evaluation. (Section 5150.2.)
5. Allows the county behavioral health director to develop procedures for the county’s designation and training of professionals who will be designated to perform functions under Section 5150. These procedures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
   1. The license types, practice disciplines, and clinical experience of professionals eligible to be designated by the county.
   2. The initial and ongoing training and testing requirements for professionals eligible to be designated by the county.
   3. The application and approval processes for professionals seeking to be designated by the county, including the timeframe for initial designation and procedures for renewal of the designation.
   4. The county’s process for monitoring and reviewing professionals designated by the county to ensure appropriate compliance with state law, regulations, and county procedures. (Section 5121 (a).)
6. Specifies that, if a county behavioral health director denies or revokes an individual’s designation, the county behavioral health director must, in writing, notify the person who made the request for designation of the individual and the individual who is the subject of the request for designation describing the reasons for denial or revocation. (Section 5121 (c).)
7. Specifies that designated members of a mobile crisis team and designated professional persons cannot be prohibited from transporting a person taken into custody pursuant to Section 5150. (Section 5121 (d).)
8. Requires a county behavioral health director to include an emergency physician as one of the practice disciplines eligible to be designated by the county when developing and implementing procedures pursuant to 5). (Section 5121 (f).)
9. Provides that a licensed general acute care hospital or psychiatric hospital (that is not a county-designated facility), licensed professional staff of those hospitals, or any physician and surgeon, providing emergency medical services in any department of those hospitals to a person at the hospital is not civilly or criminally liable for detaining a person if all of the following conditions exist during the detention:
   1. The person cannot be safely released from the hospital because, in the opinion of the treating physician and surgeon, or a clinical psychologist with medical staff privileges, clinical privileges, or professional responsibilities provided in Section 1316.5, the person, as a result of a mental health disorder, presents a danger to themselves, or others, or is gravely disabled.
   2. The hospital staff, treating physician and surgeon, or appropriate licensed mental health professional, have made, and documented, repeated unsuccessful efforts to find appropriate mental health treatment for the person.
      1. Requires that telephone calls or other contacts required pursuant to b) shall commence at the earliest possible time when the treating physician and surgeon has determined the time at which the person will be medically stable for transfer.
      2. The contacts required pursuant to b) must not begin after the time when the person becomes medically stable for transfer.
   3. The person is not detained beyond 24 hours.
   4. There is probable cause for detention. (Health and Safety Code Section 1799.111.)

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

COMMENTS: The Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act provides for involuntary detentions of persons for varying lengths of time for the purpose of providing evaluation and treatment, so long as specified requirements are met. Counties have the authority under existing law to determine which professional persons the county wishes to “designate” as having the authority to perform detentions pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150. As part of this process, counties also have the authority to develop procedures for the designation and training of these professionals. This bill changes the permissive nature of this authority and instead mandates that counties develop those procedures, rather than simply permitting counties to do so. According to the author, SB 16 is necessary because:

California is investing heavily in mobile crisis teams and other alternatives to law enforcement response for people experiencing behavioral health crises, but these efforts depend on the availability of qualified clinicians who are authorized to perform functions under Welfare and Institutions Code 5150. Although current law allows counties to establish designation and training procedures for these professionals, it does not require them to do so. As a result, designation processes vary significantly across the state and may create unnecessary barriers for qualified clinicians. Most importantly, a treating mental health professional is sometimes in the best position to determine the need for a 5150 hold, based on their long-term care for the person in need. SB 16 is a workforce and accountability measure that requires counties to maintain transparent procedures for designation, training, and oversight while preserving local control and existing patient protections.

The LPS Act and involuntary detentions. Typically, the first interaction an individual has with the LPS Act is through a “5150 hold” initiated by a peace officer or other person authorized (or “designated”) by a county to exercise 5150 authority. Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code allows peace officers and designated professionals to involuntarily detain a person for up to 72 hours for an assessment, evaluation and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county, if they are determined to be, because of a mental health disorder, a danger either to themselves or to others, or gravely disabled.

The professional in charge of the county-designated facility is required to assess an individual to determine the appropriateness of the involuntary detention prior to admitting the individual. Subject to various conditions, a person who is found to be a danger to self or others, or to be gravely disabled, can thereafter be involuntarily detained for up to 14 days for intensive treatment; an additional 14 days (or up to an additional 30 days in counties that have opted to provide this additional up-to 30 day intensive treatment episode); and ultimately placed in a conservatorship, which typically lasts for up to a year and may be extended, as appropriate.

The designation process and authority of counties under existing law. Counties also have the authority under existing law to determine which professional persons the county wishes to “designate” as having the authority to detain persons for evaluation pursuant to Section 5150. (Section 5121.) A range of professionals are designated across the state, ranging from emergency physicians and licensed clinical social workers to community-based organizations. Counties have control over their designation training, eligibility, and application processes, which differ by county. Existing law allows, but does not require, counties to develop procedures for the county’s designation and training of professionals. (Id.) Similarly, current law specifies, but does not limit which procedures the county may prescribe. (Id.) Those procedures may include the following:

• The license types, practice disciplines, and clinical experience of professionals eligible to be designated by the county.
• The initial and ongoing training and testing requirements for professionals eligible to be designated by the county.
• The application and approval processes for professionals seeking to be designated by the county, including the timeframe for initial designation and procedures for renewal of the designation.
• The county’s process for monitoring and reviewing professionals designated by the county to ensure appropriate compliance with state law, regulations, and county procedures. (Id.)

This bill, instead, requires counties to develop those procedures, and specifies that the procedures listed above must be included. To be clear, this bill does not require a county to adopt any particular procedure for designation and training, and as such, procedures may continue to vary widely across the state. Under the bill, counties can tailor still their policies and procedures to the unique needs and resources of their jurisdiction, and they maintain broad flexibility to design their application process and set criteria for designation. Ultimately, this bill will likely increase the number of professionals that will be designated with 5150 authority and thereby, increase the number of 5150 holds.

Although ensuring there are enough professionals, outside of law enforcement, to carry out these duties is a laudable goal, increasing the number of professionals with this authority does not increase the availability of wrap-around services that an individual can access following detention. Many individuals detained under the LPS Act are not provided appropriate services in a timely manner, and increasing the number of detentions without increasing services, is unlikely to improve clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, this bill will provide clarity for clinicians interested in carrying out these duties, while maintaining the ability of counties to monitor and track a professional’s use of that authority, as well as overall use throughout the county.

Concerns surrounding county discretion in designating professionals. Designating a professional to have 5150 authority is a serious and consequential decisionmaking responsibility. Counties can and should therefore be selective in their designation processes to ensure they are able to appropriately train, oversee, and ultimately determine who appropriately should have this power.

To that end, the author recently took amendments in the Assembly Committee on Health that were designed to preserve county discretion regarding who may be designated with 5150 authority. Since the introduction of these amendments, at least one stakeholder group has expressed concerns about the potential of the amendment to undermine the intent of AB 416 (Krell) Chap. 691, Stats. 2025, which required county behavioral health directors to include emergency physicians as one of the practice disciplines eligible to be designated by the county to perform 5150 holds when developing and implementing procedures. Overall, there appears to be considerable disagreement surrounding the scope of a county’s discretion in exercising its designation authority.

Given the timing of the amendments, various interested parties have not had time to come to an agreement that resolves those concerns. Nonetheless, because the language generating the concerns from the emergency physicians are directly related to amendments adopted by another committee, this Committee will not be removing the language. However, the author is encouraged to continue to work with the various stakeholders and the Assembly Committee on Health to address any outstanding concerns regarding the recent amendments.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The sponsor of the bill, the California State Association of Psychiatrists, writes the following in support of the bill:

SB 16 advances California's efforts to ensure that behavioral health crises receive a clinical response whenever possible, rather than defaulting to a law enforcement response.

Under current law, counties may designate qualified professionals to initiate involuntary evaluations under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150. However, county procedures governing designation and training vary significantly across the state, and some counties lack clear standards altogether. Many counties do not publicly identify which practice disciplines are eligible for 5150 designation or the qualifications required to exercise this authority. In practice, the absence of clear county procedures can leave law enforcement as the default responder for individuals experiencing behavioral health crises, contrary to California's investment in clinically based crisis response systems.

