What has Newsom done to help homelessness in Ca.?
Executive summary
Governor Gavin Newsom has pushed a multi-pronged state effort that includes large funding awards, a new state agency structure, model ordinances and a statewide task force aimed at clearing encampments and expanding housing and services; the administration credits those moves with measurable local declines in homelessness in 2024–25 (e.g., California limited unsheltered growth to 0.45% in 2024 and reported large veteran reductions) [1] [2]. Critics and some local officials warn that tactics focused on encampment removal, recent budget shifts, and vetoes of certain bills have sparked concern that progress may be fragile or uneven [3] [4] [5].
1. Newsom’s claim: building structures, funding, and measurable progress
The Newsom administration emphasizes institutional reforms and big-dollar investments: it created the California Housing and Homelessness Agency to centralize housing-and-homelessness policy (CHHA) and reorganized state government to make homelessness a lasting priority [6]. The administration points to preliminary 2025 point-in-time counts and 2024 comparisons showing California outperformed national trends (unsheltered homelessness rose nearly 7% nationally vs. California’s 0.45% increase in 2024) and to substantial reductions in veteran and youth homelessness as evidence of progress [1] [2].
2. Policy tools: ordinances, task force, and directed grants
Newsom released a model ordinance for cities and counties to address dangerous encampments and urged immediate adoption, pairing that guidance with $3.3 billion in Proposition 1 behavioral-health housing funds and other state resources to expand shelter and treatment for the most seriously ill and homeless [7]. He convened the SAFE Task Force to prioritize encampments on state rights-of-way in major cities and announced targeted grants (about $130.7 million) to 18 local governments to clear encampments while providing shelter and services—with stricter accountability requirements for localities [8] [9] [7].
3. Legal and federal advocacy: suing to protect homelessness funding
When the federal HUD notice introduced changes Newsom described as cutting permanent-housing supports, the governor joined a multistate lawsuit with California Attorney General Rob Bonta to challenge those federal funding changes as harmful to tens of thousands of Californians experiencing homelessness [10]. The administration framed the suit as defending established programs that have “a proven record of success” [10].
4. Results touted — and the limits of the metrics
State messaging and several local reports highlight early signs of decline in multiple regions and the nation’s largest decrease in veteran homelessness as concrete outcomes [2] [1]. However, point-in-time counts are a one-night snapshot and early 2025 reports are preliminary; independent observers and some local officials caution that such measures can miss seasonal or transient dynamics and that reductions in some subpopulations can coexist with increases among families or students [2] [4].
5. Pushback from advocates, lawmakers and watchdogs
Critics say Newsom’s encampment-focused approach risks criminalizing people without providing adequate housing alternatives. CalMatters reports that his model ordinance could force people to move every three days if shelters or beds aren’t available, and advocates note the core problem remains a shortage of housing and shelter capacity [5]. Other reporting shows friction when Newsom vetoed sober-housing legislation; the veto and the timing of state guidance left lawmakers and stakeholders saying they were surprised and concerned about transparency and coordination [3].
6. Fiscal and political fragility: budget cuts and competing narratives
Some counties and advocacy groups warn that state budget choices could undercut gains: reporting notes the FY 2025–26 budget eliminated certain core homelessness program funding (HHAP) and county associations cautioned that cutting funds risks reversing progress [4]. Supporters frame recent measures as a necessary, accountable strategy to move people off streets and into care; opponents say the administration still relies too heavily on encampment clearances and enforcement rather than guaranteed, long-term housing solutions [11] [4].
7. What’s missing or disputed in coverage
Available sources do not provide comprehensive independent evaluations of long-term outcomes from Newsom’s specific encampment policies or of the full net effect of restructuring state agencies; most documents are administration press releases or regional reporting that show mixed local responses [7] [6] [8]. Independent longitudinal studies and full statewide audits are not cited in the supplied material and thus are "not found in current reporting."
Conclusion — two competing frames to weigh
Supporters point to new institutions, billions in housing-related dollars, targeted grants and preliminary count improvements as evidence that California’s strategy is working [7] [9] [1]. Critics counter that encampment-focused enforcement, vetoes of certain housing-related bills, and recent budget reductions risk undermining progress and that families and students have seen rising hardship in some reports [5] [3] [4] [12]. Decide which evidence matters most to you: short-term count changes and administrative reforms, or independent long-term outcome studies that are not present in the supplied sources (not found in current reporting).