Counties and housing advocates urge ongoing HAP funding, streamlined reporting
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
County leaders and statewide housing advocates told the Assembly subcommittee that HAP has produced housing outcomes and urged the state to make funding ongoing or multi‑year, consolidate reporting and avoid requirements that would delay distribution of funds to local programs.
SACRAMENTO — During public comment at the Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing, county associations and housing advocates asked lawmakers to preserve HAP's flexibility and scale and to reduce reporting burdens that slow funds reaching the street.
Justin Garrett of the California State Association of Counties thanked the committee for the discussion and urged implementation of round 7 "in a manner that's simplified" and to consider increasing the proposed $500 million round 7 allocation to $1 billion, saying counties are committed to using HAP funding urgently and effectively.
Speakers from Housing California, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, All Home, the California Alliance of Child and Family Services and Santa Clara County reiterated the program's role in creating housing and services. Corvo Vadeshi of Housing California noted HAP's role in placing more than 90,000 people into permanent housing since 2023 and warned that federal cuts could push at least 41,000 Californians back into homelessness in 2026.
Public commenters consistently recommended: consolidating reporting across HAP rounds to reduce duplicative work; considering multi-year or ongoing funding to allow stable contracts and staffing; and prioritizing technical assistance so administrative requirements do not divert frontline workers from client services.
"These programs need ongoing funding," a county representative said; advocates said state dashboards and improved transparency are helpful but urged care so compliance does not become a barrier to providing housing and services.
Public commenters asked the committee to weigh both the human impacts of funding delays and the administrative realities facing counties and service providers when designing round 7 accountability requirements.