SB 16 would require counties to establish procedures identifying the practice disciplines, qualifications, and clinical experience necessary for 5150 designation. Requiring counties to clearly define who may be designated and how those individuals are trained will promote greater consistency, transparency, and accountability across California while ensuring that appropriately qualified professionals are available to respond to psychiatric emergencies. SB 16 does not expand the criteria for involuntary detention. Rather, it ensures that counties establish clear, legally compliant procedures regarding who may exercise existing authority and how those individuals are trained.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The County Behavioral Directors Association of California (CBDHA) and the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators (CAPAPGPC), jointly state the following in opposition to the bill:

Existing law, Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 5150 states that when a person, as a result of a mental health disorder is a danger to others, or to themselves, or is found to be gravely disabled, there is a list of individuals designed by the county who may take or cause the individual to be involuntarily detained for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment. WIC 5121 currently authorizes county behavioral health directors to develop procedures for counties to designate and train professionals who will be designated to perform the functions under WIC 5150, something counties have been doing for nearly sixty years following the inception of LPS.

SB 16 create a new requirement for counties to develop these designation and training procedures, which are today optional in statute. Counties currently have local discretion due to the optional nature of these activities in statute. While counties understand the desire to ensure greater consistency around LPS implementation, without the dedicated resources, this bill would create a new unfunded mandate at a time when local and state resources are strained.

We are also concerned that by establishing this section of law as a new requirement, it may create ambiguities related to who could be designated. Counties must continue to retain discretion over which individuals and facilities are designed to involuntarily detain individuals. As such, we would request amendments to clarify this ongoing authority.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California State Association of Psychiatrists (sponsor)

Opposition

California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators
County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA)

Analysis Prepared by: Kristian Wright / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: June 23, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Mia Bonta, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 16

Author:(Blakespear) – As Amended Ver:June 11, 2026

SENATE VOTE: Not relevant.

SUBJECT: Mental health: involuntary commitment.

SUMMARY: Requires, rather than permits, a county behavioral health director to develop procedures for the county’s designation and training of professionals who will be designated to cause an individual to be taken into custody and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act to end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of persons with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, and chronic alcoholism, as well as to safeguard a person’s rights, provide prompt evaluation and treatment, and provide services in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the needs of each person. Permits involuntary detention of a person deemed to be a danger to self or others, or “gravely disabled,” as defined, for periods of up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment, or for up-to 14 days and up-to 30 days for additional intensive treatment in county-designated facilities. [Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) § 5000, et seq.]
2. Permits a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county to cause a person to be taken into custody for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. [WIC § 5150]
3. Defines “gravely disabled,” for purposes of evaluating and treating an individual who has been involuntarily detained or for placing an individual in conservatorship, as a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, a severe substance use disorder (SUD), or both, is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, shelter, personal safety, or necessary medical care. [WIC § 5008]
4. Exempts the facility providing treatment, the superintendent of the facility, the professional person in charge of the facility and their designee, or the peace officer responsible for the detainment of the person from criminal or civil liability for any action by a person released at or before the end of the period for which they were admitted. [WIC § 5113]
5. Authorizes a county behavioral health director to develop procedures for the county’s designation and training of professionals to perform the functions relative to the 72 hour detainment, evaluation, and treatment process. The procedures may include the following:
   1. The license types, practice disciplines, and clinical experience of professionals eligible to be designated by the county;
   2. The initial and ongoing training and testing requirements for professionals eligible to be designated by the county;
   3. The application and approval processes for professionals seeking to be designated by the county, including the timeframe for initial designation and procedures for renewal of the designation; and,
   4. The county’s process for monitoring and reviewing professionals designated by the county to ensure appropriate compliance with state law, regulations, and county procedures. [WIC § 5121]
6. Requires DHCS to collect and publish annually various data elements regarding the implementation, outcomes, and disparities of the LPS Act, including, if the source of admission is an emergency department (ED), the date and time of service and release from emergency care. [WIC § 5402]
7. Prohibits a licensed general acute care hospital (GACH) or psychiatric hospital (that is not a county-designated facility), licensed professional staff of those hospitals, and physicians providing emergency medical services from being held civilly or criminally liable for detaining a person for more than 8 hours but less than 24 hours who is gravely disabled, under the same definition of “gravely disabled” as is used in the LPS Act. [Health and Safety Code § 1799.111]

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. As recently amended, this bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.

COMMENTS:

1. PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, California is investing heavily in mobile crisis teams and other alternatives to law enforcement response for people experiencing behavioral health crises, but these efforts depend on the availability of qualified clinicians who are authorized to perform functions under WIC § 5150. Although current law allows counties to establish designation and training procedures for these professionals, it does not require them to do so. As a result, designation processes vary significantly across the state and may create unnecessary barriers for qualified clinicians. The author argues this bill is a workforce and accountability measure that requires counties to maintain transparent procedures for designation, training, and oversight while preserving local control and existing patient protections.
2. BACKGROUND.
   1. LPS Act involuntary detentions. The LPS Act provides for involuntary detentions for varying lengths of time for the purpose of evaluation and treatment, provided certain requirements are met, such as that an individual is taken to a county-designated facility. Typically, one first interacts with the LPS Act through a “5150” hold initiated by a peace officer or other person authorized by a county, who must determine and document that the individual meets the standard for a hold. A county-designated facility is authorized to then involuntarily detain an individual for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment if they are determined to be, as a result of a mental health disorder, a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled. The professional person in charge of the county-designated facility is required to assess an individual to determine the appropriateness of the involuntary detention prior to admitting the individual. Subject to various conditions, a person who is found to be a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled, can be subsequently involuntarily detained for an initial period of intensive treatment up to 14 days, an additional period of 14 days (or up to an additional 30 days in counties that have opted to provide this additional up-to 30-day intensive treatment episode), and ultimately a conservatorship, which is typically for up to a year and may be extended as appropriate. A person can also be released prior to the end of intensive treatment if they are found to no longer meet the criteria or are prepared to accept treatment voluntarily.

Throughout this process, existing law requires specified entities to notify family members or others identified by the detained individual of various hearings, where it is determined whether a person will be further detained or released, unless the detained person requests that this information is not provided. Additionally, a person cannot be found to be gravely disabled if they can survive safely without involuntary detention with the help of responsible family, friends, or others who indicate they are both willing and able to help.

• 1. County-designated facilities vs. non-designated facilities (NDFs). Individual counties are responsible for determining whether GACHs, Psychiatric Health Facilities, Acute Psychiatric Hospitals, and other licensed facilities qualify to be designated facilities for evaluating and treating individuals placed in involuntary detentions. DHCS is responsible for the approval of designated facilities as determined by the counties. Counties generally have the discretion to implement how facilities are designated, but facilities are required to uphold proper care of the patient and a patient’s civil rights throughout the process of detention. The intent of the LPS Act is for authorized individuals to take those whom have been placed on a 5150 hold to a designated facility, but if one does not exist, or a person is suffering another condition that requires immediate emergency medical services, the person is transported to the nearest facility, which is often an ED that is in a NDF.

As noted in 7) of Existing Law above, NDFs are permitted to involuntarily detain an individual for 8 to 24 hours for evaluation and treatment if they meet the criteria under the LPS Act, until the individual is either safely released or transferred to a designated facility.

• 1. Peace officers. In February 2025, Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper announced that his officers would no longer respond to mental health calls unless a crime is involved. The Sacramento Bee reports that in the “first six days of implementing the change in January, the Sheriff’s Office received 320 mental health calls, and deputies didn’t respond to 18 calls for help.” The policy change comes after a July 2024 ruling from that Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that two Las Vegas police officers who responded to a 911 call from a mentally ill man will have to face excessive force claims for killing the man when they restrained him and knelt on his back. According to The Sacramento Bee, Cooper said his deputies will still respond to mental health calls when a crime is in progress, when a crime has been committed, and when someone is at risk of injury or death, but not when only the person experiencing a mental health crisis is at risk of injury or death.

SB 882 (Eggman), Chapter 899, Statutes of 2022, creates the Advisory Council on Improving Interactions between People with Intellectual and Development Disabilities and Law Enforcement, under the Department of Justice, to, among other things, evaluate existing training for peace officers specific to interactions between law enforcement and individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and mental health conditions. The advisory council began meeting in April 2024 and released a final report with the current state of these interactions, discussion of best practices for law enforcement training, and other non-training interventions in April 2026. The Council makes several recommendations regarding data collection and training for behavioral health providers and peace officers. Specifically, the Council recommends special grants for each county to operate 24/7 mental health crisis teams to respond to non-crime related 911 and 988 calls. While the state has invested heavily in mobile crisis, the continuation of mobile crisis as a statewide Medi-Cal benefit is currently being debated in the state budget.

1. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED. The County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA) opposes this bill unless amended stating that this bill creates a new requirement for counties to develop designation and training procedures, which are today optional in statute. Counties currently have local discretion due to the optional nature of these activities in statute. CBHDA notes that while counties understand the desire to ensure greater consistency around LPS implementation, without the dedicated resources, this bill would create a new unfunded mandate at a time when local and state resources are strained. CBHDA is also concerned that by establishing this section of law as a new requirement, it may create ambiguities related to who could be designated. Counties must continue to retain discretion over which individuals and facilities are designed to involuntarily detain individuals. As such, CBHDA requests amendments to clarify this ongoing authority.
2. DOUBLE REFERRAL. This bill has been double referred; upon passage in this committee, it will be referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
3. PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.
   1. AB 416 (Krell), Chapter 691, Statutes of 2025, requires counties to include emergency physicians (EP), as defined, as one of the practice disciplines who are eligible to be designated by the county to cause a person to be taken into custody for assessment, evaluation, and treatment for 72 hours if the person is a danger to themselves or others, or is gravely disabled, provided the EP completes the county's training, application, and approval process that applies to all professionals who are eligible to be designated by the county.
   2. SB 402 (Wahab) of 2024 would have authorized a licensed mental health professional who is not direct staff of, or contracted by, a county to take into custody a person who, as result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled, under certain conditions and expanded related requirements regarding information collection and publication. SB 402 was held on the Assembly Appropriations committee suspense file.
   3. AB 1443 (McCarty), Chapter 399, Statutes of 2021, permits any county to develop training and procedures related to taking, or causing to be taken, a person into custody for an involuntary detention, as specified. Requires the County of Sacramento to develop a written policy for training and procedures for designating persons who are employed by the City of Sacramento and who meet specified criteria to involuntarily detain individuals.
4. POLICY COMMENT. The stated intent of this bill is twofold: to increase transparency of county designation requirements and have more non-law enforcement personnel designated to perform 5150 holds. While both are laudable goals, it’s unclear if increasing the number of clinicians designated to perform 5150 holds will result in less law enforcement involvement. If a person is determined to meet the criteria for a hold by a clinician designated by the county in a non-designated facility or out in the community, the entity to transport them to a designated facility for evaluation and treatment may still be law enforcement. By adding to the number of designated individuals in a county, this bill could result in more law enforcement engagement with people dealing with mental illness, not less. Further, more individuals designated by the county does not increase the number of beds at facilities, the number of treatment slots in outpatient programs, or access to housing. An unintended consequence of this bill, should it result in counties losing authority to make designation decisions and requiring them to designate anyone that meets the requirements they establish, is a much bigger front door into an involuntary treatment system that is already struggling or failing to serve everyone in need.
5. AMENDMENTS. In order to ensure that counties maintain the discretion to designate individuals that meet the requirements they establish, the committee may wish to amend this bill to add the following subdivision:

(g) This section does not require a county behavioral health director to designate each individual that meets the requirements specified in subdivision (a).

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Logan Hess / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 16

Author: Blakespear (D)

Amended: 4/24/25

Vote: 21

SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 10-0, 4/22/25

AYES: Wahab, Arreguín, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Dahle

SUBJECT: Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program: housing element: unsheltered and chronic homelessness: assessment and financing plan

SOURCE: Bay Area Council

New California Coalition

DIGEST:

This bill expands the data local governments provide in the housing element specific to homeless populations. This bill would also require the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to conduct an assessment and financing plan to address unsheltered and chronic homelessness in the state over a 10-year period, and report findings to the Legislature by December 1, 2027.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the housing element to include an assessment of housing needs for above moderate-income, moderate-income, low-income, and very low-income households, and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs for each income category, including extremely low-income and acutely low-income households.
2. Requires the housing element to include an analysis of any special needs housing, including, and among other things, families and persons in need of emergency shelter (hereinafter referred to as the “Homelessness Program”).
3. Establishes HHAPP to provide jurisdictions with one-time grant funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges informed by a best-practices framework focused on moving homeless individuals and families into permanent housing and supporting the efforts of those individuals and families to maintain their permanent housing. Directs HCD to administer HHAPP.
4. Empowers the recently formed Housing and Homelessness Accountability, Results, and Partnership Unit at HCD to monitor HHAPP expenditures, track outcomes, provide technical assistance and work with underperforming grantees on corrective action plans.
5. Requires a jurisdiction that is not a tribe to apply as part of a region and be a signatory to a round six regionally coordinated homelessness action plan that has been approved by the HCD. The regionally coordinated homelessness action plan (Regional Plan) must include:
   1. Identification and analysis of the specific roles and responsibilities of each participating jurisdiction in the region as specified.
   2. A list of the most recent system performance measures for the region, which shall include age, racial, and ethnic disparities, as specified.
   3. A system performance and improvement plan (Improvement Plan) with a description of key actions the region intends to take to improve system performance measures. May include key actions from small jurisdictions in the region that elect to engage in the regionally coordinated homelessness action plan.
6. Requires HHAPP applicants to demonstrate how the region will use available resources to sustain all existing and proposed interim housing investments within the region, as specified.
7. Requires HCD to approve a plan when it determines that the plan includes specified components, including certain performance measures (SPMs) for the region as well as age, racial, and ethnic disparities for specified information, and a system performance and improvement plan.
8. Requires applicants, beginning with the third round of HHAPP, to provide the specified information for all rounds of program allocations through a data collection, reporting, performance monitoring, and accountability framework.
9. Requires HCD to post a statewide report that aggregates each applicant’s outcome goals into a single statewide set of metrics.

This bill:

1) Adds the following requirements to the data required in the Homelessness Program as part of the housing element, for all non-HHAPP recipients:

1. An itemized list of the specific federal, state, and local resources available to assist individuals who are unhoused, including interim and permanent housing, including mental and behavioral health services.
2. A description of the actions taken by the local government to connect individuals who are unhoused to the resources described in (a).
3. The most up-to-date data on the number of individuals who are unhoused.
4. A description of key actions that will be taken to reduce individuals who are unhoused based on the data points described in (c)
5. Actions taken to coordinate with cities in the region, counties or council of governments, and identification and analysis of the specific roles and responsibilities regarding outreach and site coordination, siting and use of available land, the development of shelter, interim, and permanent housing options, and the coordination and connection to the delivery of services to individuals who are unhoused, or at risk of becoming unhoused, including specifying roles and coordination plans in relation to the Mental Health Services Act or Behavioral Health Services Act, within the region and engagement with the regionally coordinated action plan in HHAPP.
6. Actions taken to reduce barriers and expedite the approval process for approving interim and permanent housing options.

2) Requires HCD to complete, or contract to complete, an assessment and financing plan to, in coordination with local jurisdictions, address unsheltered and chronic homelessness in the state over a 10 year period. HCD shall report this to the legislature by December 31, 2027.

3) Requires the assessment in (2) to identify the following:

1. The number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness and the number of people expected to fall into unsheltered homelessness over the next 10 years, as specified.
2. The unmet housing and services needs among the populations identified in (a).
3. The evidence-based interventions required to meet the housing and services needs of the populations identified in (a)
4. The funding required to offer evidence-based interventions at a scale great enough for populations identified in (a) to exit homelessness over the 10-year period.
5. Of the funding identified as required in (d), the existing resources that could be used to meet the unmet housing and services needs of the populations identified in (a), including estimates of local funding available to serve these populations. This can include the funding available for a spectrum of interventions, from interventions to keep people safe while homeless to evidence-based interventions to end homelessness, including, but not limited to, additional shelters and interim and permanent housing services solutions.
6. The remaining resources required to end homelessness among the populations identified in (a) after taking into consideration existing funding described in (e). This can include the funding necessary for a spectrum of interventions, from interventions to keep people safe while homeless to evidence-based practices to end homelessness, including, but not limited to, additional shelters and interim and permanent housing solutions.
7. The actions that state and local governments need to take in order to create the resources identified in (f) and recommendations to the Legislature for how and when to accomplish those actions.

