AB 1069 adds a new chapter to the Welfare and Institutions Code that directs county-level welfare leadership to initiate memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with local aging and disability service partners — specifically area agencies on aging (AAAs), independent living centers (ILCs), or Aging and Disability Resource Connection (ADRC) programs. The MOUs are intended to permit those partners access to emergency shelters established for evacuation purposes during an active event so that clients receive uninterrupted services and supports.
The statute ties this requirement to existing emergency planning structures by requiring coordination with the local agency designated under the State Emergency Plan’s sheltering Emergency Support Functions. Because the bill creates new duties for local officials, it is designated a state-mandated local program and includes the standard direction that the Commission on State Mandates will determine if reimbursement is owed under state law.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires a county welfare director’s representative to initiate an MOU with an AAA, an ILC, or an ADRC to allow those entities access to evacuation shelters during an active emergency so they can continue providing services to older adults and people with disabilities.
Who It Affects
County welfare departments, local emergency management agencies designated under the State Emergency Plan, AAAs, ILCs, ADRC programs, and the older adults and people with disabilities who rely on long-term services and supports.
Why It Matters
The law creates a formal pathway for aging and disability service providers to be present inside evacuation shelters — a change from ad hoc arrangements — and imposes new coordination and administrative duties on local governments and community providers, with potential cost implications.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1069 inserts a new chapter into California’s Welfare and Institutions Code to make sure older adults and people with disabilities do not lose access to essential services if they evacuate to a shelter. Rather than leaving shelter access to informal agreements made during a crisis, the bill requires proactive steps: a representative from the county welfare office must open negotiations with the local AAA, an ILC, or an ADRC so those organizations can get into shelters established for evacuation during an active event.
The bill does not rewrite emergency responsibilities at the state level; instead it connects the new local duty into the existing emergency framework. Counties must coordinate this outreach with the local agency that state emergency planners have designated to handle sheltering under the State Emergency Plan’s Emergency Support Functions.
That linkage is meant to align the new MOUs with established sheltering roles and protocols rather than creating a parallel system.On operational terms, the statute’s requirement to "allow access" signals that MOUs should address the practicalities of service continuity — for example, space allocation, staff presence, ongoing case management, and assistive-device needs — but the bill leaves the specific terms and modalities to the parties to negotiate. Finally, because the statute imposes duties on local officials, it triggers the state-mandated local program framework; the Commission on State Mandates will decide whether California must reimburse local agencies for costs arising from the law under existing procedures.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 1069 adds Chapter 15 (beginning with Section 9860) to Division 8.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to create the new duty.
The bill requires a representative of the county welfare director to initiate a memorandum of understanding with an AAA, an ILC, or an ADRC program.
MOUs must permit those aging and disability partners access to emergency shelters established for evacuation during an active event so clients can continue receiving services.
The county representative must coordinate this initiation with the local lead agency assigned sheltering support duties under the State Emergency Plan Emergency Support Functions.
Because it creates new local duties, the bill is a state-mandated local program and refers reimbursement questions to the Commission on State Mandates.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New statutory home for aging-and-shelter coordination
The bill creates a new chapter in Division 8.5 that establishes the legal basis for the MOU requirement. Placing the provision in this division ties it to California’s existing statutory framework for services to older adults and persons with disabilities, signaling that the requirement is meant to be operationally part of the aging-services system rather than emergency management alone.
County welfare representative must initiate MOUs with AAAs, ILCs, or ADRCs
This provision obliges a county welfare director’s representative to begin the process of negotiating formal agreements with local aging and disability service organizations. The duty is to initiate the MOU — the statute does not prescribe the MOU’s exact terms, entry conditions, or the timeline for completion, leaving those details to local negotiation and implementation.
Linking MOUs to the State Emergency Plan sheltering lead
The bill requires that the county representative coordinate MOU initiation with the local agency the State Emergency Plan designates for sheltering support under the Emergency Support Functions. That linkage is intended to integrate aging-and-disability access into existing sheltering roles and to prevent siloed arrangements, but it also means MOUs must be reconciled with local emergency-response protocols and sheltering plans.
Reimbursement and Commission on State Mandates
Because the law creates new duties for local officials, it includes the standard statutory language indicating that if the Commission on State Mandates finds the bill imposes reimbursable costs, reimbursement will follow established procedures. The bill does not itself appropriate funds or set a reimbursement schedule; the fiscal determination is left to the Commission.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Older adults with functional limitations who evacuate: they gain a clearer path for continued access to case management, assistive devices, and service providers inside shelters rather than relying on ad hoc or delayed help.
- People with disabilities who use community-based LTSS: AAAs, ILCs, and ADRC-linked clients can expect earlier, planned continuity of supports during an active evacuation event.
- Family caregivers and informal support networks: having service partners authorized to enter shelters reduces the burden on family members to recreate supports in an emergency.
- Local emergency managers and shelter operators: MOUs can reduce on-the-spot disputes about who can provide medical or support services in shelter settings and streamline referrals.
Who Bears the Cost
- County welfare departments and their representatives: they must initiate and likely manage MOU negotiations and coordination with emergency management, adding administrative work without specified funding in the bill.
- AAAs, ILCs, and ADRC programs: these organizations may need to supply staff, training, equipment, or transportation to serve clients at shelters, incurring operational costs.
- Local agencies designated for sheltering support: integrating outside service partners into shelters requires adjustments to shelter plans, credentialing, and supervision, which can increase complexity and resource needs.
- Counties generally (potentially taxpayers): if the Commission on State Mandates determines costs are reimbursable and the state does not fully fund them, counties may carry up-front costs and administrative burdens while pursuing reimbursement.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill resolves the urgent public-health problem of disrupted supports in evacuation shelters by forcing pre-crisis planning, but it shifts negotiation and likely costs to local welfare offices and community providers without specifying funding or operational standards — balancing service continuity for vulnerable people against local administrative and fiscal burdens.
The statute creates a clear policy goal — bringing aging and disability service providers into evacuation shelters proactively — but leaves key implementation questions to local actors. The requirement to "initiate" an MOU is deliberately limited: it compels starting negotiations rather than mandating that specific access terms be adopted.
That design reduces the risk of a one-size-fits-all rule, but it also means implementation will vary widely across counties, producing a potential patchwork of protections.
Several operational frictions are unresolved in the text. MOUs will need to address credentialing, liability, medical oversight, confidentiality of health and case records (including HIPAA concerns), staffing and supervision inside shelters, and how to serve people with complex needs (behavioral health, durable medical equipment, medication administration).
The bill ties coordination to the State Emergency Plan’s sheltering Emergency Support Functions, but it does not modify those functions or provide funding streams, so aligning emergency-management priorities with social-service continuity will require local negotiation and possibly new interagency protocols. Finally, the state-mandate designation triggers reimbursement procedures, yet the Commission on State Mandates process can be slow and may leave counties carrying costs for an extended period.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.