Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities by the State Department of Health Care Services. Existing law prohibits operating an alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facility to provide recovery, treatment, or detoxification services within this state without first obtaining a current valid license. If a facility is alleged to be providing those services without a license, existing law requires the department to conduct a site visit to investigate the allegation. Existing law also authorizes the department to conduct announced or unannounced site visits to licensed facilities for the purpose of reviewing them for compliance, as specified.

Existing law requires alcohol or other drug programs to be certified by the department, except as specified. Existing law prohibits those programs from operating without a certification. If a program is alleged to be providing services without a certification, existing law requires the department to conduct a site visit to investigate the allegation. Existing law also authorizes the department to conduct announced or unannounced site visits to certified programs for the purpose of reviewing them for compliance, as specified.

This bill would require the department to assign a complaint under its jurisdiction regarding a licensed alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facility or a certified alcohol or other drug program to an analyst for investigation within 10 days of receiving the complaint. If the department receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, the bill would require the department, to the extent feasible, to notify the complainant, in writing, that it does not investigate that type of complaint. The bill would require the department to complete an investigation into a complaint regarding a facility within 120 days of assigning the complaint unless the department requires additional resources, as specified, to complete the investigation. Commencing July 1, 2027, and each July 1 thereafter, the bill would require the department to post on its internet website an annual report of the investigations conducted by the department, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to impose a single fee increase for the licensure of facilities and certification of programs, as described above, commensurate with the reasonable cost of preparing and maintaining the report.

Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities by the State Department of Health Care Services. Existing law prohibits operating an alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facility to provide recovery, treatment, or detoxification services within this state without first obtaining a current valid license. If a facility is alleged to be providing those services without a license, existing law requires the department to conduct a site visit to investigate the allegation. Existing law also authorizes the department to conduct announced or unannounced site visits to licensed facilities for the purpose of reviewing them for compliance, as specified.

Existing law requires alcohol or other drug programs to be certified by the department, except as specified. Existing law prohibits those programs from operating without a certification. If a program is alleged to be providing services without a certification, existing law requires the department to conduct a site visit to investigate the allegation. Existing law also authorizes the department to conduct announced or unannounced site visits to certified programs for the purpose of reviewing them for compliance, as specified.

This bill would require the department to assign a complaint under its jurisdiction regarding a licensed alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facility or a certified alcohol or other drug program to an analyst for investigation within 10 days of receiving the complaint. If the department receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, the bill would require the department, to the extent feasible, to notify the complainant, in writing, that it does not investigate that type of complaint. The bill would require the department to complete an investigation into a complaint regarding a facility within 120 days of assigning the complaint unless the department requires additional resources, as specified, to complete the investigation. Commencing July 1, 2027, and each July 1 thereafter, the bill would require the department to post on its internet website an annual report of the investigations conducted by the department, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to impose a single fee increase for the licensure of facilities and certification of programs, as described above, commensurate with the reasonable cost of preparing and maintaining the report.

Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities by the State Department of Health Care Services. Existing law prohibits operating an alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facility to provide recovery, treatment, or detoxification services within this state without first obtaining a current valid license. If a facility is alleged to be providing those services without a license, existing law requires the department to conduct a site visit to investigate the allegation. Existing law also authorizes the department to conduct announced or unannounced site visits to licensed facilities for the purpose of reviewing them for compliance, as specified.

This bill would require the department to assign a complaint under its jurisdiction regarding an a licensed alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facility or a certified alcohol or other drug program to an analyst for investigation within 10 days of receiving the complaint. If the department receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, the bill would require the department department, to the extent feasible, to notify the complainant, in writing, that it does not investigate that type of complaint. The bill would require the department to complete an investigation into a complaint regarding a facility within 60 120 days of assigning the complaint unless the department requires additional resources, as specified, to complete the investigation. If the department is not able to complete an investigation within 60 days, the bill would require the department to notify the complainant, in writing, of the reason for the delay. Commencing July 1, 2027, and each July 1 thereafter, the bill would require the department to post on its internet website an annual report of the investigations conducted by the department, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to impose a single fee increase for the licensure of facilities and certification of programs, as described above, commensurate with the reasonable cost of preparing and maintaining the report.

Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities by the State Department of Health Care Services. Existing law prohibits operating an alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facility to provide recovery, treatment, or detoxification services within this state without first obtaining a current valid license. If a facility is alleged to be providing those services without a license, existing law requires the department to conduct a site visit to investigate the allegation. Existing law also authorizes the department to conduct announced or unannounced site visits to licensed facilities for the purpose of reviewing them for compliance, as specified.

This bill would require the department to assign a complaint under its jurisdiction regarding an alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facility to an analyst for investigation within 10 days of receiving the complaint. If the department receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, the bill would require the department to notify the complainant, in writing, that it does not investigate that type of complaint. The bill would require the department to complete an investigation into a complaint regarding a facility within 60 days of receiving the complaint. assigning the complaint unless the department requires additional resources, as specified, to complete the investigation. If the department is not able to complete an investigation within 60 days, the bill would require the department to notify the complainant, in writing, of the reason for the delay.

Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities by the State Department of Health Care Services. Existing law prohibits operating an alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facility to provide recovery, treatment, or detoxification services within this state without first obtaining a current valid license. If a facility is alleged to be providing those services without a license, existing law requires the department to conduct a site visit to investigate the allegation. Existing law also authorizes the department to conduct announced or unannounced site visits to licensed facilities for the purpose of reviewing them for compliance, as specified.

This bill would require the department to assign a complaint regarding an alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facility to an analyst for investigation within 10 days of receiving the complaint. The bill would require the department to complete an investigation into a complaint regarding a facility within 60 days of receiving the complaint.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 

Bill No: SB 329

Author: Blakespear (D) and Umberg (D), et al.

Amended: 8/13/26

Vote: 21

SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 10-0, 3/26/25

AYES: Menjivar, Valladares, Durazo, Gonzalez, Limón, Padilla, Richardson, Rubio, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Grove

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0, 5/29/25

AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Limón, Reyes

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 8/25/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Alcohol and drug recovery: licensed treatment facilities and certified programs: investigations

SOURCE: League of California Cities

DIGEST:

This bill requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to meet specified timeframes for assigning complaints against, and completing investigations for, licensed adult residential alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities and certified alcohol and other drug (AOD) programs. Requires DHCS to post on its website an annual report of the investigations conducted in the previous year.

Assembly Amendments

add DHCS-certified AOD programs to meet the investigation timeframe requirements in this bill; extend the timeframe by which investigations must be complete; and add the website reporting requirement.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Grants sole authority in the state to DHCS to certify AOD programs and to license adult residential alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities (RTFs). [Health and Safety Code (HSC) §11832, 11834.01]
2. Requires DHCS to conduct onsite program compliance visits for AOD programs and RTFs at least once during the certification or licensure period. Permits DHCS to conduct announced or unannounced site visits to review for compliance. [HSC §11832.12, 11834.01]
3. Establishes a system whereby DHCS approves certifying organizations (COs) that administer the certification process for substance use disorder (SUD) counselors. Requires DHCS to investigate alleged violations against registered or certified SUD counselors within 90 days of receipt of a requested investigation, and to send a written order to the CO specifying what corrective action to take based on DHCS’s investigation and the severity of the violation. [9 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §13040, §13065]

This bill:

1. Requires DHCS to conduct an investigation into a complaint regarding an AOD program or RTF, if it has jurisdiction over the complaint, by assigning it to an analyst for investigation within 10 days of receiving the complaint.
2. Requires DHCS, if it receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, to notify the complainant, to the extent feasible, in writing, including through electronic means, that it does not investigate that type of complaint.
3. Requires DHCS to complete the investigation within 120 days of assigning the complaint unless it requires assistance from local or other state agencies to complete the investigation, or significant additional resources to complete the investigation, as it determines.
4. Requires DHCS to maintain a record of investigations, including those that are not complete within 120 days.
5. Requires DHCS, commencing on July 1, 2027, and each July 1 thereafter, to post on its website an annual report of the investigations conducted in the previous year that includes all of the following information:
   1. The total number of investigations conducted by DHCS;
   2. The type of investigations conducted; and,
   3. The number of investigations that were not complete within 120 days of assignment.
6. Permits DHCS to impose a single fee increase for the certification of AOD programs and the licensure of RTFs commensurate with the reasonable cost of preparing and maintaining the report required in this bill.