Background

The Solutions to California’s Homelessness Crisis. The overwhelming evidence shows that the solution to homelessness is providing more habitable, stable, and permanent housing at all income levels, and in particular, more housing affordable to the lowest income earners. While increasing the supply of affordable housing is the priority solution to the homelessness crisis, there is a spectrum of housing solutions that different levels of governments should offer, depending on the specific needs of the individual or family experiencing homelessness. For example, many families merely require temporary rental assistance to maintain housing or rapid rehousing to reconnect to permanent housing. Some populations require more intensive services in conjunction with permanent housing options. For those living on the streets or in encampments, a shelter can provide short-term, temporary respite. Shelters generally have very low rates of exiting to permanent housing. Interim solutions, such as bridge housing communities and low barrier navigation centers, provide a spectrum of housing and healthcare services, particularly to marginalized communities and those with pets, and may be necessary while a more permanent solution (such as rental assistance or the construction of a new unit) can be attained. The end goal should always be connections to housing that is truly affordable, low barrier, permanent, safe, and habitable as quickly as possible.

Last year, homelessness increased 18% across the country; in California, however, homelessness only increased by 3%. While there is still much work to be done, this indicates a slow-down in an upward trend. Additionally, two particular data points stick out:

1. Between 2023 and 2024, California had the largest reduction in the number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the nation, with 1,279 fewer veterans experiencing homelessness on a single night in January in 2024 than in 2023 (8% reduction year over year).
2. Between 2023 and 2024, California had the largest reduction in the number of unaccompanied youths experiencing homelessness in the nation, with 1,121 fewer unaccompanied youth experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2024 than in January 2023.

According to the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative (UCSF Benioff), the reason for the reduction in veteran homelessness is because the state has adequately scaled the evidence-based responses — which include Housing First, or housing subsidies paired with appropriate services^[1]. The same can likely be said for homeless youth, given consistent set asides within Homekey and HHAPP for this population. Additionally, UCSF Benioff states that while the overall increase in homelessness numbers are lower than the national trend, the enormous number of people experiencing homelessness in California reflects the ongoing crisis caused by the lack of affordable housing in California. Given the successes in overall reductions for veterans and homeless youth, we know how to address homelessness —which is to provide more permanent affordable housing options — but these actions must be scaled adequately and for all populations.

Comments

1) Increasing transparency and regional coordination statewide. This bill would build upon the regional coordination efforts and increased data transparency required for big cities and counties that apply for HHAPP funds by requiring housing element homelessness programs to provide information about key actions taking locally and in coordination with the region. Specifically, this bill would require any local government that is not a HHAPP recipient to provide an itemized list of all public funds available to assist the homeless (including for housing and mental and behavioral health); actions taken to connect homeless individuals to available funds; specified data on people experiencing homelessness; actions taken to reduce and prevent unsheltered homelessness; actions taken to coordinate within the region; and actions taken to reduce barrier and to expedite the approval process for approving interim and permanent housing options.

According to some HHAPP recipients, the regional coordination requirements have already incentivized some smaller, non-HHAPP recipients to engage with broader regional coordination efforts. Prompting all local governments – specifically non-HHAPP recipients – to think holistically about their programs and existing funds and to engage with broader regional efforts could create bridges and increase more seamless coordination amongst all local governments. Additionally, these new data points create more transparency around the availability of public sources and programs already in place to assist people experiencing homelessness and push greater efficiency in the use of those funds.

2) Identifying statewide needs to end homelessness. Cal-ICH recently published a statewide Action Plan for Preventing and Ending Homelessness^[2]. The purpose of the Plan is to organize and assess statewide investments, ensuring that efforts are strategic, measurable, and aligned with our shared vision. The plan outlines several Action Plan Goals that are intended to drive the outcomes for state investments and how Cal-ICH members should measure progress and success. What is lacking in this action plan, however, is what actions and investments are required for the state to end and prevent homelessness moving forward, rather than merely reviewing and assessing past actions and investments. While these lookbacks are critical to ensure funding is being invested effectively, the state has not conducted a statewide assessment of what it would take to end homelessness for good.

This bill would add a requirement for the state to conduct a statewide assessment of what funding and actions would be required to end and prevent homelessness in 10 years. This “Statewide Strategy to End and Prevent Homelessness” would be due back to the Legislature by December 1, 2027.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. HCD would incur costs of approximately $960,000 annually for two years (2026-27 and 2027-28), including staffing resources and contracting costs, to conduct the required assessment and financing plan and submit a report to the Legislature by December 31, 2027, and to provide technical assistance to local agencies regarding the new housing element requirements.
   
2. HCD would also incur unknown ongoing costs, potentially in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually beginning in 2028-29, to provide continued technical assistance to local jurisdictions regarding the new housing element requirements. Staff notes that these requirements only apply to local jurisdictions that do now receive funding under the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) program. (General Fund)
   
3. Unknown local costs for local agencies who do not receive HHAP funding to include additional information regarding homelessness in their housing elements, as specified. Local costs related to update specified general plan elements would generally not be state-reimbursable because cities and counties have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new local planning mandates. See staff comments. (local funds)

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/23/25)

Bay Area Council (co-source)

New California Coalition (co-source)
City and County of San Francisco
City of San Diego
Dignitymoves
Pae Consulting Engineers
Tmg Partners

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/23/25)

City of Del Mar
City of Dinuba
City of Garden Grove
City of LA Palma
City of Lake Forest

City of Los Alamitos

City of Morro Bay

City of Mission Viejo

City of Oceanside

City of Placentia

City of San Fernando
City of Thousand Oaks

City of Tulare

City of Stanton
City of Villa Park
County of Kern
County of Madera
County of Merced
County of Monterey

County of San Bernardino

County of Shasta

County of Sonoma
County of Sonoma Department of Health Services

County of Tulare

League of California Cities

Madera County Board of Supervisors
Monterey County Department of Social Services

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “On any given day in our state, close to 130,000 people live without a roof over their head. They live in community parks, canyons and riverbeds, and on sidewalks with their belongings. We need to work on solutions that treat unsheltered homelessness like the humanitarian crisis that it is. We know that more housing is the solution to homelessness, but the reality is that we are not building housing at the pace needed to make a real difference. We need more timely solutions that move people indoors now while they wait for permanent housing. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan has shown the state that interim housing can be used to meet this need. In under two years, his administration has built nearly 1,000 new interim housing units. But people who have been homeless need help – job training, healthcare, and counseling for example -- to get back on their feet. These services are expensive to provide and can be a barrier for cities seeking to build more interim housing. SB 16 requires counties to partner with cities to cover the cost of interim housing operations, clearing the path to get California’s unsheltered into shelter.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The League of California cities and other cities are opposed to new requirements in the housing element, specifically, as noted above, to data point that are obtained in collaboration with counties. They request amendments that would instead add smaller (non-HHAPP recipient) cities to be required to participate in the Regional Action Plan part of the HHAPP process. Several counties and county departments are opposed to provisions that were removed from the current version of this bill, which would have required counties to pay for at least half of the estimated costs to operate city shelters.

Prepared by: Alison Hughes / HOUSING / (916) 651-4124

5/24/25 23:33:06

**** END ****

1. Margot Kushel. Statement by UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative Director Dr. Margot Kushel on 2024 Point-In-Time Homeless Count. December 28, 2024. Accessible here: https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/resources/press-release/statement-Kushel-PIT-count ↑

2. Cal-ICH. Action Plan for Preventing and Ending Homelessness (2025-2027). Accessible here: https://www.bcsh.ca.gov/calich/documents/action_plan.pdf ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 16 (Blakespear) - Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program: housing element: unsheltered and chronic homelessness: assessment and financing plan

Bill Summary:

SB 16 would require the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to complete a specified assessment and financing plan to address unsheltered and chronic homelessness over a 10-year period. The bill would also require certain local agencies to include additional data and actions taken to address homelessness in their housing elements, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• HCD would incur costs of approximately $960,000 annually for two years (2026-27 and 2027-28), including staffing resources and contracting costs, to conduct the required assessment and financing plan and submit a report to the Legislature by December 31, 2027, and to provide technical assistance to local agencies regarding the new housing element requirements.
  
