What the California Legislature is Doing About Homelessness

from Marissa KendallCalMatters

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

As this year’s legislative session winds down, a handful of bills focused on the state’s homelessness crisis have made it to the floor.

Although homelessness improved slightly last year, it is still there approximately 182,000 Californians who have no place to call home. The issue is top of mind for many lawmakers in Sacramento, who are pushing for a set of laws that would do everything from free up state funds for sober housing, get vans off the city’s streets and create a homelessness prevention plan.

Here are some of the bills to watch as they approach their final vote and await a potential signature from the governor:

State-funded sober housing for the homeless

Gov. Gavin Newsom struck Assemblyman Matt Haney with a surprise veto last year, blocking his account it would allow state funding to pay for sober housing for the homeless.

Haney is back with a similar bill that he says would give people recovering from drug and alcohol addiction the choice to live in an environment free of dangerous temptations.

“Many people who are currently on the streets or coming out of shelter programs would prefer drug-free housing,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “And right now there are few, if any, options for them.”

Last year, Assembly Bill 255 would have allowed cities and counties to spend up to 10 percent of their state funding on “recovery housing” where people are required to stay sober. It was a change in California’s “housing first” strategy, which emphasizes a hands-off approach to housing and generally frowns on barriers that require people to stay clean or participate in treatment.

In his veto announcement, Newsom said the state already allows the state to fund sober housing. His cabinet pointed out a a new set of guidelines on the subject, posted online the day after Newsom’s veto.

But Haney says the guidelines are unclear and housing providers still believe government funds are off-limits to sober living. The evidence: Haney said that as far as he knows, no one has used state funds to pay for sober housing since the governor’s veto last year.

His new account, Assembly Bill 1556sets out the rules that a sober living provider must follow in order to be eligible for government funding. Every provider should have a relapse policy that should help the resident get sober again, but may also include eviction if they continue to use alcohol or drugs and do not follow the policy. That worries critics, including Sharon Rapport, director of California State Policy for the Supportive Housing Corporation, who fears it could put people back on the streets.

Unlike last year’s bill, AB 1556 does not limit the amount of state money that can go to sober housing. The bill comes without additional funding, meaning the more money that goes to sober housing, the less will be left for low-barrier housing needed for people who aren’t ready to overcome their addiction, Rapport said. That’s even more troubling because the Trump administration is also prioritizing sober housing for federal funds — creating an even bigger gap in low-barrier housing, she said.

“We really don’t want Trump’s policies implemented in California at the state level,” she said.

This year, Haney expects a more positive reaction from Newsom.

“The governor’s office has been very cooperative and responsive from the beginning this time,” he said.

Solutions to homelessness

Most people in California agree that homelessness is a problem. But exactly how much would it cost to solve it? And how can California get there?

It turns out the state never actually did that math publicly. Assembly Bill 1165 will force the state to do just that. The account from Assemblyman Mike GipsonD-Gardena, would require the California Department of Housing and Community Development to create a financial plan to address homelessness and measures of success by January 2028. That would include determining how much money the state will need to meet the housing needs of everyone who is homeless now or expected to become homeless in the future, and how the state can achieve that goal.

The state has estimated that California needs to plan for 2.5 million units over the next eight years to meet demand and ease the state’s affordable housing shortage. AB 1165 would require the state to go into more detail about the resources needed and develop a plan to achieve that goal.

The Supportive Housing Corporation grades it would take $8.1 billion a year over 12 years to solve homelessness. The budget legislation proposed this month includes $900 million in homeless shelter, assistance and prevention funds — the state’s main source of funding for homelessness.

If passed, AB 1165 could help hold lawmakers and the next governor accountable and make the state spend its homeless funds more wisely, Rapport said. A 2024 Audit found that the state had failed to track its homeless spending or measure results.

The bill does not include new resources to fight homelessness, meaning implementing a plan to end homelessness could be difficult in the current tight budget environment.

Another measure, 1924 Assembly Billwould require the California Interagency Council on Homelessness to create a statewide strategy to prevent homelessness before it happens. If passed, the plan must be in place by July 2027.

Prevention is getting bigger a popular way to deal with homelessnessas it is much easier and cheaper to help someone keep their housing than to re-shelter them once they are on the street. Organizations already using this strategy have found that giving someone a few thousand dollars can help them avoid homelessness.

Like AB 1165, the prevention bill also comes without new funding.

Forcing cities to report data on homelessness and housing

How much homelessness data should California cities that do not receive state funds be required to report to the state? This is the question behind the bill from Senator Catherine Blakespearwhich was pushed back by some of her colleagues.

Counties, Continuum of Care (regional groups that coordinate homeless services), and the 14 largest cities are admissible for money from the state program for assistance and prevention in housing the homeless. In exchange for the funds, these entities must report certain data about their homeless populations, the services they offer and the progress they’ve made to get people off the streets.

Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas, wants other California cities, even if they don’t get funding, to report that data as well.

“Homelessness is a regional problem that doesn’t stop at city or county lines,” she said during a recent Senate hearing.

Senate Bill 866 alarmed some city leaders, who complained they didn’t have the staff or money to collect this vast amount of data. Dozens of cities oppose the bill, as does the League of California Cities.

As a concession, Blakespear agreed to exempt all cities with 50,000 people or less—eliminating about half of California’s cities.

But that wasn’t enough to appease some of her colleagues, including Republican Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil of Modesto, who called the bill an unfunded mandate for cities.

“I have to ask,” she said, “if we have this level of opposition, not just from rural communities, not just from Republican-represented communities, but from cities across the state, why do we have a half-baked bill in this Legislature?”

There are no arrest warrants for people who miss court dates

Assembly Bill 2122 doesn’t specifically mention unsheltered Californians, but advocates say it would have major implications for people sleeping rough.

The cities around California are cracking of street homelessness, leading to an increasing number of arrests and citations in some places. People are ticketed for unauthorized camping, but they can also be cited for other offenses such as loitering, trespassing, public urination, violating park rules and more. The police usually give them a paper citation that says when they have to appear in court.

It’s common for homeless people to miss court dates—they may lack transportation, be unable to leave their belongings or pets unattended, or simply lose track of the date amid the unpredictable street life. When this happens, the court issues an order for their detention. The next time they run into the police, they could go to jail.

Not only does that cost the city money, but it can also make it harder for people to get housing, Rapport said.

Assembly Bill 2122, by members of the Assembly Ash Kalra and Josh Lowenthalwill change that. If someone is charged with a misdemeanor (which can include loitering or other minor offenses) and then misses a court date, they cannot be jailed as a result. It will also ban courts from issuing arrest warrants for people who fail to pay traffic fines.

The bill only applies to violations. Different cities classify crimes differently – in some places a crime like loitering may be a misdemeanor, while in other places it may be a misdemeanor.

The California State Sheriffs Association is oppose the billand says it sends the message that it’s okay to not show up to court.

RVs on city streets

As homeless Californians increasingly turn to vehicles for shelter, multiple lawmakers have turned their attention to addressing the resulting rows of RVs, trailers and campers lining streets up and down the state.

last year, Assemblyman Mark GonzalezDemocrat from Los Angeles, pushed account aims to make it easier for local authorities to dispose of idle caravans parked on their streets. The goal was to address vehicles that blight neighborhoods and are breeding grounds for bad behavior, he said.

He eventually amended the bill to apply only to Los Angeles and Alameda counties. But by making this change, Gonzalez inadvertently rendered the law virtually unusable. While Alameda and Los Angeles counties themselves could use the law to dump RVs, cities within them could not. The Los Angeles City Council found this out the hard way when it voted to create an RV disposal program just to have one taken down in court.

Assembly Bill 647 fixes that loophole by allowing cities in those two counties to destroy RVs valued at $4,000 or less. Opponents worry the bill will lead local governments to confiscate more vans that people live in, forcing people out of the relative safety of the vehicle and onto the street.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license.