AB 624 has two linked aims. First, it instructs the California Office of Emergency Services (OES), where federal law allows, to pass the maximum local share of Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funds to local operational and urban areas, to share agreements for the state shares of the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP) and Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) with two legislative committees, and to retain no more than 3 percent of those federal funds for administration.
Second, it enacts the Community Relief Act, authorizing the Director of Emergency Services to allocate money from the continuously appropriated Disaster Assistance Fund to reimburse or directly provide housing assistance, “other needs” assistance, administrative costs, and site-preparation expenses to local agencies, tribal governments, community-based organizations (CBOs), and individuals after proclaimed disasters.
These changes redirect how preparedness and response dollars flow within California and create a new state-level mechanism for direct individual relief. For local emergency managers, tribal governments, and CBOs the bill alters eligibility and timing for reimbursements and advances; for the state it creates new appropriation and oversight responsibilities, and for compliance teams it adds new regulatory requirements and reporting hooks to legislative committees.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires OES, subject to federal constraints, to provide local operational areas and urban areas the maximum local share of EMPG funding, to send legislative committees copies of agreements for state shares of SHSP and UASI, and to cap administrative retention at 3 percent. It also establishes the Community Relief Act, authorizing allocations from the Disaster Assistance Fund to reimburse or directly provide housing and other needs assistance, plus administrative and site-prep costs.
Who It Affects
OES and its grant-administration staff, local operational areas and urban areas that receive EMPG, local governments and tribal governments that apply for Disaster Assistance Fund grants, community-based organizations that deliver or receive funds, and individuals seeking housing or other needs assistance after a proclaimed local or state emergency.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts more federal preparedness dollars toward local jurisdictions and creates a state-run program to get cash and repair assistance to households and community organizations after disasters. That combination changes financial flows, increases state oversight of how federal state-share dollars are spent, and exposes the Disaster Assistance Fund to a broader set of payouts and timing pressures.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 624 concentrates on two buckets of emergency finance: federally sourced preparedness grants that the state administers, and the state Disaster Assistance Fund used after emergencies. On the federal side, the bill tells the Office of Emergency Services to pass through the greatest allowable share of Emergency Management Performance Grant money to local operational and urban areas.
It also requires OES to give the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization and the Assembly Committee on Emergency Management copies of agreements that allocate the state’s share of SHSP and UASI funds. The bill limits OES’s administrative take to 3 percent of the relevant federal grant funds, but only where federal rules permit these actions.
On the state-fund side, the bill creates the Community Relief Act and authorizes the Director of Emergency Services to draw from the Disaster Assistance Fund to reimburse local agencies, tribal governments, and community-based organizations for response-related costs (excluding normal hourly wages), reimburse or make direct individual and family grants (including housing repair and “other needs” like income loss and medical or funeral costs), pay administrative costs, and cover necessary site-preparation for evacuation and assistance centers. The statute defines key terms—community-based organization, housing assistance, other needs assistance, tribal government, and “unusual circumstances”—to set the scope of who may receive funds and what counts as eligible aid.The bill builds procedural guardrails for speed and accountability.
It allows allocations when a local emergency proclamation is made within 10 days of the disaster (and is acceptable to the director) or when the Governor issues a state proclamation. Applicants must apply within 60 days of a local-proclamation date, with extensions only for narrowly defined “unusual circumstances.” The director must adopt regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act that spell out eligibility, an application-and-evaluation process for local governments, tribes, and CBOs, and procedures for advances to expedite individual and family grants.
Once certified by the director, claims are presented to the State Controller for payment out of the Disaster Assistance Fund.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires applications for state financial assistance under the new Community Relief Act to be filed within 60 days after a local emergency proclamation; the director may extend that deadline only for ‘‘unusual circumstances.’', An allocation under the Community Relief Act may be approved if a local agency proclaims a local emergency within 10 days after the disaster and the director accepts that proclamation, or when the Governor issues a state emergency proclamation.
The Disaster Assistance Fund may pay direct individual and family grants that include housing assistance (repairs to make a primary residence safe and functional) and other needs assistance (income loss, replacement of essential personal property, medical/dental/funeral costs, and other director-authorized expenses).
OES must provide the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization and the Assembly Committee on Emergency Management with copies of agreements for spending the state share of SHSP and UASI funds administered by the office.
OES may retain up to 3 percent of the described federal grant funds for administrative purposes, but all pass-throughs and retentions are qualified by the bill’s repeated caveat: only to the extent permitted by federal law.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Pass-through of EMPG local shares; committee copies for SHSP/UASI; 3% admin cap
This section directs OES to provide local operational areas and urban areas the maximum local share of Emergency Management Performance Grant funding that federal law permits. It also requires OES to give two named legislative committees (the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization and the Assembly Committee on Emergency Management) copies of agreements that allocate the state’s share of State Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative funds. Finally, it authorizes OES to retain up to 3 percent of these federal grant funds for administrative purposes. Practically, this provision forces OES to prioritize local distribution where federal terms allow, while creating a transparency channel to legislative oversight; the federal-law qualification will determine how much can actually move to the local level.
Creates the Community Relief Act
This single-line statutory heading establishes the Community Relief Act as a discrete authority within Chapter 7.5. That labeling signals the legislature’s intent to treat the new program as a standing part of California’s disaster finance architecture rather than a one-off appropriation, and it triggers the subsequent statutory definitions and procedural rules that follow.