• HCD would also incur unknown ongoing costs, potentially in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually beginning in 2028-29, to provide continued technical assistance to local jurisdictions regarding the new housing element requirements. Staff notes that these requirements only apply to local jurisdictions that do now receive funding under the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) program. (General Fund)
  
• Unknown local costs for local agencies who do not receive HHAP funding to include additional information regarding homelessness in their housing elements, as specified. Local costs related to update specified general plan elements would generally not be state-reimbursable because cities and counties have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new local planning mandates. See staff comments. (local funds)

Background:

Existing law requires cities and counties to prepare a general plan comprised of seven mandatory elements, including a housing element that includes an identification of existing and projected housing needs. The housing element must include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, which is used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period that is sufficient to meet the regional housing needs for all income levels. Existing law requires the housing element to include an analysis of any special needs housing, including families and persons in need of emergency shelter, and the identification of zoning designations that allow residential uses, including mixed uses, where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use. Housing elements must be updated every eight years in urban areas, and every five years in more rural areas.

Existing law, as enacted by AB 101 (Budget Committee), Chap. 159/2019, establishes the HHAP Grant Program to provide jurisdictions with one-time grant funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges. HHAP funding is informed by a best-practices framework focused on moving homeless individuals and families into permanent housing, and supporting the efforts of those individuals and families to maintain their permanent housing. The program has been funded by General Fund appropriations in the annual Budget Act, with $950 million over the first two rounds of funding, and $1 billion each year through Round 6 in the 2024-25 Budget. The Governor’s proposed 2025-26 proposed budget does not include new funding for the HHAP Program.

Large cities (with a population of 300,000 or more), counties, Continuums of Care (COCs), and tribal entities can apply for HHAP funding. HCD is currently administering Round 6 of HHAP funding, and issued the 2025 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) in February. According to HCD, the goal of this round of funding is to “reflect the state’s priorities to prevent and expeditiously reduce unsheltered homelessness through homelessness prevention activities and sustain existing interim housing solutions and permanent housing solutions, including long-term sustainability of permanent affordable housing.” Round 6 prioritizes homelessness prevention, permanent housing, and operational support for existing interim housing over uses of HHAP funds that do not directly provide housing. Existing law requires a jurisdiction that is not a tribe to apply as part of a region and be a signatory to a Round 6 regionally coordinated homelessness action plan, which must include the most recent performance measures for the region that includes:

• • The number of people experiencing homelessness.
  • The average length of time people experience homelessness.
  • The percentage and number of people exiting homelessness into permanent housing.
  • The number of people falling into homelessness for the first time.
  • The number of people who return to homelessness after exiting institutional settings, including jails, prisons, and hospitals.

Proposed Law:

SB 16 would require HCD to complete a specified assessment and financing plan to address unsheltered and chronic homelessness over a 10-year period. The bill would also require certain local agencies to include additional data and actions taken to address homelessness in their housing elements, as specified.

Housing element provisions: This bill would require local agencies that do not receive HHAP funding to include the following in their housing elements:

• An itemized list of the specific federal, state, and local resources available to assist individuals who are unhoused, including interim and permanent housing, including mental and behavioral health services.
• A description of the actions taken by the local government to connect individuals who are unhoused to those specified resources.
• The most up-to-date data on the number of individuals who are unhoused.
• A description of key actions that will be taken to reduce individuals who are unhoused.
• A description of the key actions that will be taken to prevent individuals from becoming unhoused.
• Actions taken to coordinate with cities in the region, counties or council of governments, and identification and analysis of the specific roles and responsibilities regarding outreach and site coordination, siting and use of available land, the development of shelter, interim, and permanent housing options, and the coordination and connection to the delivery of services to individuals who are unhoused, or at risk of becoming unhoused, including specifying roles and coordination plans in relation to the Mental Health Services Act or Behavioral Health Services Act, within the region and engagement in the regionally coordinated homelessness action plan required pursuant to the HHAP program.
• Actions taken to reduce barriers and expedite the approval processes for approving interim and permanent housing options.

HCD homelessness assessment: This bill would require HCD to complete, or contract to complete, an assessment and financing plan to address unsheltered and chronic homelessness in coordination with local jurisdictions over a 10-year period. The bill would require HCD or the contractor, in conducting the assessment and action plan, to consult with specified individuals and interested parties. HCD must submit a report to the Legislature on the assessment and financing plan by December 31, 2027. The assessment must identify all of the following:

• The number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness and the number of people expected to fall into unsheltered homelessness over the next 10 years, based on recent data.
• The unmet housing and services needs among the unsheltered homeless populations identified above.
• Evidence-based interventions required to meet the housing and services needs of the unsheltered homeless populations identified above.
• The funding required to offer evidence-based interventions at a scale sufficient for those populations to exit homelessness over the 10-year period. Of this amount, existing resources that could be used to meet the unmet housing and services needs of the unsheltered homeless populations identified above, including estimates of local funding available to serve these populations, as specified.
• Remaining resources required to end homelessness among the unsheltered homeless populations identified above, after considering the existing resources, as specified.
• The actions that state and local governments need to take in order to create the remaining resources required to end homelessness, as specified, and recommendations to the Legislature for how and when to accomplish those actions.

Related Legislation:

SB 749 (Allen), which is pending in this Committee, would require an applicant for HHAP funding to report specified information to HCD, including an assessment of how to achieve functional zero unsheltered, as specified, and other information regarding implementation of local homeless housing incentives.

Staff Comments:

This bill would impose new mandated costs on certain local agencies who do not receive HHAP funding by requiring the inclusion of additional data and information regarding actions taken to address homelessness in their housing elements. This bill’s mandated local planning costs associated with these new duties would generally not be subject to state reimbursement because local agencies have the authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees as necessary to cover administrative costs. Existing law authorizes planning and zoning fees to “include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and determinations.” Case law and previous decisions by the Commission on State Mandates support the position that local governments’ planning costs are not reimbursable when the state imposes new planning mandates.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 16 Hearing Date: April 22, 2025

SUBJECT: Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program: housing element: Integrated Plan for Behavioral Health Services and Outcomes

DIGEST: This bill would expand the data local governments provide in the housing element specific to homeless populations. Additionally, it would require counties to commit to divert their funds, and to contribute at least 50% of expected operating costs to city homeless shelters through a new Action Plan in the seventh round of the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program (HHAPP), as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires every city and county to prepare and adopt a general plan, including a housing element, to guide the future growth of a community. The housing element must identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs, identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning to meet the housing needs of all income segments of the community, and ensure that regulatory systems provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development.
2. Requires the housing element to include an assessment of housing needs for above moderate-income, moderate-income, low-income, and very low-income households, and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs for each income category, including extremely low-income and acutely low-income households.
3. Requires the housing element to include an analysis of any special needs housing, including, and among other things, families and persons in need of emergency shelter (hereinafter referred to as the “Homelessness Program”).
4. Requires the housing element to include the identification of zones that allow residential, including mixed uses, where emergency shelters and other interim interventions are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit that are suitable for residential uses, as specified. Shelters and interim inventions may be subject to development and management standards that are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters.
5. Establishes HHAPP to provide jurisdictions with one-time grant funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges informed by a best-practices framework focused on moving homeless individuals and families into permanent housing and supporting the efforts of those individuals and families to maintain their permanent housing. Directs the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to administer HHAPP.
6. Empowers the recently formed Housing and Homelessness Accountability, Results, and Partnership Unit at HCD to monitor HHAPP expenditures, track outcomes, provide technical assistance and work with underperforming grantees on corrective action plans.
7. Requires a jurisdiction that is not a tribe to apply as part of a region and be a signatory to a round six regionally coordinated homelessness action plan that has been approved by the HCD.
8. Requires that a regionally coordinated homelessness action plan (Regional Plan) include:
   1. Identification and analysis of the specific roles and responsibilities of each participating jurisdiction in the region as specified.
   2. A list of the most recent system performance measures for the region, which shall include age, racial, and ethnic disparities, as specified.
   3. A system performance and improvement plan (Improvement Plan) with a description of key actions the region intends to take to improve system performance measures. May include key actions from small jurisdictions in the region that elect to engage in the regionally coordinated homelessness action plan.
9. Requires HHAPP applicants to demonstrate how the region will use available resources to sustain all existing and proposed interim housing investments within the region, as specified.
10. Requires HCD to approve a plan when it determines that the plan includes specified components, including certain performance measures (SPMs) for the region as well as age, racial, and ethnic disparities for specified information, and a system performance and improvement plan.
11. Requires HHAP to be used for evidence-based solutions that address and prevent homelessness among eligible populations, including any of the following:
    1. Permanent housing solutions that can prevent or serve those experiencing unsheltered homelessness, including rental subsidies, landlord incentives, move-in expenses, operating subsidies, supportive services for those in permanent housing, capital for permanent housing, and services coordination, as specified.
    2. Homelessness prevention, including: rental assistance, rapid rehousing, diversion support programs that prevent people from entering homelessness, as specified.
    3. Interim housing solutions that provide shelter for those experiencing unsheltered homelessness including: low barrier navigation centers, operating subsidies for existing congregate shelter sites, operating expense in new or existing non-congregate shelter sites, hotel or motel vouchers, services, capital funding to build new non-congregate shelter sites, capital funding for enhanced congregate or non-congregate shelters, youth focused services in transitional housing, improvements to shelters to lower barriers and increase privacy. New interim shelters must be low-barrier and comply with housing first principles.
    4. Non-housing solutions such as street outreach, evidence based engagement services, intensive care management services, harm reduction services, and housing navigation centers.
12. Requires applicants, beginning with the third round of HHAPP, to provide the following information for all rounds of program allocations through a data collection, reporting, performance monitoring, and accountability framework:
13. Data on the applicant’s progress towards meeting their outcome goals, which must be submitted annually on December 31 of each year through the duration of the program;
14. If the applicant has not made significant progress toward their outcome goals, the applicant must submit a description of barriers and possible solutions to those barriers;
15. Applicants that do not demonstrate significant progress towards meeting outcome goals must accept technical assistance from HCD and may also be required to limit the allowable uses of these program funds;
16. A quarterly fiscal report of program funds expended and obligated in each allowable budget category approved in their application for program funds; and
17. If the applicant has not made significant progress toward their outcome goals, then the applicant must report on their outcome goals in their quarterly report.
18. Requires HCD to post a statewide report that aggregates each applicant’s outcome goals into a single statewide set of metrics.
19. Pursuant to the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), requires each county to prepare and submit an integrated plan, including sections for specified programs and services, such as services provided through federal grants or other county mental health and substance use disorder programs, and annual updates to the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission and the State Department of Health Care Services.

