Desperate for a way to help the tens of thousands of people living in tents, cars and RVs on California鈥檚 streets, lawmakers are attempting to upend a key tenet of the state鈥檚 homelessness policy.
Two new bills would allow state funding to support sober housing 鈥� a significant departure from current law, which requires providers to accept people regardless of their drug and alcohol use.
鈥淚f people want to get off of drugs and away from drugs, we should give them that option,鈥� said , a Democrat from San Francisco who wrote . 鈥淭hey shouldn鈥檛 be forced to live next to people who are using drugs.鈥�
There are at least 12,000 sober living beds in the state, but more than twice that many Californians who would qualify for those services, according to data from the California Research Bureau quoted in the Assembly Health Committee鈥檚 analysis of the second bill, .
As state law prohibits spending housing funding on sobriety-focused programs, many are funded by private donations.
The lawmakers behind the two bills say they aren鈥檛 trying to alter the key idea that everyone deserves immediate housing, even people struggling with addictions. Instead, they鈥檙e attempting to give more choices to people who want to be sober. But some experts worry that, because California has a shortage of homeless housing, people who relapse in sober housing or who don鈥檛 want to stay sober would have nowhere to go but back to the street.
The bills come as California鈥檚 homelessness population is skyrocketing, having increased from about 118,000 in 2016 to more than 181,000 last year. Some critics blame and want to overturn the state鈥檚 inclusive housing policy. At the same time, as public fears about crime soar, voters in some liberal cities are putting limits on who can receive public assistance.
San Francisco voters this year passed an initiative for welfare recipients. In San Diego County, Vista Mayor John Franklin recently introduced a measure pledging not to support 鈥渁ny program that enables continued drug use鈥� and criticizing housing first for precluding sober housing.
鈥淚 think we are seeing a cultural shift,鈥� said Christopher Calton, a research fellow who studies housing and homelessness for libertarian think-tank the Independent Institute. 鈥淧eople are starting to say these permissive policies aren鈥檛 working.鈥�
California鈥檚 鈥榟ousing first鈥� homelessness policy
At issue is the state鈥檚 adherence to 鈥渉ousing first,鈥� a framework where homeless residents are offered housing immediately and with minimal caveats or requirements, regardless of sobriety. The housing should be 鈥渓ow-barrier,鈥� meaning residents are not required to participate in recovery or other programs. After someone is housed, providers are then supposed to offer voluntary substance use and mental health treatment, job training, or other services. The idea is that if people don鈥檛 have to focus all their energy on simply surviving on the streets, they鈥檙e better equipped to work on their other issues.
in California in 2016 when the state required all state-funded programs to adopt the model.
The federal government also uses that framework. But in 2015, the requiring sobriety is not necessarily anti-housing first. California did not follow suit.
Some Republicans and conservative-leaning groups now are pushing to overturn California鈥檚 housing first framework, saying it hasn鈥檛 successfully reduced homelessness. , from Folsom, is trying to completely repeal housing first with . That bill has yet to be heard by a committee, and likely won鈥檛 advance this year.
But with more than 180,000 Californians lacking a home, even Democrats want to see changes. The bills by Haney and of San Diego would allow up to 25% of state funds in each county to go toward sober housing.
Neither Democrat wants to upend housing first. Instead, they want sober housing facilities to operate under a housing first framework. Haney鈥檚 bill would require counties to make sure sober facilities kept people housed at rates similar to facilities without sobriety requirements.
Both bills specify that tenants should not be kicked out of their sober housing just because they relapse, and instead they should get support to help them recover. If a resident is no longer interested in being sober, the program should help them move into another housing program.
Having a sober living option for people who want it would be a good thing 鈥� but it would have to be their choice, said Sharon Rapport, director of California state policy for The Corporation for Supportive Housing. But homeless housing is so scarce in California, that it鈥檚 unlikely participants would be given a true choice, she said. And, these bills would divert already limited state money away from low-barrier housing.
鈥淢y worry is that we have one pie of funding for housing,鈥� she said. 鈥淪o it鈥檚 not like we鈥檙e saying, 鈥楲et鈥檚 add extra money and try this other approach.鈥� We鈥檇 be saying, 鈥楲et鈥檚 spend less money on harm-reduction housing.鈥欌��
Her organization has not taken an official position on the bills.
To make sure people don鈥檛 end up back on the street after a relapse, counties would have to keep spaces in low-barrier housing free, in case someone needs to move out of sober housing, Haney said. But that鈥檚 not explicitly mandated in the bill.
One key motivation for Haney to draft his sober housing bill is the surge of deaths caused by the .
鈥淥ur housing first policies in California do not reflect the realities of fentanyl and the need to provide pathways to get off of and away from such a deadly drug,鈥� he said.
Overdose deaths are rampant inside San Francisco鈥檚 homeless housing, a 2022 found. But the state doesn鈥檛 track those deaths in public housing, meaning if Haney鈥檚 sober housing bill passes, it will be all but impossible to tell whether it saves lives.
The state should track those deaths, Haney said, adding, 鈥渕aybe I鈥檒l do that bill next year.鈥�
Does housing first work?
The argument against housing first is simple: Since California adopted the policy, the state鈥檚 homeless population has grown by more than half.
But experts say that鈥檚 because high housing costs are pushing people onto the streets faster than the state鈥檚 overburdened supportive housing system can pull them back inside.
Under immense pressure to do something about the crisis, politicians are pointing to housing first as a scapegoat, said Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. But that鈥檚 like blaming the emergency room for the number of COVID patients coming in during the pandemic, she said.
Multiple studies have . The Department of Veterans Affairs in 2010 found adopting housing first to place people in housing from 223 days to 35 days. found housing first participants spent 73% of their time in stable housing, compared with 32% for participants in non-housing first programs.
People Assisting the Homeless (PATH), which operates housing first programs in Southern California and the Bay Area, reported 94% of people who moved in were still housed a year later. Destination: Home in Santa Clara County, which spearheads the county鈥檚 housing first efforts, reported similar results.
鈥淭hat is as much evidence as I think would be necessary to show that this model works really well,鈥� said CEO Jennifer Loving, 鈥渁nd the problem is we haven鈥檛 been able to do enough of it.鈥�
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.