Key definitions (CBOs, housing assistance, other needs, tribes, unusual circumstances)
Section 8688.1 sets the operational vocabulary: what counts as a community-based organization, what housing assistance covers (repairs to restore essential living areas), what ‘‘other needs assistance’’ includes (income loss, replacement of essential property, medical/dental/funeral costs, and director-authorized items), who qualifies as a tribal government, and what constitutes ‘‘unusual circumstances’’ for deadline extensions. Tight statutory definitions matter because the director’s implementing regulations will reference these terms when approving payments or advances, and they constrain or expand who can access funds.
Permitted uses of the Disaster Assistance Fund under the Community Relief Act
This is the operative money clause: the director may allocate Disaster Assistance Fund moneys to reimburse local agencies, tribes, and CBOs for response-related costs (explicitly excluding normal hourly wages), to reimburse entities that provide individual and family grants, to make direct individual and family grants, to pay administrative costs, and to fund site-preparation for evacuation and assistance centers. The breadth of permitted uses gives the director flexibility to fund both organizational response capacity and household-level recovery, but it also exposes the fund to substantial and varied demands.
Claims, payments, and rulemaking under the APA
Once the director certifies claims from CBOs, local agencies, or tribes, they go to the State Controller for payment out of the Disaster Assistance Fund. The director is required to adopt regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act that set eligibility criteria, a procedure for requesting implementation of the article, and a method for evaluating requests. That places the substantive details—inclusion criteria, documentation standards, timelines for advances—into regulatory text rather than statute, giving the director operational discretion but also exposing implementation to public rulemaking and potential administrative challenges.
Timing, application deadlines, and advance of funds
Section 8688.4 ties allocations to timely emergency proclamations (a local proclamation within 10 days of the event acceptable to the director, or a Governor’s state proclamation). Section 8688.5 requires applicants to file within 60 days of a local proclamation, permitting extensions only for ‘‘unusual circumstances.’’ Section 8688.6 directs the director to create procedures for advances to speed delivery of individual and family grants. Together, these mechanics prioritize quick eligibility determinations and cash delivery while creating hard windows that could be administratively burdensome in complex, multi-jurisdictional disasters.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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
- Local operational areas and urban areas — They stand to receive the 'maximum local share' of EMPG funds the federal rules allow, increasing local capacity for planning and day-to-day emergency management.
- Local governments and tribal governments — Eligible to receive reimbursements and direct grants from the Disaster Assistance Fund for response costs, site preparation, and to administer individual assistance.
- Community-based organizations — Statutorily eligible to be reimbursed or to receive allocations and advances to provide individual and family grants, which can expand CBOs’ ability to serve affected residents quickly.
- Individuals and families affected by disasters — Become eligible for direct housing assistance (repairs to make a primary residence safe and functional) and other needs assistance such as income loss, replacement of essential items, and medical or funeral costs.
- Legislative oversight committees — Gain access to the state’s grant agreements for SHSP and UASI, improving transparency and enabling legislative scrutiny of how state shares are used.
Who Bears the Cost
- Office of Emergency Services (OES) — Faces increased administrative workload to pass through funds, prepare agreements for legislative committees, implement the Community Relief Act, and operate under a tight 3% retention cap.
- Disaster Assistance Fund (statewide fund) — Will absorb new categories of expenditures (direct individual grants, CBO reimbursements, site-prep costs), increasing the fund’s payout obligations and exposing it to greater fiscal pressure after large disasters.
- Small community-based organizations — May face compliance and paperwork burdens to qualify for reimbursements or advances and may need upfront liquidity before receiving state advances.
- State Controller’s Office — Must process additional certified claims and payments, adding transactional volume and audit responsibilities.
- Local governments (for wage costs) — The statute excludes reimbursement of normal hourly wages for employees engaged in emergency work, so localities may shoulder unreimbursed personnel costs during response.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives against each other: maximize local access to federal preparedness dollars and provide rapid, direct financial relief to disaster-affected households and community organizations, while preserving state-level capacity and fiscal reserves. Speed and local control push money down quickly; accountability, program integrity, and statewide coordination argue for centralized controls and retention of funds—there is no single policy that achieves both perfectly.
The bill is operationally simple on paper but messy in practice. Its repeated qualification “to the extent permitted by federal law” is critical: federal grant terms often determine whether state shares can be distributed to locals, how state administrative costs are handled, and whether the state must meet certain match or reporting requirements.
If federal conditions prevent the full pass-through of state-held shares, the policy goal of maximizing local shares could be frustrated. The 3 percent administrative cap may be insufficient if OES must rapidly administer complex reimbursements, perform fraud controls on individual grants, and process advances; underfunding administration can slow delivery or force tighter eligibility rules.
Timing rules (10-day local-proclamation window, 60-day application deadline) prioritize speedy determinations but risk excluding legitimate applicants in chaotic, multi-jurisdictional events; the statutory ‘‘unusual circumstances’’ carve-out helps but is vaguely defined and will become a litigation or rulemaking focal point. Allowing the Disaster Assistance Fund to finance both organizational response costs and direct individual grants expands the fund’s reach but also creates allocation trade-offs: money used for household-level grants is not available for infrastructure repairs or future reserves.
Finally, delegating key eligibility, advance, and evaluation procedures to OES regulations gives flexibility but shifts the real policy questions into administrative text—raising implementation uncertainty for applicants and increasing the importance of the director’s rulemaking choices.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.