This bill:

1) Adds the following requirements to the data required in the Homelessness Program as part of the housing element, for all non-HHAPP recipients:

1. An itemized list of the specific federal, state, and local resources available to assist individuals who are unhoused, including interim and permanent housing, including mental and behavioral health services.
2. A description of the actions taken by the local government to connect individuals who are unhoused to the resources described in (a).
3. The most up-to-date data on the population of individuals who are unhoused, which shall include all of the following:
   1. The number of individuals who are unhoused.
   2. The average length of time individuals are unhoused.
   3. The number and percentage of unhoused individuals that moved into permanent housing.
   4. The number of people who become unhoused after moving into permanent housing.
   5. The number of people who became unhoused for the first time.
   6. The number of people who become unhoused after exiting institutional settings, including, but not limited to, jails, prisons, and hospitals.
4. The data specified in (c) shall be disaggregated by age, racial, and ethnic demographics.
5. A description of key actions that will be taken to reduce individuals who are unhoused based on the data points described in (c)
6. Actions taken to coordinate with cities in the region, counties or council of governments, and identification and analysis of the specific roles and responsibilities regarding outreach and site coordination, siting and use of available land, the development of shelter, interim, and permanent housing options, and the coordination and connection to the delivery of services to individuals who are unhoused, or at risk of becoming unhoused, including specifying roles and coordination plans in relation to the Mental Health Services Act or Behavioral Health Services Act, within the region.
7. Programs that prevent individuals from becoming unhoused and other actions taken to prevent vulnerable populations from becoming unhoused, such as current and former foster youth, veterans, persons exiting the judicial system, and persons with special housing needs.

2) Creates a HHAPP round seven and requires an applicant to be a signatory to a regionally coordinated homeless action plan.

3) Requires a Homeless Action plan, as reflected in a memorandum of understanding, to include all of the following:

1. For cities, an inventory of existing and planned city-operated shelters, as specified.
2. The expected costs for city-operated shelters:

i) Counties shall coordinate with cities to determine these expected costs, and cities shall provide counties with estimates of annual total cost to operate shelters.

ii) Beginning January 1, 2026, expected costs shall not exceed 125% of the most recent 3-year average of the annual costs to operate the city’s shelters.

c) A commitment by counties to contribute at least 50% of the expected costs identified in (b), including but not limited to: social services; assistance with services, infrastructure and capacity building; and staff and contractors.

4) Requires HCD to submit the update on their round seven coordinated action plan with the provisions in (3) above, and requires HCD to approve or disapprove the update as specified.

5) Provides that a Board of Supervisors may adopt a resolution to determine if compliance with (3) is infeasible and whether the county has made attempts to obtain maximum funding available to the county. This shall be reviewable by HCD, and HCD shall determine what contribution percentage is feasible.

6) Authorizes HCD to withhold 50% of HHAPP funds until HCD determines the Homelessness Plan is in compliance.

7) Requires the integrated plan, as required under the BHSA, to include specified program data contained in HHAPP round seven.

Background

Homelessness: stats and causes. According to the most recent point in time (PIT) count, 187,084 people were experiencing homelessness in California—representing 30% of the nation’s homeless population. Two-thirds of the homeless population in California is unsheltered. Over half (51%) of all unsheltered people in the United States were in California. A lack of affordable housing is the biggest contributor to homelessness. As housing costs continue to rise, rent becomes less affordable for lower-income households, who are forced to live beyond their means (paying more than 30% of income on housing costs) or are pushed out of their homes, leading to rapid increases in homelessness. Variation in rates of homelessness cannot be explained by variation in rates of individual factors such as poverty or mental illness; however, cities with higher rents and lower rental vacancy rates (i.e., tighter housing markets) are directly linked to higher per capita rates of homelessness.

The lack of affordable housing plays a significant role in causing individuals to become homeless or creates obstacles for individuals experiencing homeless to transition into stable housing. The need for and costs of housing have consistently outpaced the development of affordable housing for over 30 years. As of 2022, working at the minimum wage of $15/hour, a renter has to work 83 hours each week to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home at Fair Market Rent in California. The lack of supply is the primary factor underlying California’s housing crunch. To keep up with demand, HCD estimates that California must plan for the development of more than 2.5 million homes over the next eight years, and no less than one million of those homes must meet the needs of lower-income households (more than 640,000 very low-income and 385,000 low-income units are needed). For decades, not enough housing was constructed to meet need, resulting in a severe undersupply of housing. New construction of housing, both single family homes and apartments, continues to lag behind historical averages, and lags further behind the number of new units needed to meet housing demand.

Comments

1) Author’s statement. “On any given day in our state, close to 130,000 people live without a roof over their head. They live in community parks, canyons and riverbeds, and on sidewalks with their belongings. We need to work on solutions that treat unsheltered homelessness like the humanitarian crisis that it is. We know that more housing is the solution to homelessness, but the reality is that we are not building housing at the pace needed to make a real difference. We need more timely solutions that move people indoors now while they wait for permanent housing. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan has shown the state that interim housing can be used to meet this need. In under two years, his administration has built nearly 1,000 new interim housing units. But people who have been homeless need help – job training, healthcare, and counseling for example -- to get back on their feet. These services are expensive to provide and can be a barrier for cities seeking to build more interim housing. SB 16 requires counties to partner with cities to cover the cost of interim housing operations, clearing the path to get California’s unsheltered into shelter.”

2) The Solutions to California’s Homelessness Crisis. The overwhelming evidence shows that the solution to homelessness is providing more habitable, stable, and permanent housing at all income levels, and in particular, more housing affordable to the lowest income earners. While increasing the supply of affordable housing is the priority solution to the homelessness crisis, there is a spectrum of housing solutions that different levels of governments should offer, depending on the specific needs of the individual or family experiencing homelessness. For example, many families merely require temporary rental assistance to maintain housing or rapid rehousing to reconnect to permanent housing. Some populations require more intensive services in conjunction with permanent housing options. For those living on the streets or in encampments, a shelter can provide short-term, temporary respite. Shelters generally have very low rates of exiting to permanent housing. Interim solutions, such as bridge housing communities and low barrier navigation centers, provide a spectrum of housing and healthcare services, particularly to marginalized communities and those with pets, and may be necessary while a more permanent solution (such as rental assistance or the construction of a new unit) can be attained. The end goal should always be connections to housing that is truly affordable, low barrier, permanent, safe, and habitable as quickly as possible.

