SB 748 amends California’s Encampment Resolution Funding program to require applicants who operate safe parking sites to include specific plans for acquiring sites, operating them, providing on‑site services, and increasing hours, as part of their grant applications. It also adjusts how program data flows: grantees must continue to submit client‑level data to local Homeless Management Information Systems and to the council as required, but the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) will now summarize and evaluate those data in its annual report to the Governor and Legislature instead of separate reports to legislative committee chairs.
The bill preserves program mechanics like prioritizing prior‑round approved projects and allows the council to award remaining funds on a rolling basis, while capping administrative uses at 5 percent. It shields health and personal identifying information in the statewide Homeless Data Integration System from public disclosure and creates procurement exemptions for contracts used to implement the program.
These changes reallocate reporting and oversight tasks, sharpen application requirements where safe parking is involved, and create compliance and privacy tradeoffs for local implementers and HCD.
At a Glance
What It Does
When an applicant’s program will operate safe parking sites, the application must describe site acquisition, operations, on‑site services, and expanded hours; grantees must deliver client‑level data to the local HMIS and the council; HCD must include a summary of specified data elements in its annual report and evaluate program efficacy from the department’s reported data.
Who It Affects
Local jurisdictions and continuums of care that run or plan safe‑parking programs, homeless service providers who report client data into HMIS, HCD and the Encampment Resolution Funding council (which set application and data rules), and contractors hired to implement projects that fall under the program’s procurement exemptions.
Why It Matters
The bill standardizes what safe‑parking proposals must show to get encampment resolution dollars, centralizes program evaluation at HCD, and locks sensitive health data into HMIS without CPRA disclosure — shifting compliance costs to local implementers while giving state planners richer, consolidated datasets for evaluation and scaling of practices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 748 layers two sets of changes onto the existing Encampment Resolution Funding program. First, it tightens application content for projects that include operating safe parking sites: applicants must now explain how they will acquire sites, run day‑to‑day operations, deliver services on site, and extend site hours while they locate interim or permanent housing for people living in vehicles or recreational vehicles.
Those specifics become part of the minimum application package the council will use to judge and prioritize grants.
Second, SB 748 retools reporting and evaluation. Grantees remain required to send client‑level data into their local Homeless Management Information System in a way that aligns with state and federal law; the council also may require submission of client data directly for research and evaluation.
The bill clarifies that health and medical information contained in the statewide Homeless Data Integration System is exempt from public records disclosure. Rather than producing separate reports for legislative committee chairs, HCD must summarize the program’s required data elements in its statutory annual report (Section 50408) and use the department’s reported data to evaluate program efficacy and identify scalable best practices.Operationally, the bill preserves the program’s rolling award mechanics for additional funding rounds — including a requirement to start accepting new applications within five months of an appropriation and to stop when the fiscal year ends or funds are expended — and keeps the council’s ability to prioritize previously approved but unfunded projects.
The council may continue to monitor grantee performance, require technical assistance, and restrict allowable uses for underperforming grantees, and may use up to 5 percent of annual appropriations for administration and capacity building. Finally, SB 748 makes contracts entered into to implement the chapter exempt from several state procurement and oversight provisions, reducing some procedural hurdles for awardees and the council.
The Five Things You Need to Know
If an application includes operating safe parking sites, the applicant must describe site acquisition, operations, on‑site services, and plans to increase safe‑parking hours while locating interim or permanent housing.
The council must begin accepting new applications within five months after the Legislature appropriates funds for a fiscal year and stop accepting applications either at that fiscal year’s end or when the funds are exhausted.
Grantees must report client‑level data to local HMIS and, as required by the council, directly to the council for research; health and personal identifying information in the statewide Homeless Data Integration System is exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
HCD must include a summary of the program’s specified data elements in its annual report to the Governor and Legislature and will evaluate efficacy using department‑reported data; the summary requirement is disaggregated by funding round and becomes inoperative after the department publishes the final round report.
Contracts to implement the program are exempted from multiple state contracting and procurement statutes and reviews (specified exemptions include parts of the Public Contract Code, Government Code contracting sections, and certain technology and general services reviews).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings on RV habitation and homelessness
This opening section collects statistics and definitions the Legislature relied on: HUD counts, the share of unsheltered and chronically homeless people in California, and the statutory definition of an RV. Practically, it signals the bill’s intent to treat vehicle‑dwelling as a distinct programmatic population and frames safe parking as a policy response rather than an endorsement of long‑term RV habitation.
