An act to amend Section 8255 add Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 8258) to Division 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to homelessness.
AB 1432, the Homelessness Accountability, Recovery, and Treatment (HART) Act, would change California’s homelessness policy framework in two main ways. First, it would allow state agencies to direct up to 40 percent of existing noncontinuously appropriated homelessness-program funds to recovery housing that does not meet the state’s Housing First core components. The bill defines recovery housing as sober-living or recovery-focused housing for people recovering from substance use issues or receiving treatment for mental illness, including settings that may require sobriety or be tied to court or correctional conditions.
Second, the bill would impose new reporting and accountability requirements on nonprofits that receive state or local homelessness funding. Those nonprofits would have to report standardized performance metrics each year, including the number of people served, placements into permanent or temporary housing, services provided, six-month housing stability, and cost per person served and housed. State agencies would have to create a uniform reporting template, compile and publish annual public reports, establish procedures to verify accuracy, and may audit nonprofits. The bill also requires technical assistance for smaller organizations and directs state agencies to adopt implementing regulations by January 1, 2027.
The bill would add a new chapter to the Welfare and Institutions Code and amend existing Housing First-related definitions in Section 8255. It would not create a new appropriation, but would authorize reallocation of a portion of existing homelessness-program funds toward recovery housing. It would also create a new statewide reporting and audit structure for funded nonprofits, potentially affecting state agencies, counties, cities, and 501(c)(3) service providers that administer homelessness programs. Because the bill requires local governments to cooperate in certifying performance metrics, it could be treated as a state-mandated local program if reimbursable costs are found by the Commission on State Mandates.
The available bill text and context suggest the measure is framed positively by its author as an accountability and treatment-focused reform. Its findings emphasize transparency, data-driven decision-making, and improved outcomes for people experiencing homelessness. The bill advanced through the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee, but the only recorded action provided is that it was filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56, and no vote totals or hearing transcript are included. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to appeal to supporters of stricter program oversight and expanded recovery-oriented housing options.
The main policy tension is between Housing First and recovery-oriented approaches. The bill would permit funding for housing models that do not follow Housing First core components, which may concern advocates who view Housing First as the state’s preferred evidence-based framework. Another likely point of contention is the new reporting burden on nonprofits, especially smaller organizations, which must collect standardized metrics, maintain records for audit, and potentially face penalties for inaccurate data. Local governments may also object to the cooperation and certification requirements if they create administrative costs or mandate new procedures. Supporters, by contrast, are likely to argue that the bill improves accountability, measures outcomes, and expands options for people who need sobriety-based or treatment-linked housing.