Last year, homelessness increased 18% across the country; in California, however, homelessness only increased by 3%. While there is still much work to be done, this indicates a slow-down in an upward trend. Additionally, two particular data points stick out:

1. Between 2023 and 2024, California had the largest reduction in the number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the nation, with 1,279 fewer veterans experiencing homelessness on a single night in January in 2024 than in 2023 (8% reduction year over year).
2. Between 2023 and 2024, California had the largest reduction in the number of unaccompanied youths experiencing homelessness in the nation, with 1,121 fewer unaccompanied youth experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2024 than in January 2023.

According to the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative (UCSF Benioff), the reason for the reduction in veteran homelessness is because the state has adequately scaled the evidence-based responses — which include Housing First, or housing subsidies paired with appropriate services^[1]. The same can likely be said for homeless youth, given consistent set asides within Homekey and HHAPP for this population. Additionally, UCSF Benioff states that while the overall increase in homelessness numbers are lower than the national trend, the enormous number of people experiencing homelessness in California reflects the ongoing crisis caused by the lack of affordable housing in California. Given the successes in overall reductions for veterans and homeless youth, we know how to address homelessness —which is to provide more permanent affordable housing options — but these actions must be scaled adequately and for all populations.

3) Shelter of last resort. While emergency shelters are one facet of the spectrum of interventions for people who experience homelessness, best practice models indicate that for conducting encampment resolution, placing homeless individuals in emergency shelters should only occur when a housing placement (either interim or permanent) is not possible^[2]. These are some of the reasons why:

1. Shelters have requirements that present barriers to entry. Many are unable to access emergency shelters based on family status, gender, age, substance use, and pet ownership, which can exclude vulnerable populations and create barriers to accessing safe housing. For example, a mother with teenaged boys could be excluded from a women-only shelter.
2. Shelters are reportedly unsafe. Additionally, what happens in those shelters is largely a black box. No state agency keeps an updated list of how many shelters are operating and there is no state licensing agency. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development tracks numbers of emergency shelter beds and how long people live in them, but does not track resident deaths, health, or safety.  Many shelter users have reported physical and sexual assaults, child abuse, mold, and repeated exposure to pneumonia and other public health hazards. Vulnerable populations —especially women and children —often elect to live outside, believing this to be a safer choice than utilizing an emergency shelter. Additionally, annual shelter death rates have tripled between 2018 and mid-2024. A total of 2,007 people died during this period, according to data obtained from the California Interagency Council on Homelessness.
3. Shelters have a poor record of solving homelessness. A follow-up CalMatters report noted that shelters don’t result in successful housing exits; California’s shelters delivered housing for just 22% of residents from 2018 to early 2024. In 2024 in San Diego, for example, of the 3,555 households entering shelters, 18% exited to permanent housing and 8% exited to temporary situations. From 2023-24, the average length of shelter stay before entering permanent housing increased from 143 days to 184 days. The current wait for permanent housing in 2025 is 245 days. In 2023 and 2024, however, of those served by permanent housing in San Diego, 91% have thus far maintained their permanent housing.
4. High vacancy rates. A recent audit of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) found that an average of one in four city-funded shelter beds for people experiencing homelessness went unused, costing Los Angeles taxpayers about $218 million over five years^[3].

In 2021, following earlier reports of maggots, flooding, and sexual harassment in shelters, the state Legislature passed AB 352 (Quirk-Silva, Chapter 395), which created a new system requiring local governments to inspect the facilities after health and safety complaints and file annual reports on shelter conditions, including plans to fix safety and building code violations. According to a recent CalMatters article, residents of a temporary shelter in San Diego reported that the roof leaked during rain; one resident alleged that “since she didn’t have a door to lock and witnessed widespread drug use and unpredictable outbursts.^[4]” According to the CalMatters article, the City of San Diego “had received five complaints since the shelter law was passed, and that ‘city staff are working on’ evaluating why a state report had not been filed.”

4) Recent state investments: prioritizing long-term housing solutions. Though the evolution of HHAPP, the Legislature and Governor have taken steps to reduce the amount of funding that may be expended on new and existing shelters and in particular, non-congregate shelters and instead sought to prioritize investments in permanent housing and prevention activities. For example, in round four, recipients could use funds for interim solutions – i.e., enhancements to congregate shelters or new or existing non-congregate shelter operations – if the applicants could prove the need, as specified. Additionally, funds could only be used for low-barrier navigation centers that complied with Housing First principles. Round five applicants were required to spend at least 50% of their funds on permanent or interim housing activities. In order to expend funds on interim solutions, applicants were required to have met housing element compliance milestones, prohousing designation or a commitment to apply, alignment with U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness Seven Principles for Addressing Encampments, and local surplus land commitments or technical assistance requests for affordable housing. Beginning in round six, regions must have a plan to sustain all interim housing through the grant term. If new interim or nonhousing uses are proposed, they must also have a plan to sustain all existing and planned permanent housing within the region through the grant term.

5) Housing elements: homelessness programs. In general, a housing element must identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs, identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning to meet its share of the RHNA, and ensure that regulatory systems provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. As part of the process to identify adequate sites, a city or county first prepares an inventory of existing sites zoned for housing. It must also determine what portion of the jurisdiction’s very low-income need comprises the needs of extremely low-income households. In assessing the need for extremely low-income housing (ELI), the locality may either conduct an independent analysis or assume that the need is 50% of the regional need allocation for very low-income (VLI) housing.

An analysis of the homeless and unhoused population is essential to determining the need for emergency shelters and transitional housing. The analysis is required to include estimates of numbers and types of households (e.g., single men, single women, families, and persons with disabilities, including people with impairments related to substance abuse), a description of needs, resources available to meet those needs and a description of program or policy options for addressing the need. According to HCD guidance, it should also include an estimate of units/beds/vouchers currently available to assist this population. The emergency shelter need must be based on both annual and seasonal need to ensure that communities provide for sufficient shelter during periods of cold and inclement weather.

6) HHAPP Generally. The HHAPP was created to provide jurisdictions with one-time grant funds expand or develop local capacity to address immediate homelessness challenges informed by a best-practices framework focused on moving homeless individuals and families into permanent housing and supporting the efforts of those individuals and families to maintain their permanent housing. Program funds can be used for services for those experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, such as rapid rehousing, operating subsidies, street outreach, services coordination, delivery of permanent and innovative housing solutions, and homelessness prevention. HHAPP replaced a prior program, the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP), which also provided block grants to large cities and Continuums of Care (CoCs) for a variety of solutions addressing homelessness. Large cities (with a population of 300,000 or more), counties, CoCs, and tribes can apply for HHAPP funding. HCD recently made the applications for HHAPP round six available to eligible applicants.

7) HHAPP Accountability Measures, Regional Coordination, and Performance Metrics. Beginning with round four, HHAPP included robust accountability provisions, including the requirement that applicants develop a Regional Plan and performance goals. In addition, beginning with HHAPPP round five, regions must to submit a joint application, Regional Plan, and set outcome goals that prevent and reduce homelessness over a three-year period, informed by the findings from a local landscape analysis and the jurisdiction's base system performance measure from 2020 calendar year data in the state Homeless Data Integration System (HDIS).

The Regional Plan includes all of the following:

• 1. Identification and analysis of the specific roles and responsibilities of each participating jurisdiction in the region as specified.
  2. A list of the most recent system performance measures for the region, which shall include age, racial, and ethnic disparities for specified information.
  3. A system performance and improvement plan with a description of key actions the region intends to take to improve system performance measures. May include key actions from small jurisdictions in the region that elect to engage in the regionally coordinated homelessness action plan.
  4. All applicants must demonstrate how the region will use available resources to sustain all existing and proposed interim housing investments within the region.

The outcome goals included metrics, based on the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's SPMs, to do the following:

1. Reduce the number of persons experiencing homelessness;
2. Reduce the number of persons who become homeless for the first time;
3. Increase the number of people exiting homelessness into permanent housing;
4. Reduce the length of time persons remain homeless;
5. Reduce the number of persons who return to homelessness after exiting homelessness to permanent housing; and
6. Increase successful placements from street outreach.

Further, round six prioritizes homelessness prevention, permanent housing, and operational support for existing interim housing over uses of HHAPP funds that do not directly provide housing.

