These policies are living documents—starting points for ongoing improvement and community collaboration. We welcome your feedback as we shape them together.

We envision a California that prevents homelessness among its most vulnerable populations before they become homeless, and treats every person experiencing homelessness with respect and dignity.

The Problem:

(Jump to solutions)

California is experiencing a deepening homelessness crisis, with over one-third of the nation’s unhoused population residing in our state despite billions in spending. Current systems have failed due to a lack of coordination, accountability, and attention to root causes like housing affordability, systemic inequities, and gaps in public health support. Many state and local programs operate without clear expense tracking or outcome measurement, making it difficult to evaluate what’s working or where funding is falling short. One-size-fits-all approaches often miss the unique needs of different communities and fail to reach the most vulnerable groups before they fall into homelessness.

Solutions to this monumental humanitarian crisis include investing in targeted prevention for vulnerable groups, such as foster youth, veterans, and low-income families, to stop homelessness before it begins. Localized wraparound service centers should be expanded to provide housing, health care, and case management tailored to community needs. Additionally, the state must improve transparency and accountability by tracking spending and outcomes across its homelessness programs to ensure resources are used effectively and efficiently.


Paths Forward:

These policy recommendations are not all-inclusive.


California should prioritize targeted prevention strategies that address the specific needs of vulnerable groups—such as children in foster care, veterans, people of color, and low-income families—before they enter the cycle of homelessness. This includes focused legislation that tackles root causes like the housing crisis, unaffordable cost of living, and systemic inequities, alongside policies that deliver timely, focused interventions. Using community-specific research, cities can strategically locate support centers, safe parking areas, and other services where they will have the most impact. These interventions should be paired with a dual approach that integrates housing access and public health care, delivered through wraparound service centers that reduce barriers and provide dignified, coordinated support.

Example: Santa Clara County has demonstrated the power of targeted, preventative interventions through its Homelessness Prevention System (HPS), a coordinated network of nonprofits and agencies that identify and assist households at imminent risk of homelessness. Since its launch in 2017, the program has served more than 6,000 households, with over 94% remaining housed while enrolled and the vast majority staying housed after exiting the program. The system uses risk assessment tools to identify those most likely to fall into homelessness and provides them with flexible financial assistance and case management. This model shows that even small, timely interventions—like rent support or help with utilities—can make a major difference in preventing people from entering homelessness (source).

Impact:

Sources:

Organizations receiving public funds for homelessness must be held to high standards of accountability and transparency. California’s 44 Continuums of Care (CoCs)—regional networks of service providers that coordinate housing, health care, and support services for people experiencing homelessness—currently operate with little oversight or coordination. According to the State Auditor, the CoCs have been unable to account for much of the $13 billion spent on homelessness since 2018, highlighting a critical need for reform (source).

Detailed expense tracking is essential to identify which programs are working, where funding is lacking, and how resources can be better allocated. This would reveals gaps and redundancies among California’s CoCs, ensuring more strategic, coordinated support across the state.

Example:
Houston, Texas, offers a leading example of how tracking and coordination can transform homelessness response. Through a centralized Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), Houston began tracking outcomes across all agencies in real time. The city created a coordinated access system for housing placements, ensuring people were matched to the right resources quickly. More than 100 organizations collaborated under a unified strategy led by the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County, eliminating duplication and aligning efforts. The use of data dashboards and outcome tracking enabled targeted funding decisions and accountability at every level of service (source).

Impact:

  • Reduced overall homelessness by over 60% since 2011
  • Housed more than 32,000 people through coordinated housing placements
  • Achieved a 90% housing retention rate one year after placement
  • Decreased average time to house a person from 720 days to 32 days
  • Recognized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as a national model for collaborative homelessness response

Sources:

To maximize impact and resource efficiency, it's crucial to assess and address the specific needs of each community. Establishing local centers akin to Federally Qualified Health Centers can provide comprehensive services—including healthcare, case management, and contingency care—to unhoused and underserved members of the community. Local communities must focus on removing everyday obstacles—like lack of transportation and affordable housing—so people can actually reach and benefit from the services meant to help them.

Example: Brother Benno's in North County San Diego is an incredible example of a wraparound care center that centralizes services for people experiencing homelessness and our underserved community. With their knowledge of the local community, they are able to provide dignified, high-quality service that maximizes impact.

Impact:

  • Wraparound services better serve cities’ unhoused population by lowering the barrier to entry and increasing ease of obtaining services
  • Streamlined processes to eliminate barriers and community-focused funding minimize strain on city resources and ensure the entire community is supported with funding

Sources: