Gavin Newsom and the CA housing, homelessness and drug problem
Executive summary
Gavin Newsom has made homelessness, housing and behavioral health central to his governorship, claiming a 9% drop in unsheltered homelessness in 2025 and rolling out new agencies, funding and model ordinances to institutionalize those priorities [1] [2] [3]. His administration points to billions in state investments and program reorganizations as evidence of progress [4] [3], while critics — from watchdog reporters to political opponents and some county officials — say the wins are uneven, data and accountability remain contested, and tensions over "Housing First" versus treatment‑first approaches complicate efforts to address drug addiction on the streets [5] [6] [7].
1. Newsom’s headline claim: a measurable drop in street homelessness
The governor has leaned into a widely quoted figure that unsheltered homelessness in California fell roughly 9% in 2025, using that stat in speeches and budget pitches to argue the state’s investments are paying off [1] [8]. The administration also announced new targeted funding packages — including $419 million in HHAP grants and $1.11 billion from Proposition 1 sources — and framed recent program expansions as the driver of the decline [3] [9].
2. Structural reforms and the policy toolbox he’s deployed
Newsom has reorganized state government to create a California Housing and Homelessness Agency and to push accountability and coordination across departments, while issuing model ordinances urging localities to address encampments and directing Proposition 1 funds toward behavioral health housing and treatment [2] [10]. The official website and press releases emphasize "unprecedented" funding and institutional changes meant to speed conversions, cut red tape, and prioritize housing as the platform for services [4] [2].
3. What the numbers don’t settle: data, auditing and outcome tracking
Journalists and auditors have pushed back on whether the 9% drop tells the whole story, noting questions about methodology, local variation and whether state programs measure outcomes such as returns to homelessness or improvements in health and substance use [8] [5]. A 2024 state audit criticized the absence of comprehensive tracking of billions in homeless spending, and some reporting has highlighted fraud and misuse allegations tied to parts of Homekey conversions, complicating claims of program effectiveness [5] [6].
4. The political fight: local governments, opponents and advocacy groups
County leaders have complained that budget shifts leave them exposed to costs and that the state has delayed previously approved allocations — tensions that undercut the governor’s message that locals simply need to "do their job" [1]. Conservative and activist critics frame Newsom’s policy mix as ideological grandstanding or "gaslighting," arguing that Housing First rules prevent treatment mandates and thereby fail to address addiction-driven homelessness; Newsom counters that housing and treatment must be paired and that the state is expanding both [7] [11] [12].
5. The drugs question: intersecting crises with no single fix
Reporting reflects a consensus that homelessness and the affordable housing shortage are intertwined, and that substance use and serious mental illness are major drivers for a subset of people living unsheltered; whether to prioritize immediate housing access without preconditions or to require treatment as a pathway to shelter remains a heated policy debate [8] [12]. Newsom’s strategy has emphasized expanding housing and behavioral health capacity simultaneously, but critics say implementation and outcome measurement lag, and that some state programs have not funded the services necessary to stabilize tenants long-term [3] [5].
6. Bottom line — achievements, limits and the road ahead
Newsom has transformed the state’s institutional approach and marshalled major funding streams, producing at least one headline decline that bolsters his political argument of progress [2] [3] [1]. Yet significant caveats remain: uneven local execution, contested data, audit findings and fraud probes into big conversion programs, and deep disagreement over Housing First versus treatment mandates — all of which mean that the state’s claim of turning a corner is real but fragile, dependent on better transparency, outcome tracking and durable local‑state partnerships [5] [6] [10].