Application window and required content for additional funding rounds
The bill requires the council to open a rolling application window no later than five months after an appropriation and to close it by fiscal year end or when funds run out. Applications must include enumerated content items — demographics, prioritization rationale, collaboration plans, resource leverage, numeric goals for temporary and permanent housing transitions — and, specifically when safe parking is part of the project, detailed plans for acquiring and operating safe parking sites and expanding hours. These mechanics create predictable deadlines for jurisdictions and set minimum program design expectations for any safe‑parking proposal.
Performance management and administrative cap
The council retains tools to monitor grantees: performance monitoring, mandatory technical assistance for underperforming grantees, and the ability to limit allowable fund uses. The council may use up to 5 percent of annual appropriations for administration, capacity building, and technical assistance — an explicit ceiling that balances administrative needs against direct service dollars.
Data reporting, client‑level submissions, and confidentiality
Grantees must submit data elements, including health information consistent with state and federal law, to their local HMIS for tracking in the statewide Homeless Data Integration System. The council prescribes form and substance and may change elements as operationally necessary; it can also require direct client‑level reporting to the council for research and evaluation. The statute explicitly bars public disclosure of health and personal identifying information held in the statewide system and cross‑references federal definitions of protected health information and state definitions of medical information, creating a legal buffer for sensitive data while centralizing it for evaluation.
Evaluation role of HCD and procurement exemptions
The bill shifts the evaluative focus to the council/HCD by directing the council to evaluate department‑reported data to assess program efficacy and scalable practices, and it requires HCD to include a summary of certain data elements in its annual report (disaggregated by funding round). It also makes contracts to implement the chapter exempt from specified Government Code and Public Contract Code provisions and certain department reviews, reducing some procurement hurdles but also narrowing standard state oversight avenues.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing 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
- People living in vehicles or RVs — The safe‑parking application requirements increase the likelihood that funded programs will include site acquisition, structured operations, on‑site services, and expanded hours, which can improve safety and service access during housing searches.
- Continuums of Care and local jurisdictions that operate safe‑parking programs — Applicants that can demonstrate concrete safe‑parking operations and coordination are better positioned to win encampment resolution grants and receive technical assistance and administrative support.
- HCD and the Encampment Resolution Funding council — Centralized summaries in the annual report give the department a consolidated dataset to evaluate program efficacy and identify replicable practices across funding rounds, strengthening statewide planning.
- Service providers and outreach teams — Clearer application standards and an emphasis on on‑site services make it easier to negotiate contracts, secure reimbursements tied to program goals, and plan continuity of care when people move off‑site.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local jurisdictions, CoCs, and grantees — They must prepare more detailed safe‑parking plans, increase HMIS reporting to client level, and potentially expand site hours and service staffing without guaranteed ongoing operational funding.
- HMIS administrators and data stewards — Collecting, transmitting, and protecting protected health information at the required granularity increases technical, compliance, and cybersecurity burdens for local systems.
- HCD and council staff — Centralizing evaluation and folding the summary into the department’s annual report will require staff time to standardize, analyze, and disaggregate data by funding round, potentially without additional dedicated appropriation.
- Procurement oversight entities and competing vendors — The contract exemptions reduce procedural oversight and competitive protections that typically accompany state contracting, which can shift risk to subcontractors and reduce transparency for procurement outcomes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate but competing priorities: the need for granular, centralized data and concrete operational plans (to evaluate programs and scale what works) versus the need to protect sensitive health and identity information and avoid imposing unsustainable operational burdens on local implementers; resolving one objective inevitably raises risks for the other.
SB 748 sharpens reporting and program design but creates several practical tensions. First, it requires client‑level health information to flow into centralized systems for evaluation while simultaneously insulating that data from public disclosure.
That protects individuals’ privacy on paper but increases the stakes for data governance: local HMIS operators must ensure HIPAA/CMIA compliance, secure data transfers, and robust access controls. Errors, breaches, or inconsistent data formats across HMIS implementations can undermine both privacy and the utility of the consolidated dataset.
Second, the safe‑parking requirements push applicants toward creating or scaling operational programs (site acquisition, expanded hours, on‑site services) without attaching a sustained operational funding guarantee. Grant dollars are often time‑limited; without explicit follow‑on funding commitments, jurisdictions may find themselves subsidizing ongoing operations or reducing service levels after grants end.
Third, the procurement exemptions remove common state contracting reviews and competitive protections to speed implementation but also reduce transparency and external oversight, raising risks of inconsistent contracting practices and uneven accountability across jurisdictions.
Finally, the bill’s administrative choices — a five‑month window to open applications after appropriation and a cap of 5 percent for administration — impose scheduling pressure and a hard ceiling on capacity building. That calendar and budget constraint may spur rapid application submissions and make it harder for smaller or rural jurisdictions to assemble compliant safe‑parking proposals or meet enhanced reporting expectations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.