What’s next for Cal Cities’ recovery housing measures?

By Caroline Grinder, legislative advocate (community services), and Brian Hendershot, Cal Cities Advocate managing editor

Cal Cities’ sponsored recovery housing bill package will face its biggest challenge yet in August’s appropriations hearings. State officials have projected steep costs for the measures, making them targets for legislators looking to shore up this year’s budget.

The four measures are part of a larger legislative response to an audit of the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) that found serious problems with the state’s addiction treatment system. According to the report, the agency has often failed to conduct site visits, follow-up on investigations, and ensure illegal operations have stopped.

“Here in California, immeasurable exploitation is going on in the places people go to seek help at the most vulnerable time in their lives,” said patient advocate Sequoyah Thiessen at a press conference in May.

What would the bills do?

Cal Cities’ legislative package would implement several of the audit’s recommendations. The measures include:

• SB 35 (Umberg), which would require DHCS to meet specific timelines for investigations into complaints against unlicensed sober living homes, enable counties to work with the department to conduct site visits to enforce licensure laws, and require follow-up site visits.
• AB 492 (Valencia), which would order DHCS to notify cities anytime it approves a new alcohol and drug treatment facility license in their jurisdiction.
• SB 329 (Blakespear), which would require specific timelines for investigations into complaints against licensed facilities.
• AB 424 (Davies), which would require DHCS to inform individuals when their complaint has been received, when the investigation concludes, and the outcome of the investigation.

“The state is resource-depleted right now,” Sen. Tom Umberg, one of the bills’ authors, told The Orange County Register. “This is not a panacea, but one mitigation is to allow the locals to do some of the work the state is not doing. It’s not just the communities that suffer; it’s also the individuals in these facilities.”

What’s next?

Three bills — SB 35, SB 329, and AB 424 — are on the suspense file. The biannual culling is a chance for lawmakers to review measures with significant fiscal impacts. Holding a bill on the suspense file effectively kills it for the year. AB 492 is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor, which will happen in August following the summer recess.

In May’s appropriations proceedings, lawmakers held essentially the same number of bills they did last spring. Now that the state is grappling with federal spending cuts, state leaders will need to be careful with how much new spending they approve.

To learn more about the remaining big bills for city leaders this year, sign up for Cal Cities’ legislative briefing on July 29.