8) Increasing transparency and regional coordination statewide. This bill would build upon the regional coordination efforts and increased data transparency required for big cities and counties that apply for HHAPP funds by requiring housing element homelessness programs to provide information about key actions taking locally and in coordination with the region.. Specifically, this bill would require any local government that is not a HHAPP recipient to provide an itemized list of all public funds available to assist the homeless (including for housing and mental and behavioral health); actions taken to connect homeless individuals to available funds; specified data on people experiencing homelessness; actions taken to reduce overall homelessness; actions taken to coordinate within the region; and a description of any local homelessness programs and actions taken to prevent vulnerable populations from becoming unhoused.

According to some HHAPP recipients, the regional coordination requirements have already incentivized some smaller, non-HHAPP recipients to engage with broader regional coordination efforts. Prompting all local governments – specifically non-HHAPP recipients – to think holistically about their programs and existing funds and to engage with broader regional efforts could create bridges and increase more seamless coordination amongst all local governments. Additionally, these new data points create more transparency around the availability of public sources and programs already in place to assist people experiencing homelessness.

Given this bill will apply statewide, and will be required of all local governments of varying sizes and levels of sophistication, the author has agreed to the following amendments to provide added flexibility, particularly for lower-resource communities:

1. Remove demographic data requirements that likely are not available to smaller cities and already available through local homeless management information system (HMIS) data.
2. Remove a requirement to identify programs that prevent individuals from becoming unhoused related to vulnerable populations as these are programs that are most likely to be provided at the county level and not smaller cities.
3. Add a requirement for cities to provide a description of key actions that will be taken to prevent individuals from becoming homeless.
4. Add a provision authorizing actions taken to coordinate with the region can also include engagement with the creation of the regional action plans contained in HHAPP.
5. Add a provision for cities to provide a description of actions taken to reduce barriers and expedite the approval processes for interim and permanent housing developments.

The League of California Cities, in their “oppose unless amended” letter, recommend that, instead of adding additional requirements to the housing element, another way to encourage smaller cities to engage in regional planning for homelessness would be to require all cities to participate in the HHAPP regional planning process. As noted above, some smaller cities are already doing so, and are permitted to do so now under HHAPP; but requiring them to engage through the Regional Action Plan process under HHAPP would achieve the same goals and possibly in a more streamlined fashion. Moving forward, the author may wish to consider requiring all non-HHAPP funded jurisdictions to participate in the Regional Action Plan process.

9) Diverting county service funds to shelters and rescinding accountability measures. In lieu of the robust accountability measures and requirements to reduce overall homelessness numbers — e.g., the Regional Plan and requirements to meet SPMs to comprehensively reduce homelessness with evidence based metrics—this bill would instead require a plan that focuses solely on investments and diversions of county funds to city-run shelters. Specifically, the Action Plan under this bill requires an inventory of existing and planned city-operated shelters, the expected cost for those shelters, and a commitment by counties to contribute 50% of the expected costs. These provisions would allow for more funds than past years to be directed to shelter operation, instead of reducing those investments and instead focusing on longer-term solutions, which are more effective at ending and preventing homelessness.

It is not clear how these provisions would work in practice, because each city has varying shelter capacity. It is clear, however, that this bill would require increased spending on emergency shelters, and would divert critical county service dollars towards emergency shelters instead of other uses. It is also possible that, in order to meet the requirements of this bill, counties would divert funds outside of their HHAPP funds to cities, instead of providing services for other needs.

As noted above, this bill would reverse course from past practice to incentivize investments into evidence-based housing solutions for homelessness (such as interim and permanent housing and prevention measures) to funding homeless shelters, which have little success in solving homelessness. This bill also removes critical accountability measures from the HHAPP program that the Legislature and public have come to expect. In addition to diverting county resources from HHAPP to city shelters, it could redirect other county service dollars towards shelters away from responding to other behavioral, physical, and mental health issues. The author has agreed to remove these provisions, as well as changes to the Behavioral Health Services Act, from the bill.

10) Identifying statewide needs to end homelessness. Cal-ICH recently published a statewide Action Plan for Preventing and Ending Homelessness^[5]. The purpose of the Plan is to organize and assess statewide investments, ensuring that efforts are strategic, measurable, and aligned with our shared vision. The plan outlines several Action Plan Goals that are intended to drive the outcomes for state investments and how Cal-ICH members should measure progress and success.

What is lacking in this action plan, however, is what actions and investments are required for the state to end and prevent homelessness moving forward, rather than merely reviewing and assessing past actions and investments. While these lookbacks are critical to ensure funding is being invested effectively, the state has not conducted a statewide assessment of what it would take to end homelessness for good. In lieu of the provisions contained in HHAPP, the author is proposing to add a requirement for the state to conduct a statewide assessment of what funding and actions would be required to end and prevent homelessness in 10 years. This “Statewide Strategy to End and Prevent Homelessness” would be due back to the Legislature by December 1, 2027 and contain the following information:

1. The number of people experiencing homelessness and the number of people expected to fall into homelessness over the next 10 years.
2. The unmet housing and service needs among the populations in (a).
3. The evidence based interventions required to meet the housing and services needs of the populations in (a).
4. The funding required to offer interventions at a scale great enough for the populations in (a).
5. The estimates of existing resources, including local resources, that could be used to meet the needs of the populations in (a).
6. Remaining resources required to end homelessness among the populations identified in (a) after taking into consideration the funding in (e). This can include the funding necessary for a spectrum of interventions, from interventions to keep people safe while homeless to evidence based practices to end homelessness, including but not limited to shelters, interim and permanent housing and service solutions.
7. Actions that state and local governments need to take in order to create the resources in (f) and recommendations to the Legislature for how and when to accomplish those goals.

11) Opposition. Several counties, including the California State Association of Counties, Rural County Representatives of California, the Urban Counties of California, and the County Behavioral Health Directors Association are opposed to the provisions in this bill that require counties to pay for at least half of the estimated costs to operate city shelters. They note that this mandate would only focus on one aspect of the state’s homeless response system and does o in a way to put other programs and services at risk, and make it more difficult to move homeless individuals into permanent housing. They assert counties have “obligated more than twice the amount of HHAPP funds to permanent housing than big cities despite receiving the smallest share of each round of HHAPP funds.”

The League of California cities is opposed to new requirements in the housing element, specifically, as noted above, to data point that are obtained in collaboration with counties. They request amendments that would instead add smaller (non-HHAPP recipient) cities to be required to participate in the Regional Action Plan part of the HHAPP process.

12) Double-referral. This bill was also referred to the Senate Health Committee, which has jurisdiction over the BHSA.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

April 16.)

SUPPORT:

Bay Area Council (SPONSOR)

New California Coalition (SPONSOR)

City of San Diego

OPPOSITION:

California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
City of Del Mar
City of Dinuba
City of Garden Grove
City of LA Palma
City of Lake Forest
City of Los Alamitos

City of Oceanside

City of Mission Viejo

City of Placentia
City of Stanton
City of Tulare

Contra Costa County
County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA)
County of Fresno
County of Kern
County of Madera
County of Merced

County of Monterey

County of San Bernardino

County of San Diego

County of Shasta

County of Sonoma
County of Sonoma Department of Health Services

County of Tulare
County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA)
Madera County Board of Supervisors
Monterey County Department of Social Services
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Urban Counties of California (UCC)

-- END --

1. Margot Kushel. Statement by UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative Director Dr. Margot Kushel on 2024 Point-In-Time Homeless Count. December 28, 2024. Accessible here: https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/resources/press-release/statement-Kushel-PIT-count ↑

2. UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative. Encampment Resolution Guide. September 2024. Accessible here: https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/resources/toolkit/encampment-resolution-guide ↑

3. https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/lacontroller-2b7de.appspot.com/o/PH%20Pathways_LAHSA%20Final_12.10.2024.pdf?alt=media&token=0f6681b8-a28b-44ed-8bfa-e040fd2a127f ↑

4. Lauren Heplker. California passed a law to fix unsafe homeless shelters. Cities and counties are ignoring it. July 17, 2024. https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/07/california-homeless-shelters/

   ↑

5. Cal-ICH. Action Plan for Preenting and Ending Homelessness (2025-2027). Accessible here: https://www.bcsh.ca.gov/calich/documents/action_plan.pdf ↑