Background

CSA report. Issued in October 2024, the CSA report states complaints may arise from various sources, including RTF residents, neighbors, staff members, or government agencies. According to internal guidelines, DHCS prioritizes death investigations over investigations into all other types of complaints. The CSA states, in fact, DHCS aims to assign death investigations to a staff member on the day it receives the report of a death. In the course of a death investigation, it directs its staff to perform a complete review of the facility where the death occurred to determine whether the resident’s death was related to deficiencies in the facility’s operation. DHCS also receives and investigates complaints about facilities that operate without a license—for which generally DHCS does not have oversight. If an investigation finds, however, that an unlicensed facility is providing or advertising services that require a license, DHCS notifies the facility that it has been violating the law. If it obtains sufficient evidence the facility has not stopped providing the services in question, DHCS is authorized in current law to bring a civil action against the facility. For a licensed RTF, if during a complaint investigation or compliance inspection, DHCS finds a facility poses serious risks to the health and safety of residents, it may initiate a license suspension or revocation. Current law authorizes DHCS to immediately suspend a license when these concerns are present. A suspension stays in effect until DHCS makes a final determination, which may include revocation, following a hearing and a proposed decision by an Administrative Law Judge.

The CSA made a series of recommendations, without specifying timeframes for completion, to help DHCS improve its complaints processes—mostly through administrative means:

1. Provide management with information about the timeliness of compliance inspections;
2. Implement a mechanism in its licensing database that notifies staff of the dates for upcoming compliance inspections for their caseload so they can plan accordingly;
3. Fill its vacant positions;
4. Update its policies and staff training by April 2025 to ensure it assigns complaints to analysts for investigation within 10 days, as currently required by its regulations;
5. Implement guidelines by October 2025 that specify the length of time analysts should take to complete key steps in the investigation process for different types of investigations;
6. Conduct site visits beginning December 2024 in all instances in which there is an allegation that an unlicensed facility is advertising or providing treatment services without a license; and,
7. Develop and implement, by April 2025, a follow-up procedure, such as performing another site visit, to confirm unlicensed facilities have ceased providing services unlawfully.

The CSA notes that, except for recommendation d) above, DHCS has yet to fully implement its suggested improvements.

DHCS complaint investigations. DHCS informally outlined its process following a Committee staff inquiry that generally mirrors the timelines stated by the author of this bill and in the CSA report. If DHCS establishes jurisdiction, the complaint is logged, assigned a complaint number, and a high-, medium-, or low-level designation. When DHCS receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, a letter is sent to the complainant informing them of this fact. DHCS regulations define deficiencies, determined during the investigation, in the following way:

1. A Class A deficiency is any presenting an imminent danger to any resident of the RTF. “Imminent danger” means that the more likely consequence of the deficiency is death or physical injury that would render a part of the body functionally useless or temporarily or permanently reduced in capacity, or inhibit any function of the body to such a degree as to shorten life or to reduce physical or mental capacity;
2. A Class B deficiency is any relating to the operation or maintenance of the RTF that has a direct or immediate relationship to the physical health, mental health, or safety of RTF residents; and,
3. A Class C deficiency is any relating to the operation or maintenance of the RTF that DHCS determines has only a minimal relationship to the health or safety of residents.

An investigation report is issued, outlining whether an allegation was substantiated, and if any additional findings were discovered. If any deficiencies are identified and substantiated, RTFs may be subject to a corrective action plan or verification of correction and civil penalties for failure to respond timely to a Notice of Deficiency. Deficiencies can also result in action to suspend or revoke the RTF’s license. If no deficiencies are found, the complaint report is issued with allegations marked as “not substantiated.”

Comments

According to the author of this bill:

Good government means acting quickly and decisively to protect the health and safety of the community. If an RFT is not following state regulations and jeopardizing its residents or neighbors, the state should act promptly. This bill requires DHCS to investigate complaints in a timely fashion, which is crucial for protecting RTF residents, and ensure RTFs take appropriate corrective actions based on identified problems. DHCS has 980 licensed RTFs for which common complaints include sexual misconduct, poor management of medications for residents, insufficient detoxification checks, using unlicensed counselors, and failing to provide services advertised. Currently, DHCS’s internal guidelines call for assigning complaints to staff within 10 days and for investigations to be completed and sent to a supervisor within 30 to 60 days, depending on the nature of the complaint. For complaints not assigned within 10 days, however, DHCS often takes an average of 183 days, according to a recent California State Auditor (CSA) report. Furthermore, DHCS takes nearly a year, on average, to complete investigations into low- and medium-priority complaints, per the audit. By setting timelines for investigations in statute, this bill ensures that complaints for RTFs are methodically and expeditiously pursued.

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

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill results in minor and absorbable costs to DHCS.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/24/26)

League of California Cities (source)

Advocates for Responsible Treatment

Association of California Cities – Orange County

California Behavioral Health Association

California State Association of Psychiatrists

Capo Cares

City of Anaheim
City of Beverly Hills

City of Buena Park

City of Camarillo

City of Carlsbad

City of Clovis

City of Fountain Valley

City of Garden Grove

City of Glendale

City of Huntington Beach

City of Irvine

City of La Habra

City of Laguna Niguel

City of Lake Forest

City of Lathrop

City of Los Alamitos

City of Manteca

City of Mission Viejo

City of Newport Beach

City of Oceanside

City of Paramount

City of Simi Valley

City of Stanton

City of Thousand Oaks

City of Villa Park

County of Orange Board of Supervisors

Seven individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/24/26)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The League of California Cities, sponsor of this bill, and other supporters argue while existing law requires DHCS to investigate complaints against RTFs, it does not establish timelines for completing those investigations. This bill sets clear, reasonable deadlines—aligned with existing DHCS policy—to enhance public transparency and ensure providers are held accountable for delivering high-quality treatment and care. Supporters argue the lack of oversight, regulation, and licensing results in unsafe conditions for patients and creates significant negative impacts on local neighbors, and also state that it is time for DHCS to hire more analysts to achieve this.

Assembly Floor: 76 0 3

Ayes: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

Noes:

No Vote Recorded: Dixon, Kalra, McKinnor

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

11/5/26 14:46:32

**** END ****

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 329

Author: Blakespear (D) and Umberg (D), et al.

Amended: 8/13/26

Vote: 21

SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 10-0, 3/26/25

AYES: Menjivar, Valladares, Durazo, Gonzalez, Limón, Padilla, Richardson, Rubio, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Grove

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0, 5/29/25

AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Limón, Reyes

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Passed, 8/25/26

SUBJECT: Alcohol and drug recovery or treatment facilities: investigations

SOURCE: League of California Cities

DIGEST:

This bill requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to meet specified timeframes for assigning complaints against, and completing investigations for, licensed adult residential alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities and certified alcohol and other drug (AOD) programs. Requires DHCS to post on its website an annual report of the investigations conducted in the previous year.

Assembly Amendments

add DHCS-certified AOD programs to meet the investigation timeframe requirements in this bill; extend the timeframe by which investigations must be complete; and, add the website reporting requirement.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Grants sole authority in the state to DHCS to certify AOD programs and to license adult residential alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities (RTFs). [Health and Safety Code (HSC) §11832, 11834.01]
2. Requires DHCS to conduct onsite program compliance visits for AOD programs and RTFs at least once during the certification or licensure period. Permits DHCS to conduct announced or unannounced site visits to review for compliance. [HSC §11832.12, 11834.01]
3. Establishes a system whereby DHCS approves certifying organizations (COs) that administer the certification process for substance use disorder (SUD) counselors. Requires DHCS to investigate alleged violations against registered or certified SUD counselors within 90 days of receipt of a requested investigation, and to send a written order to the CO specifying what corrective action to take based on DHCS’s investigation and the severity of the violation. [9 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §13040, §13065]

This bill:

1. Requires DHCS to conduct an investigation into a complaint regarding an AOD program or RTF, if it has jurisdiction over the complaint, by assigning it to an analyst for investigation within 10 days of receiving the complaint.
2. Requires DHCS, if it receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, to notify the complainant, to the extent feasible, in writing, including through electronic means, that it does not investigate that type of complaint.
3. Requires DHCS to complete the investigation within 120 days of assigning the complaint unless it requires assistance from local or other state agencies to complete the investigation, or significant additional resources to complete the investigation, as it determines.
4. Requires DHCS to maintain a record of investigations, including those that are not complete within 120 days.
5. Requires DHCS, commencing on July 1, 2027, and each July 1 thereafter, to post on its website an annual report of the investigations conducted in the previous year that includes all of the following information:
   1. The total number of investigations conducted by DHCS;
   2. The type of investigations conducted; and,
   3. The number of investigations that were not complete within 120 days of assignment.
6. Permits DHCS to impose a single fee increase for the certification of AOD programs and the licensure of RTFs commensurate with the reasonable cost of preparing and maintaining the report required in this bill.

Background

CSA report. Issued in October 2024, the CSA report states complaints may arise from various sources, including RTF residents, neighbors, staff members, or government agencies. According to internal guidelines, DHCS prioritizes death investigations over investigations into all other types of complaints. The CSA states, in fact, DHCS aims to assign death investigations to a staff member on the day it receives the report of a death. In the course of a death investigation, it directs its staff to perform a complete review of the facility where the death occurred to determine whether the resident’s death was related to deficiencies in the facility’s operation. DHCS also receives and investigates complaints about facilities that operate without a license—for which generally DHCS does not have oversight. If an investigation finds, however, that an unlicensed facility is providing or advertising services that require a license, DHCS notifies the facility that it has been violating the law. If it obtains sufficient evidence the facility has not stopped providing the services in question, DHCS is authorized in current law to bring a civil action against the facility. For a licensed RTF, if during a complaint investigation or compliance inspection, DHCS finds a facility poses serious risks to the health and safety of residents, it may initiate a license suspension or revocation. Current law authorizes DHCS to immediately suspend a license when these concerns are present. A suspension stays in effect until DHCS makes a final determination, which may include revocation, following a hearing and a proposed decision by an Administrative Law Judge.

The CSA made a series of recommendations, without specifying timeframes for completion, to help DHCS improve its complaints processes—mostly through administrative means:

1. Provide management with information about the timeliness of compliance inspections;
2. Implement a mechanism in its licensing database that notifies staff of the dates for upcoming compliance inspections for their caseload so they can plan accordingly;
3. Fill its vacant positions;
4. Update its policies and staff training by April 2025 to ensure it assigns complaints to analysts for investigation within 10 days, as currently required by its regulations;
5. Implement guidelines by October 2025 that specify the length of time analysts should take to complete key steps in the investigation process for different types of investigations;
6. Conduct site visits beginning December 2024 in all instances in which there is an allegation that an unlicensed facility is advertising or providing treatment services without a license; and,
7. Develop and implement, by April 2025, a follow-up procedure, such as performing another site visit, to confirm unlicensed facilities have ceased providing services unlawfully.

The CSA notes that, except for recommendation d) above, DHCS has yet to fully implement its suggested improvements.

DHCS complaint investigations. DHCS informally outlined its process following a Committee staff inquiry that generally mirrors the timelines stated by the author of this bill and in the CSA report. If DHCS establishes jurisdiction, the complaint is logged, assigned a complaint number, and a high-, medium-, or low-level designation. When DHCS receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, a letter is sent to the complainant informing them of this fact. DHCS regulations define deficiencies, determined during the investigation, in the following way:

1. A Class A deficiency is any presenting an imminent danger to any resident of the RTF. “Imminent danger” means that the more likely consequence of the deficiency is death or physical injury that would render a part of the body functionally useless or temporarily or permanently reduced in capacity, or inhibit any function of the body to such a degree as to shorten life or to reduce physical or mental capacity;
2. A Class B deficiency is any relating to the operation or maintenance of the RTF that has a direct or immediate relationship to the physical health, mental health, or safety of RTF residents; and,
3. A Class C deficiency is any relating to the operation or maintenance of the RTF that DHCS determines has only a minimal relationship to the health or safety of residents.

An investigation report is issued, outlining whether an allegation was substantiated, and if any additional findings were discovered. If any deficiencies are identified and substantiated, RTFs may be subject to a corrective action plan or verification of correction and civil penalties for failure to respond timely to a Notice of Deficiency. Deficiencies can also result in action to suspend or revoke the RTF’s license. If no deficiencies are found, the complaint report is issued with allegations marked as “not substantiated.”

Comments

According to the author of this bill:

Good government means acting quickly and decisively to protect the health and safety of the community. If an RFT is not following state regulations and jeopardizing its residents or neighbors, the state should act promptly. This bill requires DHCS to investigate complaints in a timely fashion, which is crucial for protecting RTF residents, and ensure RTFs take appropriate corrective actions based on identified problems. DHCS has 980 licensed RTFs for which common complaints include sexual misconduct, poor management of medications for residents, insufficient detoxification checks, using unlicensed counselors, and failing to provide services advertised. Currently, DHCS’s internal guidelines call for assigning complaints to staff within 10 days and for investigations to be completed and sent to a supervisor within 30 to 60 days, depending on the nature of the complaint. For complaints not assigned within 10 days, however, DHCS often takes an average of 183 days, according to a recent California State Auditor (CSA) report. Furthermore, DHCS takes nearly a year, on average, to complete investigations into low- and medium-priority complaints, per the audit. By setting timelines for investigations in statute, this bill ensures that complaints for RTFs are methodically and expeditiously pursued.

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

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill results in minor and absorbable costs to DHCS.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/24/26)

League of California Cities (source)

Advocates for Responsible Treatment

Association of California Cities – Orange County

California Behavioral Health Association

California State Association of Psychiatrists

Capo Cares

City of Anaheim
City of Beverly Hills

City of Buena Park

City of Camarillo

City of Carlsbad

City of Clovis

City of Fountain Valley

City of Garden Grove

City of Glendale

City of Huntington Beach

City of Irvine

City of La Habra

City of Laguna Niguel

City of Lake Forest

City of Lathrop

City of Los Alamitos

City of Manteca

City of Mission Viejo

City of Newport Beach

City of Oceanside

City of Paramount

City of Simi Valley

City of Stanton

City of Thousand Oaks

City of Villa Park

County of Orange Board of Supervisors

Seven individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/24/26)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The League of California Cities, sponsor of this bill, and other supporters argue while existing law requires DHCS to investigate complaints against RTFs, it does not establish timelines for completing those investigations. This bill sets clear, reasonable deadlines—aligned with existing DHCS policy—to enhance public transparency and ensure providers are held accountable for delivering high-quality treatment and care. Supporters argue the lack of oversight, regulation, and licensing results in unsafe conditions for patients and creates significant negative impacts on local neighbors, and also state that it is time for DHCS to hire more analysts to achieve this.

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

8/25/26 13:33:30

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 329

Author:(Blakespear and Umberg)

As Amended Ver:August 13, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to meet specified timeframes for assigning complaints against, and completing investigations for, licensed adult residential alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities (RTFs) and certified alcohol and other drug (AOD) programs. Requires DHCS to post on its internet website an annual report of the investigations conducted in the previous year. Authorizes DHCS to impose a single fee increase for the licensure of facilities and certification of programs commensurate with the reasonable cost of preparing and maintaining the report.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS

Prevalence of Substance Use Disorder (SUD) in California. A 2024 publication from Health Management Associates and the California Health Care Foundation titled, "Substance Use Disorder in California — a Focused Landscape Analysis" reported that approximately 9% of Californians ages 12 years and older met the criteria for SUD in 2022. According to the report, the prevalence of SUD among individuals 12 years of age and older increased to 8.8% in 2022 from 8.1% in 2015. While the health care system is moving toward acknowledging SUD as a chronic illness, only 6% of Americans and 10% of Californians ages 12 and older with an SUD received treatment for their condition in 2021. More than 19,335 Californians ages 12 years and older died from the effects of alcohol from 2020 to 2021, and the total annual number of alcohol-related deaths increased by approximately 18% in the state from 2020 to 2021. Overdose deaths from both opioids and psychostimulants (such as amphetamines), are soaring. This issue, compounded by the increased availability of fentanyl, has resulted in a 10-fold increase in fentanyl related deaths between 2015 and 2019. According to the Overdose Prevention Initiative, 7,847 opioid-related overdose deaths occurred in California in 2023, and preliminary data shows 5,030 opioid-related overdose deaths in 2025.

Alcohol and Drug Treatment Facility Licensing. DHCS has sole authority to license RTFs in the state. Licensure is required when at least one of the following services is provided: detoxification; group sessions; individual sessions; educational sessions; or, alcoholism or other drug abuse recovery or treatment planning. Additionally, facilities may be subject to other types of permits, clearances, business taxes, or local fees that may be required by the cities or counties in which the facilities are located.

As part of their licensing function, DHCS conducts reviews of RTF operations every two years, or as necessary. DHCS checks for compliance with statute and regulations (Title 9, Chapter 5, California Code of Regulations) to ensure the health and safety of RTF residents and investigates all complaints related to RTFs, including deaths, complaints against staff, and allegations of operating without a license. DHCS has the authority to suspend or revoke a license for conduct in the operation of an RTF that is contrary to the health, morals, welfare, or safety of either an individual in, or receiving services from, the facility, or to the people of the State of California.

State Audit. In October 2024, the State Auditor released a report assessing the licensing of residential RTFs by DHCS. Key findings from the audit include:

1. Southern California contains a greater concentration of treatment facilities serving six or fewer residents (small facilities) than other parts of the state. However, state law allows facilities to be located near each other and have the same legal owners.
2. DHCS consistently reviewed the 26 license applications that were assessed, and the application process is generally the same for all facilities. However, of the 26 compliance inspections of operating facilities that were reviewed, DHCS conducted only half of them on time.
3. DHCS also took longer than its target of 30 to 60 days to investigate complaints against treatment facilities. For instance, it took more than a year to complete 22 of the 60 investigations reviewed in the audit. Additionally, DHCS did not always follow up on unlicensed facilities that it found were unlawfully advertising or providing services.

Based on these findings, the audit makes several operational recommendations to DHCS, including the following:

1. Provide management with information about the timeliness of compliance inspections and implement processes for notifying responsible staff of upcoming compliance inspections.
2. Implement guidelines that specify the length of time analysts should take to complete key steps in the investigation process.
3. Develop and implement a follow-up procedure when it has substantiated allegations of an unlicensed facility providing services.

In response to the audit, DHCS has made several operational changes. According to the State Auditor's website, DHCS will create and implement new protocols and processes as well as schedule and conduct the appropriate trainings to ensure supervisors are closely tracking the programs in need of inspections within their two-year windows. DHCS will also begin using a new digital platform to complete onsite inspection reports, which will aid DHCS in sending providers reports more quickly, thereby improving the rate at which assignments are completed. Also, in August 2024, DHCS revised its Complaints Operations Manual to clarify the requirement for case assignment within 10 days and updated the complaint intake process.

DHCS Complaint Process. According to DHCS, the Licensing and Certification Division (LCD) oversees and conducts complaint investigations against California's AOD recovery and treatment programs. This includes general allegations against a program, allegations of unlicensed or uncertified activity, and client deaths that occur at licensed facilities. LCD also investigates allegations of misconduct by registered or certified AOD counselors that work at licensed AOD programs.

Upon receiving a complaint via phone, email, fax, mail, or online, DHCS establishes whether the complaint is within its jurisdiction. If DHCS receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, it sends a letter to the complainant informing them that it does not investigate that type of complaint. If the complaint is under DHCS jurisdiction. it is logged, assigned a complaint number, and a high, medium or low-level designation. Receipt of a complaint is acknowledged through written communication with the complainant. Upon opening a complaint, complainants are asked if they would like a Public Records Act (PRA) request opened on their behalf. If they have the request opened, they would receive a copy of the report via email through the PRA process; only then would the complainant be notified with the outcome of their complaint.

Once assigned, an analyst will contact the program in question, review documents and records relevant to the complaint, and, if necessary, conduct an on-site visit to gather evidence, inspect facilities, and conduct interviews. An investigative report is issued, outlining whether an allegation was substantiated, and if any additional findings were discovered throughout the course of the investigation. If any deficiencies are identified and substantiated, programs may be subject to a Notice of Deficiency, requiring a Corrective Action Plan or Verification of Correction and civil penalties for failure to respond timely to a Notice of Deficiency.

Deficiencies can result in DHCS action to suspend or revoke a program's licensure. If no deficiencies are found, the complaint report would be issued with allegations marked as "not substantiated," and no additional deficiencies would be indicated on the report.

According to the Author

Good government means acting quickly and decisively to protect the health and safety of the community. If an RTF is not following state regulations and jeopardizing its residents or neighbors, the state should act promptly. The author states there are over 900 such facilities in the state and oftentimes the residents of these facilities are in a vulnerable state, making these environments ripe for conditions that threaten their safety. The author concludes that by setting timelines for investigations in statute, this bill ensures that complaints about drug and alcohol treatment facilities will be addressed expeditiously, ensuring that the health and safety of these residents are appropriately safeguarded.

Arguments in Support

The League of California Cities, sponsor of this bill, as well as several California cities, write in support stating that DHCS does not always promptly or thoroughly investigate complaints, noting that 22 of the 60 investigations the state audit reviewed took more than a year to complete and 10 of those investigations took more than 660 days. The cities argue that delays like these allow serious problems to go unchecked, jeopardizing the health and safety of those receiving care and the broader community. They conclude that compliance with state licensing laws administered through DHCS is essential to safeguarding residents' well-being and maintaining quality care.

The California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP) supports this bill stating substance use recovery facilities play a crucial role in providing essential treatment and support for individuals struggling with addiction. However, timely investigations into complaints regarding facility operations are necessary to ensure patient safety and compliance with state regulations. CSAP argues this bill strengthens the oversight process by requiring the DHCS to assign a complaint to an analyst within 10 days of receipt and to complete an investigation within 60 days. These timely actions will ensure that facilities are held accountable for maintaining high standards of care and will protect vulnerable individuals from substandard or unsafe treatment conditions. CSAP concludes that by expediting the complaint resolution process, this bill will improve the effectiveness of regulatory oversight and ensure that individuals in recovery receive safe, high-quality treatment.

The California Behavioral Health Association (CBHA) supports this bill arguing that it introduces a clear and practical framework by requiring DHCS to assign jurisdictional complaints to an analyst within 10 days and to complete investigations within 60 days, barring exceptional circumstances. Where delays are necessary, transparency is built in through required written notification to the complainant. CBHA says these provisions are both reasonable and necessary, especially in light of the 2024 State Auditor's findings that reveal significant delays in DHCS complaint investigations.

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor and absorbable costs to DHCS.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Limón, Reyes

ASM HEALTH: 15-0-1

YES: Bonta, Chen, Aguiar-Curry, Caloza, Carrillo, Flora, Mark González, Krell, Patel, Patterson, Celeste Rodriguez, Sanchez, Schiavo, Sharp-Collins, Elhawary

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: August 13, 2026

CONSULTANT: Logan Hess / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0003619

Date of Hearing: June 24, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Mia Bonta, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 329

Author:(Blakespear) – As Amended Ver:March 28, 2025

SENATE VOTE: 38-0

SUBJECT: Alcohol and drug recovery or treatment facilities: investigations.

SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to meet specified timeframes for assigning complaints against, and completing investigations for, licensed adult residential alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities (RTFs). Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires DHCS to conduct an investigation into a complaint regarding an RTF in accordance with both of the following:
   1. If DHCS determines that it has jurisdiction over a complaint, it must assign a complaint to an analyst for investigation within 10 days of receiving the complaint; and,
   2. If DHCS receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, it must notify the complainant in writing, including through electronic means, that it does not investigate that type of complaint.
2. Requires DHCS to complete an investigation within 60 days of assigning the complaint unless DHCS requires either of the following:
   1. Assistance from local or other state agencies to complete the investigation; or,
   2. Significant additional resources to complete the investigation, as determined by DHCS.
3. Requires DHCS, if it is not able to complete an investigation within 60 days, to notify the complainant in writing, including through electronic means, of the reason for the delay.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes DHCS as the sole licensing authority for RTFs. Permits new licenses to be issued for a period of two years and requires DHCS to conduct onsite program visits for compliance at least once during the two-year licensing period. [Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 11834.01]
2. Defines RTF to mean a premises, place, or building that provides residential nonmedical services to adults who are recovering from problems related to alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug misuse or addiction, and who need alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug recovery, treatment, or detoxification services. [HSC § 11834.02]
3. Permits DHCS to issue a license to operate an RTF upon receipt of a completed written application, fire clearance, and licensing fee, and determination that the facility meets applicable requirements and regulations. [HSC § 11834.09(a)]
4. Requires, if a facility intends to provide incidental medical services, evidence of a valid license of a physician and surgeon who will provide or oversee those services, and any other information deemed appropriate by DHCS. Defines “incidental medical services” as services that follow the community standard of practice and are not required to be performed in a licensed clinic or licensed health facility, and includes obtaining medical histories, monitoring health status, testing associated with detoxification from alcohol or drugs, and overseeing patient self-administered medications. [HSC §§ 11834.025-11834.026]
5. Authorizes DHCS to assess civil penalties on facilities that provide alcohol or drug use recovery, treatment, or detoxification services without a license or for any violations of relevant licensing statute or regulations. [HSC §§ 11834.15 and 11834.34]
6. Prohibits a person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or local governmental entity from operating, establishing, managing, conducting, or maintaining an RTF without first obtaining a current valid license. [HSC § 11834.30]
7. Requires DHCS to conduct a site visit to investigate an allegation of a facility operating without a license and, if evidence is found supporting this allegation, requires the employee or agent to submit the findings to DHCS and, with DHCS authorization, send notice to the facility containing a date to cease providing services, the civil penalty that will be assessed for any days services are provided beyond that date, and that the case will be referred for civil proceedings if services continue. Requires the employee or agent to also inform the facility of state licensing requirements. [HSC § 11834.31]
8. Authorizes DHCS to suspend, temporarily suspend, or revoke any license issued or to deny an application for licensure or extension for any violations or repeated violations of relevant licensing law or regulations, misrepresentations in obtaining a license, refusal to allow DHCS entry to determine compliance, or failure to pay civil penalties assessed by DHCS. [HSC § 11834.36]
9. Establishes a system whereby DHCS approves certifying organizations (COs) that administer the certification process for substance use disorder (SUD) counselors, such as requiring documented hours of formal classroom training; documented hours of supervised training based on relevant curriculum; documented hours of paid or unpaid work experience providing counseling services; and, a score of at least 70% on a written or oral examination approved by the CO. [9 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §13040]
10. Requires DHCS to investigate alleged violations against registered or certified SUD counselors within 90 days of receipt of a requested investigation, and to send a written order to the CO specifying what corrective action to take based on DHCS’s investigation and the severity of the violation. [9 CCR §13065]

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, unknown, ongoing costs to DHCS for increased state staffing to meet specified timelines for RTF licensing investigations (Residential and Outpatient Program Licensing Fund).

COMMENTS:

1. PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, good government means acting quickly and decisively to protect the health and safety of the community. If an RTF is not following state regulations and jeopardizing its residents or neighbors, the state should act promptly. The author states there are over 900 such facilities in the state and oftentimes the residents of these facilities are in a vulnerable state, making these environments ripe for conditions that threaten their safety. The author concludes that by setting timelines for investigations in statute, this bill ensures that complaints about drug and alcohol treatment facilities will be addressed expeditiously, ensuring that the health and safety of these residents are appropriately safeguarded.
2. BACKGROUND.
   1. Prevalence of SUD in California. A 2024 publication from Health Management Associates and the California Health Care Foundation titled, “Substance Use Disorder in California — a Focused Landscape Analysis” reported that approximately 9% of Californians ages 12 years and older met the criteria for SUD in 2022. According to the report, the prevalence of SUD among individuals 12 years of age and older increased to 8.8% in 2022 from 8.1% in 2015. While the health care system is moving toward acknowledging SUD as a chronic illness, only 6% of Americans and 10% of Californians ages 12 and older with an SUD received treatment for their condition in 2021. More than 19,335 Californians ages 12 years and older died from the effects of alcohol from 2020 to 2021, and the total annual number of alcohol-related deaths increased by approximately 18% in the state from 2020 to 2021. Overdose deaths from both opioids and psychostimulants (such as amphetamines), are soaring. This issue, compounded by the increased availability of fentanyl, has resulted in a 10-fold increase in fentanyl related deaths between 2015 and 2019. According to the Overdose Prevention Initiative, 7,847 opioid-related overdose deaths occurred in California in 2023. In the first two quarters of 2024, 2,975 opioid-related overdose deaths were recorded in California.
   2. Alcohol and Drug Treatment Facility Licensing. DHCS has sole authority to license RTFs in the state. Licensure is required when at least one of the following services is provided: detoxification; group sessions; individual sessions; educational sessions; or, alcoholism or other drug abuse recovery or treatment planning. Additionally, facilities may be subject to other types of permits, clearances, business taxes, or local fees that may be required by the cities or counties in which the facilities are located.

As part of their licensing function, DHCS conducts reviews of RTF operations every two years, or as necessary. DHCS checks for compliance with statute and regulations (Title 9, Chapter 5, California Code of Regulations) to ensure the health and safety of RTF residents and investigates all complaints related to RTFs, including deaths, complaints against staff, and allegations of operating without a license. DHCS has the authority to suspend or revoke a license for conduct in the operation of an RTF that is contrary to the health, morals, welfare, or safety of either an individual in, or receiving services from, the facility, or to the people of the State of California.

• 1. State Audit. In October 2024, the State Auditor released a report assessing the licensing of residential RTFs by DHCS. Key findings from the audit include:
     1. Southern California contains a greater concentration of treatment facilities serving six or fewer residents (small facilities) than other parts of the state. However, state law allows facilities to be located near each other and have the same legal owners.
     2. DHCS consistently reviewed the 26 license applications that were assessed, and the application process is generally the same for all facilities. However, of the 26 compliance inspections of operating facilities that were reviewed, DHCS conducted only half of them on time.
     3. DHCS also took longer than its target of 30 to 60 days to investigate complaints against treatment facilities. For instance, it took more than a year to complete 22 of the 60 investigations reviewed in the audit. Additionally, DHCS did not always follow up on unlicensed facilities that it found were unlawfully advertising or providing services.

Based on these findings, the audit makes several operational recommendations to DHCS, including the following:

• • 1. Provide management with information about the timeliness of compliance inspections and implement processes for notifying responsible staff of upcoming compliance inspections.
    2. Implement guidelines that specify the length of time analysts should take to complete key steps in the investigation process.
    3. Develop and implement a follow-up procedure when it has substantiated allegations of an unlicensed facility providing services.

In response to the audit, DHCS has made several operational changes. According to the State Auditor’s website, DHCS will create and implement new protocols and processes as well as schedule and conduct the appropriate trainings to ensure supervisors are closely tracking the programs in need of inspections within their two-year windows. DHCS will also begin using a new digital platform to complete onsite inspection reports, which will aid DHCS in sending providers reports more quickly, thereby improving the rate at which assignments are completed. Also, in August 2024, DHCS revised its Complaints Operations Manual to clarify the requirement for case assignment within 10 days and updated the complaint intake process.

• 1. DHCS Complaint Process. According to DHCS, the Licensing and Certification Division (LCD) oversees and conducts complaint investigations against California's alcohol and other drug (AOD) recovery and treatment programs. This includes general allegations against a program, allegations of unlicensed or uncertified activity, and client deaths that occur at licensed facilities. LCD also investigates allegations of misconduct by registered or certified AOD counselors that work at licensed AOD programs.

Upon receiving a complaint via phone, email, fax, mail, or online, DHCS establishes whether the complaint is within its jurisdiction. If DHCS receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, it sends a letter to the complainant informing them that it does not investigate that type of complaint. If the complaint is under DHCS jurisdiction. it is logged, assigned a complaint number, and a high, medium or low-level designation. Receipt of a complaint is acknowledged through written communication with the complainant. Upon opening a complaint, complainants are asked if they would like a Public Records Act (PRA) request opened on their behalf. If they have the request opened, they would receive a copy of the report via email through the PRA process; only then would the complainant be notified with the outcome of their complaint.

Once assigned, an analyst will contact the program in question, review documents and records relevant to the complaint, and, if necessary, conduct an on-site visit to gather evidence, inspect facilities, and conduct interviews. An investigative report is issued, outlining whether an allegation was substantiated, and if any additional findings were discovered throughout the course of the investigation. If any deficiencies are identified and substantiated, programs may be subject to a Notice of Deficiency, requiring a Corrective Action Plan or Verification of Correction and civil penalties for failure to respond timely to a Notice of Deficiency.

Deficiencies can result in DHCS action to suspend or revoke a program’s licensure. If no deficiencies are found, the complaint report would be issued with allegations marked as “not substantiated,” and no additional deficiencies would be indicated on the report.

1. SUPPORT. The League of California Cities, sponsor of this bill, as well as several California cities, write in support stating that DHCS does not always promptly or thoroughly investigate complaints, noting that 22 of the 60 investigations the state audit reviewed took more than a year to complete and 10 of those investigations took more than 660 days. The cities argue that delays like these allow serious problems to go unchecked, jeopardizing the health and safety of those receiving care and the broader community. They conclude that compliance with state licensing laws administered through DHCS is essential to safeguarding residents’ well-being and maintaining quality care.

The California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP) supports this bill stating substance use recovery facilities play a crucial role in providing essential treatment and support for individuals struggling with addiction. However, timely investigations into complaints regarding facility operations are necessary to ensure patient safety and compliance with state regulations. CSAP argues this bill strengthens the oversight process by requiring the DHCS to assign a complaint to an analyst within 10 days of receipt and to complete an investigation within 60 days. These timely actions will ensure that facilities are held accountable for maintaining high standards of care and will protect vulnerable individuals from substandard or unsafe treatment conditions. CSAP concludes that by expediting the complaint resolution process, this bill will improve the effectiveness of regulatory oversight and ensure that individuals in recovery receive safe, high-quality treatment.

1. RELATED LEGISLATION.
   1. AB 424 (Davies) would require DHCS to provide, within 10 days of the receipt of a complaint from a member of the public against an RTF, or a complaint alleging that a facility is unlawfully operating without a license, notice to the person filing the complaint that the it has been received and to provide them notice that the complaint has been closed and whether DHCS found the facility to be in violation. AB 424 is pending in the Senate Health Committee.
   2. SB 35 (Umberg) would require DHCS to initiate an investigation into unlicensed operation of an RTF within 10 days of receiving the allegation and complete the investigation within 60 days of initiating the investigation. The bill would require an employee or agent to provide the notice within 10 days of submitting their findings to DHCS and to conduct a follow up site visit to determine whether the facility has ceased providing services. It would require all programs certified and all facilities licensed, no later than July 15, 2026, and annually each July 15 thereafter, to submit to DHCS a report of all money transfers between the program or facility and a recovery residence during the previous fiscal year. It would permit a county participating in the Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System waiver to inspect a facility with an allegation that DHCS can substantiate but is not able to complete the inspection, after making a request to DHCS and receiving approval to conduct the inspection. SB 35 is pending in the Assembly Health Committee.
   3. SB 83 (Umberg) would require DHCS to post on its website an identification and summary of each violation issued for licensed RTFs and certified AOD programs included on the Probationary Status, Temporary Suspension Order, Revoked and Notice of Operation in Violation of Law Program List. SB 83 is pending in the Assembly Health Committee.
2. PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.
   1. AB 2081 (Davies), Chapter 376, Statutes of 2024, requires entities licensed or certified by DHCS to include on their websites and intake paperwork a disclosure stating an individual may check DHCS’s website to confirm any actions taken against the entity.
   2. AB 1158 (Petrie Norris), Chapter 443, Statutes of 2021, requires an RTF licensed by DHCS serving more than six residents to maintain specified insurance coverages, including commercial general liability insurance and employer’s liability insurance. Requires a licensee serving six or fewer residents to maintain general liability insurance coverage. Requires any government entity that contract with privately owned recovery residence or RTF serving more than six residents to require the contractors to, at all times, maintain specific insurance coverage.
3. POLICY COMMENT. As noted in the Related Legislation section, there are several bills dealing with timelines around to the acknowledgement of a complaint, investigation, and response to a complainant. Should this bill move forward, the author of this bill and the others may wish to coordinate to ensure that the various overlapping provisions do not create unintentional conflicts.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

League of California Cities (Sponsor)
Advocates for Responsible Treatment
California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP)
City of Carlsbad
City of Huntington Beach
City of Mission Viejo
City of Simi Valley
City of Thousand Oaks

Opposition

None on file

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

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 329

Author: Blakespear (D) and Umberg (D), et al.

Amended: 3/28/25

Vote: 21

SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 10-0, 3/26/25

AYES: Menjivar, Valladares, Durazo, Gonzalez, Limón, Padilla, Richardson, Rubio, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Grove

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SUBJECT: Alcohol and drug recovery or treatment facilities: investigations

SOURCE: League of California Cities

DIGEST:

This bill requires the Department of Health Care Services to meet specified timeframes for assigning complaints against, and completing investigations for, licensed residential alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Grants sole authority to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to license adult residential alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities (RTFs). [ Health and Safety Code (HSC) §11834.01]
2. Requires DHCS to conduct onsite program compliance visits for RTFs at least once during the license period, and permits DHCS to conduct announced or unannounced site visits to review for compliance. [HSC §11834.01]
3. Establishes a system whereby DHCS approves certifying organizations (COs) that administer the certification process for substance use disorder (SUD) counselors, such as requiring documented hours of formal classroom training; documented hours of supervised training based on relevant curriculum; documented hours of paid or unpaid work experience providing counseling services; and, a score of at least 70% on a written or oral examination approved by the CO. [9 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §13040]
4. Requires DHCS to investigate alleged violations against registered or certified SUD counselors within 90 days of receipt of a requested investigation, and to send a written order to the CO specifying what corrective action to take based on DHCS’s investigation and the severity of the violation. [9 CCR §13065]

This bill:

1. Requires DHCS to conduct an investigation into a complaint regarding an RTF, if it has jurisdiction over the complaint, by assigning it to an analyst for investigation within 10 days of receiving the complaint.
2. Requires DHCS, if it receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, to notify the complainant in writing, including through electronic means, that it does not investigate that type of complaint.
3. Requires DHCS to complete the investigation within 60 days of assigning the complaint unless it requires assistance from local or other state agencies to complete the investigation, or significant additional resources to complete the investigation, as it determines.
4. Require DHCS, if it is not able to complete an investigation within 60 days, to notify the complainant in writing, including through electronic means, of the reason for the delay.

Comments

According to the author of this bill:

Good government means acting quickly and decisively to protect the health and safety of the community. If an RFT is not following state regulations and jeopardizing its residents or neighbors, the state should act promptly. This bill requires DHCS to investigate complaints in a timely fashion, which is crucial for protecting RTF residents, and ensure RTFs take appropriate corrective actions based on identified problems. DHCS has 980 licensed RTFs for which common complaints include sexual misconduct, poor management of medications for residents, insufficient detoxification checks, using unlicensed counselors, and failing to provide services advertised. Currently, DHCS’s internal guidelines call for assigning complaints to staff within 10 days and for investigations to be completed and sent to a supervisor within 30 to 60 days, depending on the nature of the complaint. For complaints not assigned within 10 days, however, DHCS often takes an average of 183 days, according to a recent California State Auditor (CSA) report. Furthermore, DHCS takes nearly a year, on average, to complete investigations into low- and medium-priority complaints, per the audit. By setting timelines for investigations in statute, this bill ensures that complaints for RTFs are methodically and expeditiously pursued.

Background

CSA report. Issued in October 2024, the CSA report states complaints may arise from various sources, including RTF residents, neighbors, staff members, or government agencies. According to internal guidelines, DHCS prioritizes death investigations over investigations into all other types of complaints. The CSA states, in fact, DHCS aims to assign death investigations to a staff member on the day it receives the report of a death. In the course of a death investigation, it directs its staff to perform a complete review of the facility where the death occurred to determine whether the resident’s death was related to deficiencies in the facility’s operation. DHCS also receives and investigates complaints about facilities that operate without a license—for which generally DHCS does not have oversight. If an investigation finds, however, that an unlicensed facility is providing or advertising services that require a license, DHCS notifies the facility that it has been violating the law. If it obtains sufficient evidence the facility has not stopped providing the services in question, DHCS is authorized in current law to bring a civil action against the facility. For a licensed RTF, if during a complaint investigation or compliance inspection, DHCS finds a facility poses serious risks to the health and safety of residents, it may initiate a license suspension or revocation. Current law authorizes DHCS to immediately suspend a license when these concerns are present. A suspension stays in effect until DHCS makes a final determination, which may include revocation, following a hearing and a proposed decision by an Administrative Law Judge.

The CSA made a series of recommendations, without specifying timeframes for completion, to help DHCS improve its complaints processes—mostly through administrative means:

1. Provide management with information about the timeliness of compliance inspections;
2. Implement a mechanism in its licensing database that notifies staff of the dates for upcoming compliance inspections for their caseload so they can plan accordingly;
3. Fill its vacant positions;
4. Update its policies and staff training by April 2025 to ensure it assigns complaints to analysts for investigation within 10 days, as currently required by its regulations;
5. Implement guidelines by October 2025 that specify the length of time analysts should take to complete key steps in the investigation process for different types of investigations;
6. Conduct site visits beginning December 2024 in all instances in which there is an allegation that an unlicensed facility is advertising or providing treatment services without a license; and,
7. Develop and implement, by April 2025, a follow-up procedure, such as performing another site visit, to confirm unlicensed facilities have ceased providing services unlawfully.

The CSA notes that, except for recommendation d) above, DHCS has yet to fully implement its suggested improvements.

DHCS complaint investigations. DHCS informally outlined its process following a Committee staff inquiry that generally mirrors the timelines stated by the author of this bill and in the CSA report. If DHCS establishes jurisdiction, the complaint is logged, assigned a complaint number, and a high-, medium-, or low-level designation. When DHCS receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, a letter is sent to the complainant informing them of this fact. DHCS regulations define deficiencies, determined during the investigation, in the following way:

1. A Class A deficiency is any presenting an imminent danger to any resident of the RTF. “Imminent danger” means that the more likely consequence of the deficiency is death or physical injury that would render a part of the body functionally useless or temporarily or permanently reduced in capacity, or inhibit any function of the body to such a degree as to shorten life or to reduce physical or mental capacity;
2. A Class B deficiency is any relating to the operation or maintenance of the RTF that has a direct or immediate relationship to the physical health, mental health, or safety of RTF residents; and,
3. A Class C deficiency is any relating to the operation or maintenance of the RTF that DHCS determines has only a minimal relationship to the health or safety of residents.

An investigation report is issued, outlining whether an allegation was substantiated, and if any additional findings were discovered. If any deficiencies are identified and substantiated, RTFs may be subject to a corrective action plan or verification of correction and civil penalties for failure to respond timely to a Notice of Deficiency. Deficiencies can also result in action to suspend or revoke the RTF’s license. If no deficiencies are found, the complaint report is issued with allegations marked as “not substantiated.”

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, fiscal impacts are unknown, and there are ongoing costs for DHCS for increased state staffing to meet specified timelines for RTF licensing investigations (Residential and Outpatient Program Licensing Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/23/25)

League of California Cities (source)

Advocates for Responsible Treatment

Association of California Cities – Orange County

California State Association of Psychiatrists

Capo Cares

City of Buena Park

City of Camarillo

City of Clovis

City of Garden Grove

City of Glendale

City of Huntington Beach

City of Irvine

City of Laguna Niguel

City of Lathrop

City of Los Alamitos

City of Manteca

City of Mission Viejo

City of Newport Beach

City of Simi Valley

City of Thousand Oaks

City of Villa Park

County of Orange Board of Supervisors

Seven individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/23/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The League of California Cities, sponsor of this bill, and other supporters argue while existing law requires DHCS to investigate complaints against RTFs, it does not establish timelines for completing those investigations. This bill sets clear, reasonable deadlines—aligned with existing DHCS policy—to enhance public transparency and ensure providers are held accountable for delivering high-quality treatment and care. Supporters argue the lack of oversight, regulation, and licensing results in unsafe conditions for patients and creates significant negative impacts on local neighbors, and also state that it is time for DHCS to hire more analysts to achieve this.

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

5/25/25 16:00:56

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 329 (Blakespear) - Alcohol and drug recovery or treatment facilities: investigations

Bill Summary:

SB 329 would require the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to meet specified timeframes for assigning complaints against, and completing investigations for, licensed adult residential alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities (RTFs).

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, ongoing costs for the DHCS for increased state staffing to meet specified timelines for RTF licensing investigations (Residential and Outpatient Program Licensing Fund).

Background:

RTFs provide residential nonmedical services to adults who are recovering from problems related to alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug misuse or addiction, and who need alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug recovery treatment or detoxification services. Current law grants sole authority to DHCS to license RTFs and authorizes the department to initiate a license suspension or revocation for licensing violations. Current law does not specify timelines for DHCS to respond to complaints. However, state regulations require that complaints are assigned to analysts for investigation within 10 days and DHCS guidelines include policies related to timelines for submitting investigative reports internally.

In October 2024, the California State Auditor (CSA) released a report, “Drug and Alcohol Treatment Facilities: They Are Sometimes Concentrated in Residential Areas, as Allowed, but State Oversight Is Not Always Timely or Thorough.” Among the report’s findings, the CSA indicated:

“Health Care Services investigates complaints about treatment facilities; however, we found that it is not always timely in completing these investigations. Specifically, although required to assign a complaint to an investigator within 10 days, Health Care Services frequently does not assign complaints on time. We found that it took Health Care Services an average of 183 days to assign the complaints when it did not meet its 10-day required time frame.

In addition, although state law does not require that Health Care Services complete its investigations within a specific time frame, the department’s internal guidelines generally identify that investigative reports must be submitted by the analyst to a supervisor within 30 to 60 days. However, we found that it took Health Care Services analysts nearly one year on average to submit investigative reports for low‑ and medium‑priority complaints. Health Care Services completed high‑priority investigations, such as those relating to resident deaths, within an average of less than three months but still did not meet its guidelines. When Health Care Services does not complete an investigation in a timely manner, deficiencies may go unaddressed for significant periods.”

Proposed Law:

Specific provisions of the bill would:

• Require DHCS to conduct an investigation into a complaint regarding an RTF in accordance with both of the following:
  • If the department determines that it has jurisdiction over a complaint, the department must assign a complaint to an analyst for investigation within 10 days of receiving the complaint.
  • If the department receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, the department must notify the complainant in writing, including through electronic means, that it does not investigate that type of complaint.
• Require DHCS to complete an investigation within 60 days of assigning the complaint unless the department requires either of the following:
  • Assistance from local or other state agencies to complete the investigation.
  • Significant additional resources to complete the investigation, as determined by the department.
• Require that if DHCS is not able to complete an investigation within 60 days, the department must notify the complainant in writing, including through electronic means, of the reason for the delay.

Related Legislation:

SB 35 (Umberg) would specify timelines for DHCS to investigate RTFs operating without a license. SB 35 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Health Committee on April 23, 2025.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Senator Caroline Menjivar, Chair

BILL NO: SB 329

SUBJECT: Alcohol and drug recovery or treatment facilities: investigations

SUMMARY:

Requires the Department of Health Care Services to meet specified timeframes for assigning complaints against, and completing investigations for, licensed residential alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities.

Existing law:

1. Grants sole authority to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to license adult residential alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities (RTFs). [HSC §11834.01]
2. Requires DHCS to conduct onsite program compliance visits for RTFs at least once during the license period, and permits DHCS to conduct announced or unannounced site visits to review for compliance. [HSC §11834.01]
3. Establishes a system whereby DHCS approves certifying organizations (COs) that administer the certification process for substance use disorder (SUD) counselors, such as requiring documented hours of formal classroom training; documented hours of supervised training based on relevant curriculum; documented hours of paid or unpaid work experience providing counseling services; and, a score of at least 70% on a written or oral examination approved by the CO. [9 CCR §13040]
4. Requires DHCS to investigate alleged violations against registered or certified SUD counselors within 90 days of receipt of a requested investigation, and to send a written order to the CO specifying what corrective action to take based on DHCS’s investigation and the severity of the violation. [9 CCR §13065]

This bill: Requires DHCS to complete an investigation into a complaint regarding an RTF by: assigning a complaint to an analyst for investigation within 10 days of receiving the complaint; and, completing the investigation within 60 days of receiving the complaint.

FISCAL EFFECT:

This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, good government means acting quickly and decisively to protect the health and safety of the community. If an RFT is not following state regulations and jeopardizing its residents or neighbors, the state should act promptly. This bill requires DHCS to investigate complaints in a timely fashion, which is crucial for protecting RTF residents, and ensure RTFs take appropriate corrective actions based on identified problems. DHCS has 980 licensed RTFs for which common complaints include sexual misconduct, poor management of medications for residents, insufficient detoxification checks, using unlicensed counselors, and failing to provide services advertised. Currently, DHCS’s internal guidelines call for assigning complaints to staff within 10 days and for investigations to be completed and sent to a supervisor within 30 to 60 days, depending on the nature of the complaint. For complaints not assigned within 10 days, however, DHCS often takes an average of 183 days, according to a recent California State Auditor (CSA) report. Furthermore, DHCS takes nearly a year, on average, to complete investigations into low- and medium-priority complaints, per the audit. By setting timelines for investigations in statute, this bill ensures that complaints for RTFs are methodically and expeditiously pursued.
2. CSA report. Issued in October 2024, the CSA report states complaints may arise from various sources, including RTF residents, neighbors, staff members, or government agencies. According to internal guidelines, DHCS prioritizes death investigations over investigations into all other types of complaints. The CSA states, in fact, DHCS aims to assign death investigations to a staff member on the day it receives the report of a death. In the course of a death investigation, it directs its staff to perform a complete review of the facility where the death occurred to determine whether the resident’s death was related to deficiencies in the facility’s operation. DHCS also receives and investigates complaints about facilities that operate without a license—for which generally DHCS does not have oversight. If an investigation finds, however, that an unlicensed facility is providing or advertising services that require a license, DHCS notifies the facility that it has been violating the law. If it obtains sufficient evidence the facility has not stopped providing the services in question, DHCS is authorized in current law to bring a civil action against the facility. For a licensed RTF, if during a complaint investigation or compliance inspection, DHCS finds a facility poses serious risks to the health and safety of residents, it may initiate a license suspension or revocation. Current law authorizes DHCS to immediately suspend a license when these concerns are present. A suspension stays in effect until DHCS makes a final determination, which may include revocation, following a hearing and a proposed decision by an Administrative Law Judge.

The CSA made a series of recommendations, without specifying timeframes for completion, to help DHCS improve its complaints processes—mostly through administrative means:

1. Provide management with information about the timeliness of compliance inspections;
2. Implement a mechanism in its licensing database that notifies staff of the dates for upcoming compliance inspections for their caseload so they can plan accordingly;
3. Fill its vacant positions;
4. Update its policies and staff training by April 2025 to ensure it assigns complaints to analysts for investigation within 10 days, as currently required by its regulations;
5. Implement guidelines by October 2025 that specify the length of time analysts should take to complete key steps in the investigation process for different types of investigations;
6. Conduct site visits beginning December 2024 in all instances in which there is an allegation that an unlicensed facility is advertising or providing treatment services without a license; and,
7. Develop and implement, by April 2025, a follow-up procedure, such as performing another site visit, to confirm unlicensed facilities have ceased providing services unlawfully.

The CSA notes that, except for recommendation d) above, DHCS has yet to fully implement its suggested improvements.

1. DHCS complaint investigations. DHCS informally outlined its process following a Committee staff inquiry that generally mirrors the timelines stated by the author of this bill and in the CSA report. If DHCS establishes jurisdiction, the complaint is logged, assigned a complaint number, and a high-, medium-, or low-level designation. When DHCS receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, a letter is sent to the complainant informing them of this fact. DHCS regulations define deficiencies, determined during the investigation, in the following way:
2. A Class A deficiency is any presenting an imminent danger to any resident of the RTF. “Imminent danger” means that the more likely consequence of the deficiency is death or physical injury that would render a part of the body functionally useless or temporarily or permanently reduced in capacity, or inhibit any function of the body to such a degree as to shorten life or to reduce physical or mental capacity;
3. A Class B deficiency is any relating to the operation or maintenance of the RTF that has a direct or immediate relationship to the physical health, mental health, or safety of RTF residents; and,
4. A Class C deficiency is any relating to the operation or maintenance of the RTF that DHCS determines has only a minimal relationship to the health or safety of residents.

An investigation report is issued, outlining whether an allegation was substantiated, and if any additional findings were discovered. If any deficiencies are identified and substantiated, RTFs may be subject to a corrective action plan or verification of correction and civil penalties for failure to respond timely to a Notice of Deficiency. Deficiencies can also result in action to suspend or revoke the RTF’s license. If no deficiencies are found, the complaint report is issued with allegations marked as “not substantiated.”

1. Related legislation. SB 35 (Umberg) expands DHCS’s responsibility for investigating complaints within specific timeframes for a recovery residence (RR) alleged to be in violation of licensing laws. SB 35 also permits the city attorney, county counsel, or the county behavioral health agency to enforce these provisions if DHCS does not meet the time limits. SB 35 is pending in this Committee.

SB 43 (Umberg) requires DHCS licensed and certified facilities to report to DHCS all money transfers between facilities and a RR with which they are affiliated during the previous fiscal year. SB 43 also creates a license category for referral agencies that could refer clients to DHCS’s licensed and/or certified facilities. SB 43 is pending in this Committee.

AB 3 (Dixon) exempts an RTF licensed on or after January 1, 2026, from being considered a residential use of property if the facility is located within 300 feet of another RTF, both facilities share the same owner or director or share programs or amenities, and the total number of residents in both facilities is greater than six. AB 3 is pending in the Assembly Health Committee.

AB 1356 (Dixon) requires RTF to submit a subsequent report within 60 days of a resident’s death and the required initial report containing the corrective actions and other specified information. AB 1356 is pending in the Assembly Health Committee.

AB 423 (Davies) expands DHCS’s responsibility for developing discharge and continuing care planning for residents of RTFs. AB 425 (Davies) requires DHCS to adopt American Society of Addiction Medicine or equivalent evidence-based standards for its certified facilities. AB 423 and AB 425 are pending in the Assembly Health Committee.

AB 492 (Valencia) requires DHCS, when it issues an RTF license, to concurrently notify the city or county in which the RTF is located. AB 492 requires the notice to include the name and mailing address of the licensee and the location of the RTF. SB 492 is set for hearing in the Assembly Health Committee on April 1, 2025.

1. Support. The League of California Cities, sponsor of this bill, and other supporters argue while existing law requires DHCS to investigate complaints against RTFs, it does not establish timelines for completing those investigations. This bill sets clear, reasonable deadlines—aligned with existing DHCS policy—to enhance public transparency and ensure providers are held accountable for delivering high-quality treatment and care. Supporters argue the lack of oversight, regulation, and licensing results in unsafe conditions for patients and creates significant negative impacts on local neighbors, and also state that it is time for DHCS to hire more analysts to achieve this.
2. Policy concern. While the CSA provided a host of recommendations for DHCS to improve its processes, specified timeframes were not included and the suggestions mostly encompassed administrative fixes—presumably for them to implement and adjust in a more timely manner than legislative action could offer. The author may wish to consider whether statute should contain specified timeframes, rather than permitting DHCS to make adjustments for the RTFs they license and regulate. Additionally, the bill requires DHCS to assign and investigate all complaints it receives, which is contrary to DHCS’s process of determining whether or not they have jurisdiction before assigning a complaint for investigation—and creates a process that could result in DHCS being further bogged down with complaints, which is not in line with the goal of this bill.

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:

Support: League of California Cities (sponsor)

Advocates for Responsible Treatment

Association of California Cities – Orange County

California State Association of Psychiatrists

City of Buena Park

City of Laguna Niguel

City of Los Alamitos

City of Mission Viejo

City of Newport Beach

Three individuals

Oppose: None received

-- END --