CDSS warns HomeSafe, Bringing Families Home limited-term funds will expire; counties scaling back services

Jennifer Troia, director of the California Department of Social Services, told the Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 3 that California’s suite of department-run housing programs helped thousands but now faces an urgent funding cliff.

Troia said the programs “deliver housing related assistance, including case management, financial assistance, housing navigation, rental subsidies, housing stabilization” to people engaged with the social safety net, and that the state “was able to ramp up” these programs during the pandemic.

The programs at risk include HomeSafe and Bringing Families Home (BFH), both funded with one-time appropriations. The Legislative Analyst’s Office reported the remaining one-time funding for HomeSafe is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2026, and BFH’s remaining one-time funding is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2027. The department and advocates said some counties have already exhausted local allocations and stopped services.

Why it matters: HomeSafe and BFH are targeted, flexible interventions that county managers and advocates say reduce eviction and speed family reunification. The department told the committee HomeSafe served about 15,600 individuals from program inception through June 2024 and that in 2023–24, 62 percent of HomeSafe participants exited to permanent housing. Mendocino County officials and statewide advocates described high success rates and immediate harms if funding ends.

Panel details and evidence of program outcomes

Hannah Zamati, deputy director for CDSS’s Housing and Homelessness Division, said counties that built staffing and provider networks using one-time funds may be forced to “terminate contracts with service providers as well as redirecting or laying off staff.” She warned counties may also have to disenroll participants who have not yet been placed in permanent housing as they wind down operations.

Monica Kirkland, state policy director for the Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County, said HomeSafe is “a lifeline for vulnerable older adults” and repeated the program’s exit and retention metrics, adding that eight counties exhausted funds and stopped services as early as May 2024, another 12 counties (including Los Angeles) would run out by June 30, and 27 counties were preparing to wind down. Kirkland and other advocates asked the subcommittee to approve ongoing funding of $88.8 million annually, including $5 million for tribal entities.

Mendocino County’s senior program manager, Megan Van Sant, described 171 households served by BFH in that county, with 115 households completing the program and four unsuccessful cases—data she summarized as a 96 percent success rate for reunification or stabilization among families served locally.

Housing for high-need adults and the CCE program

Zamati also reviewed the Community Care Expansion (CCE) program, which aims to create or preserve housing with care and supportive services. CDSS reported CCE is expected to create or preserve about 7,000 beds or units serving SSI, SSP and CAPI populations, with 61 awards made to date. Seven awarded projects have completed construction creating 494 beds/units. CDSS told the committee $247 million in one-time CCE preservation funding has been awarded to 34 counties to preserve licensed adult and senior care facilities. To date, 14 counties have contracted with 82 facilities to preserve 2,022 beds, 430 of which were preserved through operating subsidy payments.

Limits of Medi-Cal funding and operating subsidy payments

Zamati cautioned that while Medi‑Cal CalAIM reimbursement might cover some operations and services, it is not a direct substitute for CCE operating subsidy payments because CalAIM reimbursement can be complex, time-limited and not universally available to small operators serving the CCE population. “We do not think that it’s an exact substitute,” she said.

State-level complaint resolution proposal and data investments

CDSS proposed trailer bill language to establish minimum statewide requirements for local complaint resolution processes and individualized written housing plans for participants in HomeSafe, BFH, the CalWORKs Housing Support Program (HSP), and the Housing and Disability Advocacy Program (HDAP). Hannah Zamati said the intent is to “address the patchwork of existing processes and instead ensure that local complaint resolution processes are in place and are consistent in meeting minimum bare requirements.”

The department emphasized the proposed state-level appeal mechanism would only be created “if there is a separate appropriation” in the future; until then, counties would be required to operate local complaint processes and use program administrative dollars to cover local administrative workload.

CDSS also requested staff and resources to implement homelessness data changes associated with AB 799 and to implement the Housing and Homelessness Data Reporting System (HHDRS), which CDSS said will be required to collect quarterly funding opportunity information and support a statewide homelessness report.

Reaction from analysts and finance

Juwan Trotter of the Legislative Analyst’s Office said the LAO was available to provide technical assistance on costs and noted that counties are already reporting an uneven patchwork of program availability. Thomas Locke of the Department of Finance said the administration maintained prior budget commitments in some areas but cited broader fiscal constraints and said the administration remained “open to hearing any proposals and thoughts from the Legislature.”

What was not decided

There were no formal votes during this hearing. Committee members asked CDSS to provide further detail on cost estimates and to consider targeted funding strategies so counties that would be left without alternatives could continue at least baseline services.

Ending

Committee members and public commenters urged legislators to weigh program outcomes and downstream cost implications—such as increased shelter and child welfare costs—when considering whether to convert one-time funds to ongoing appropriations or pursue scaled, county‑targeted support.