California Homelessness Crisis: Billions Spent, Some Progress Made, But the Real Test Is Still Ahead
Opinion
California’s homelessness crisis has reached a point where political arguments alone are no longer enough.
Residents want safer streets, cleaner parks and sidewalks, and responsible use of taxpayer money. Homeless Californians need housing, stability, healthcare and, when necessary, mental-health or substance-use treatment. Businesses want communities where customers and employees feel safe. State and local governments need programs that actually produce measurable results.
These interests should not be treated as opposites.
The real challenge is to build a system that protects human dignity, public safety and taxpayer accountability at the same time.
California has already invested billions of dollars in housing, homelessness programs and behavioral-health services. At the same time, recent state data show that homelessness has declined in some important measures. California reported a 6.8% reduction in unsheltered homelessness in its latest statewide comparison, while the state also reported a 9% decline in unsheltered homelessness in 2025. (California State Portal)
That is meaningful progress.
But it is not the end of the problem.
The question California should now ask is much more practical:
How can the state turn billions of dollars of investment into permanent housing, safer communities and fewer people becoming homeless in the first place?
California’s Homelessness Problem Did Not Begin Overnight
California’s homelessness crisis is the result of multiple pressures developing over many years.
Housing affordability is one major factor. When rent consumes most of a household’s income, a job loss, medical emergency, family breakdown or unexpected bill can push a person into homelessness.
But housing is not the only factor.
Some people experiencing chronic homelessness also face mental-health challenges, substance-use disorders, unemployment or other barriers that make it difficult to obtain and maintain permanent housing.
That means California cannot solve the problem with one policy.
Building housing is essential.
But housing must be connected to prevention, employment, healthcare, behavioral-health services and public safety.
The Government Has Put Billions Into the Problem
California has not simply ignored homelessness.
The state has created major programs including the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program, Homekey, Homekey+ and Proposition 1 behavioral-health investments.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development says nearly $5 billion has been appropriated through current and previous HHAP rounds for local homelessness responses. (California State Portal)
California has also used Homekey and Homekey+ to increase permanent and supportive housing.
Proposition 1 represents another major investment, combining behavioral-health funding with housing and treatment infrastructure.
But here is where the public has a legitimate question:
How much money has actually been spent, rather than simply approved, allocated or awarded?
That distinction matters.
An approved budget is not necessarily the same as money already spent.
An award is not necessarily the same as a completed project.
And a completed housing project is not necessarily the same as a person remaining permanently housed.
California should make those differences much easier for the public to understand.
The Money Needs to Be Followed From Sacramento to Results
A strong homelessness accountability system should show taxpayers a simple chain:
Money Approved → Money Awarded → Money Spent → Housing Built → People Housed → People Remaining Housed
That information should be available for every major program and every participating county.
For example, residents should be able to see:
| Measure | What taxpayers should know |
|---|---|
| Funding approved | How much was authorized |
| Funding awarded | How much went to local agencies |
| Funding spent | How much has actually been spent |
| Housing created | Number of completed units |
| People housed | Number placed into permanent housing |
| Housing retention | How many remain housed |
| Return to homelessness | How many became homeless again |
| Cost per successful placement | Total cost compared with outcome |
This is not anti-government.
It is simply good government.
The Latest Numbers Show That Some Strategies Are Working
The evidence should be treated honestly.
It would be wrong to say that California’s homelessness programs have accomplished nothing.
The state has reported measurable declines in unsheltered homelessness. (California State Portal)
That means some strategies are producing results.
The state has also invested heavily in supportive housing and behavioral-health infrastructure.
So the argument should not be:
“Government spending has failed.”
The better question is:
“Which government investments are working, how much do they cost, and how can successful programs be expanded?”
That is a much more useful debate.
But Progress Does Not Mean Victory
A decline in homelessness should be welcomed.
It should not, however, be confused with solving homelessness.
California remains one of the states with the largest homelessness challenges in the country.
And results can vary dramatically between cities and counties.
One community may experience a significant decline while another continues to struggle with rising housing costs, encampments or shortages of supportive housing.
That is why California needs county-level transparency rather than relying only on statewide averages.
Residents should be able to see what is happening in their own communities.
The Public’s Concerns Are Legitimate
There is a tendency in political debates to portray residents who complain about homelessness as lacking compassion.
That is unfair.
A person can care deeply about homeless individuals and still believe that sidewalks should remain accessible.
A parent can support affordable housing and still want children to feel safe in public parks.
A business owner can support homeless services and still be concerned about conditions around a storefront.
A taxpayer can support government assistance while asking whether billions of dollars are being used effectively.
These are reasonable positions.
Public safety and compassion do not have to be enemies.
Homeless People Also Deserve More Than Temporary Solutions
At the same time, simply removing people from public spaces is not a permanent solution.
If someone is moved from one sidewalk to another without receiving housing or services, the underlying problem remains.
That is why California’s approach should be:
Identify → Shelter → Assess → Treat → House → Support → Stabilize
The ultimate goal should be permanent housing.
Housing Must Remain at the Center
California cannot solve homelessness without increasing the supply of affordable and supportive housing.
If there are not enough homes at prices low-income residents can afford, prevention becomes harder.
The state therefore needs to continue supporting:
- Affordable apartments
- Permanent supportive housing
- Workforce housing
- Transitional housing
- Emergency housing
- Rental assistance
- Housing for veterans
- Housing connected to behavioral-health services
But California also needs to make sure that projects are completed efficiently.
The public should know how long a project took, how much it cost and how many people it ultimately served.
Homekey and Homekey+ Show the Direction California Is Taking
Homekey has become one of California’s major housing initiatives for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
Homekey+ extends that approach toward permanent supportive housing, particularly for veterans and people with behavioral-health needs.
The idea behind these programs is important:
Do not simply manage homelessness. Create permanent housing that can move people out of homelessness.
That is the direction California should continue exploring.
But programs must be evaluated based on outcomes.
A building should not be considered the final success.
The real success is the person living safely and permanently in that building.
Mental Health Cannot Be Ignored
California’s homelessness strategy also needs a serious behavioral-health component.
Not every homeless person has a mental-health or substance-use disorder.
That distinction matters.
But some people experiencing chronic homelessness need more than a key to an apartment.
They may need:
- Mental-health treatment
- Medical care
- Substance-use treatment
- Case management
- Medication support
- Transportation
- Employment assistance
- Long-term supportive housing
Proposition 1 is designed to expand California’s behavioral-health infrastructure and supportive housing.
That investment can become an important part of the long-term solution.
But again, the state should measure outcomes rather than simply announcing funding.
Treatment Should Be Connected to Housing
One of California’s biggest opportunities is combining services instead of operating them separately.
Imagine a person experiencing chronic homelessness who receives an apartment but has no access to treatment.
That housing may not remain stable.
Now imagine the same person receives:
Permanent housing + healthcare + treatment + case management + employment assistance.
The second model has a much better chance of creating lasting stability.
That does not mean every homeless person needs intensive services.
It means services should match the person’s needs.
Prevention May Be the Most Important Investment
California should also focus more heavily on preventing homelessness before it happens.
Consider a family facing eviction after a temporary loss of income.
A relatively small amount of emergency rental assistance could potentially keep that family housed.
If the family becomes homeless, the government may later have to provide shelter, case management, transportation, housing assistance and other services.
Prevention should therefore include:
- Emergency rental assistance
- Eviction prevention
- Legal assistance
- Employment services
- Utility assistance
- Temporary financial support
The goal is straightforward:
Keep people from entering homelessness whenever reasonably possible.
Employment Is Part of the Solution
Housing stability is much easier when people have reliable income.
California should strengthen partnerships between homelessness programs and employers.
People who are able to work should have access to:
- Job training
- Transportation
- Apprenticeships
- Employment placement
- Resume assistance
- Career counseling
The goal should not be permanent dependence on government assistance.
For many people, the best long-term solution is:
A stable home + a stable job + access to necessary services.
Public Spaces Must Also Be Protected
A balanced policy must recognize that public spaces belong to everyone.
Parks, sidewalks, libraries and transit areas must remain usable and safe.
Local governments therefore have a legitimate responsibility to address encampments that create serious health, safety or access problems.
But enforcement should be connected to a real homelessness strategy.
The state should avoid a cycle in which people are repeatedly moved without receiving a realistic path to housing.
The goal should be encampment resolution, not simply encampment relocation.
The Government and Public Actually Want Many of the Same Things
When the political language is removed, there is considerable overlap.
Government wants:
- Fewer people living unsheltered
- More permanent housing
- Better behavioral-health services
- Safer communities
- Better use of public funds
Residents want:
- Fewer encampments
- Safer streets
- Cleaner public spaces
- Affordable housing
- Responsible government spending
- Real results
Homeless individuals want:
- Safety
- Stability
- Housing
- Healthcare
- Employment opportunities
- A chance to rebuild their lives
These goals can coexist.
California Needs a New Definition of Success
In my view, California should stop treating money spent as the primary measure of progress.
Money is an input.
Housing construction is an output.
But permanent housing stability is the outcome that matters.
A successful program should eventually be able to tell taxpayers:
We invested this amount of money, created this many housing opportunities, moved this many people into permanent housing, and this percentage remained housed.
That is the standard California should pursue.
What California Should Do Next
A practical statewide strategy could be built around seven priorities.
1. Prevent
Stop people from entering homelessness whenever possible.
2. Build
Increase affordable and supportive housing.
3. House
Move people from shelters and encampments into permanent housing.
4. Treat
Provide behavioral-health and substance-use services where needed.
5. Employ
Connect people who can work with jobs and training.
6. Protect
Maintain safe and accessible public spaces.
7. Measure
Publish clear spending and outcome data.
This is not a quick fix.
But it is a realistic framework.
What Taxpayers Should Demand
California taxpayers should not have to choose between compassion and accountability.
They should demand both.
The state should publish a simple annual report showing:
How much was approved.
California has approved and appropriated billions of dollars across homelessness, housing and behavioral-health programs, but the amount actually spent is different from the amount authorized. The state should publish a clear accounting showing how much was approved, awarded, spent and converted into permanent housing and measurable outcomes.
How much was actually spent
How much was actually spent? California’s official HHAP fiscal dashboard tracks cumulative obligations and expenditures reported by local grantees, allowing the public to distinguish money awarded from money actually spent.
How many housing units were completed.
How many housing units were completed?
California’s Homekey program has funded 15,850 homes across 259 projects, while Homekey+ had allocated funding for 2,471 permanent supportive homes as of May 2026. These figures should not automatically be described as completed or occupied units because California’s official data distinguishes between homes funded or awarded and housing that has actually been completed and occupied.
Official Source: California HCD — Homekey Program
Homekey+ Source: California HCD — Homekey+
How many people were permanently housed.
How many people were permanently housed?
California has not published one single statewide figure showing how many people have been permanently housed across every homelessness program. The state’s Homekey program has supported nearly 16,000 interim and permanent supportive homes that are expected to serve more than 172,000 people over the life of the projects. However, this is a projected number of people served, not a count of people already permanently housed.
California should publish a consolidated figure showing how many people have actually moved into permanent housing and how many have remained housed over time.
Official Source: California HCD — Homekey
How many remained housed.
How many remained housed?
California does not currently publish one consolidated statewide figure showing how many people remained permanently housed over time across all homelessness programs. The state reports that the HHAP program has helped more than 100,000 Californians transition from homelessness into permanent housing, but this figure does not show how many remained housed long-term. (Cal HCD)
California’s official HHAP dashboard tracks program activity, including obligations and expenditures, but a single statewide long-term housing-retention figure is not provided. (Cal HCD)
California should publish a statewide 6-month, 12-month and multi-year housing-retention rate so taxpayers can see how many people remain successfully housed after receiving assistance.
Official Source: California HCD — HHAP Program
Official Data Dashboard: California HCD — HHAP Fiscal Data Dashboard
How many remained housed?
California does not currently publish one consolidated statewide figure showing how many people have remained permanently housed over time across all homelessness programs. The state does report that, through multiple rounds of the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) program since 2023, more than 100,000 Californians have transitioned from homelessness into permanent housing. However, that figure does not establish how many of those people remained housed long-term. (Cal HCD)
California should publish a statewide housing-retention rate showing how many people remain housed after 6 months, 12 months and several years. That would provide taxpayers with a much clearer measure of whether homelessness programs are producing lasting results.
Official Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development — HHAP Data
How many returned to homelessness.
Which programs produced the best results.
Which programs need reform.
This would make the homelessness debate more evidence-based and less political.
What the Government Should Demand in Return
Government also has a legitimate expectation.
Programs cannot work without cooperation.
People receiving housing should be connected to appropriate services when needed.
Communities should participate in housing projects that meet safety and planning standards.
Businesses can help create employment opportunities.
Nonprofits can provide specialized services.
Local governments need to coordinate with the state.
Homelessness is a community problem.
It requires a community response.
California Should Not Choose Between Compassion and Order
The state needs a middle path.
Not:
“Ignore the problem.”
And not:
“Move everyone out and call the problem solved.”
Instead:
Help people. House people. Treat people when necessary. Create employment opportunities. Protect public spaces. Track the money. Measure the results.
That is a policy most Californians can understand.
The Real Test Is What Happens Next
California has already demonstrated that reductions are possible.
The latest state data showing a decline in unsheltered homelessness should be treated as encouraging evidence, not as a reason to stop. (California State Portal)
The next challenge is maintaining and expanding that progress.
If a program is working, California should scale it.
If a program is failing, California should change it.
If a project is taking too long, officials should explain why.
If taxpayer money is not producing measurable results, the public deserves an answer.
And if homelessness is declining in a particular county, policymakers should study what that county is doing differently.
That is how public policy improves.
My Opinion: California Can Solve More of This Than It Thinks
California has enormous financial resources, a powerful economy, major universities, world-class healthcare institutions and a large network of nonprofit organizations.
The state has the resources to make meaningful progress.
The problem is coordination.
Housing agencies, health agencies, cities, counties, nonprofits, employers and law-enforcement agencies often operate in different systems.
The next phase should bring those systems closer together.
One person experiencing homelessness should not have to navigate five disconnected bureaucracies to find help.
The system should work around the person.
A Better California Model
The ideal system would look something like this:
At Risk of Homelessness
↓
Prevention & Emergency Assistance
↓
Temporary Shelter if Necessary
↓
Individual Assessment
↓
Housing + Healthcare + Treatment
↓
Employment & Stability Support
↓
Permanent Housing
↓
Long-Term Housing Stability
At every stage, government should measure results.
That would move California away from simply managing homelessness and toward actually reducing it.
Final Opinion
California’s homelessness debate has become too focused on politics and not focused enough on outcomes.
The state has spent billions of dollars across homelessness, housing and behavioral-health programs. Recent government data also show genuine progress in reducing unsheltered homelessness. (California State Portal)
Those facts should be acknowledged.
But the public is also right to demand stronger accountability.
California should not ask taxpayers to trust a program simply because billions of dollars have been allocated to it.
It should show what those dollars produced.
At the same time, California should not pretend that homelessness can be solved simply by removing people from public spaces.
People need somewhere to go.
They need housing.
Some need treatment.
Some need jobs.
Some need short-term financial assistance before they become homeless.
And communities need safe, clean and accessible public spaces.
The solution is therefore not government versus the public.
It is government and the public working toward measurable results.
California should build more affordable housing, expand permanent supportive housing, strengthen behavioral-health services, prevent avoidable homelessness, connect people to employment, address unsafe encampments and publish transparent spending and outcome data.
The most important measurement should be simple:
How many people entered homelessness, how many left it, and how many stayed permanently housed?
If California can answer those questions clearly every year, taxpayers will have a better understanding of where their money is going—and policymakers will have a better understanding of what actually works.
The goal should not be to make homelessness less visible. The goal should be to make homelessness less common.
And the best solution is one that protects the homeless person, the taxpayer, the neighborhood, the business owner and the public space at the same time.
That is the standard California should now demand.
How many remained housed?
California does not currently publish one single statewide figure showing how many people remained permanently housed across all homelessness programs.
However, official California Housing and Community Development (HCD) program reports provide housing-retention data for individual programs and projects. For example, one 2025 HCD report recorded a 95% housing-retention rate among 49 people who transitioned into permanent housing.
California should publish a statewide 6-month, 12-month and multi-year housing-retention rate so taxpayers can clearly see how many people remain housed after receiving government assistance.
Official Sources:
California HCD — HHAP Fiscal Data Dashboard
California HCD — 2025 ERF Annual Report
How many remained housed?
California does not currently publish one single statewide housing-retention figure covering all homelessness programs. However, official California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reports provide program-level data. In the 2025 Emergency Housing Assistance (ERF) Annual Report, HCD reported that 49 people transitioned into permanent housing, with a 95% housing-retention rate. (Cal HCD)
The 2025 HHAP Annual Report also reported that, among 51 households that obtained housing, 49 retained their permanent housing for six months or longer. (Cal HCD)
California should publish a single statewide 6-month, 12-month and multi-year housing-retention rate so the public can clearly measure how many people remain housed after receiving government assistance.
Official Sources: