California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration and the state Legislature are tightening requirements that cities and counties must meet to qualify for homelessness money, adding new scrutiny to how local governments plan to address encampments and housing. The changes are part of the state’s Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program, which provides the main source of state funds cities and counties use to fight homelessness. Local officials say the updated application process could make it harder to access money without producing changes on the street.
To receive state funding, cities and counties are being pressured to enact an encampment policy that passes state muster. The state also wants localities to earn a “prohousing designation,” a status awarded to jurisdictions that go above and beyond to build housing. The article said that only 60 of California’s 541 cities and counties—home to just 15% of the state population—have achieved that designation so far.
Newsom and the Legislature are expected to negotiate the terms for this year’s proposed homelessness budget, including a $500 million package. Until the details are finalized, the article said it remains unclear what specific standards local governments will be held to and what will happen to jurisdictions that do not comply. Still, it said the state is signaling an end to unrestricted cash.
Some counties already report feeling the shift in accountability. Megan Van Sant, senior program manager with the Mendocino County Department of Social Services, said increased requirements have left the process feeling like the state is demanding results more aggressively. “They’re holding the counties’ feet to the fire,” Van Sant said.
Proponents of the tightening say local jurisdictions have received state funds without demonstrating that they are using them effectively. Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva, a Democrat from La Palma in Orange County, said the state has made both investments and legislation progress, and that it is now pushing local governments to show outcomes. “The state has been moving forward, not only with the investment in dollars, but also with legislation. Now it is your time to show that if you want these dollars…you have to show us what you’re doing,” Quirk-Silva said.
But local leaders warn the requirements could also create delays or exclude some jurisdictions. Carolyn Coleman, executive director and CEO of the League of California Cities, said she worries the new conditions could leave more cities without access and slow the ability to house people sooner. “I worry that, one, we may leave more cities out,” Coleman said, adding that she also worries about potential delays in getting people housed.
The article described how the new expectations are playing out in individual counties as they apply for homelessness funding. Robert Ratner, director of Santa Cruz County’s Housing for Health program, said applying for state homelessness funds “absolutely” feels different than it did last year. Ratner said the county approved an encampment policy in September and started working on a prohousing designation, but the state returned its application with notes and had not approved it yet at the time described.
Ratner said the process has felt unstable as requirements shift during review. “It has felt, at times, like the goal post keeps moving a little bit,” he said. The article described Mendocino County’s situation similarly, with Van Sant saying the state appears to be holding funds until the county can explain plans to pass an encampment ordinance. Van Sant said the Mendocino County board of supervisors is working on such an ordinance, though it had not yet come up for a vote.
Van Sant said she feels caught in an awkward position because housing administrators do not control local rulemaking on encampments. “I wanted to stay out of it. I still want to stay out of it. We’re housing providers. We try to figure out how to provide people housing. We don’t want to weigh in on enforcement. At all,” she said.
The article framed the tightening as part of a broader move toward accountability in the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program. It said Newsom introduced an initial round of funding in 2019 as a “one-time” infusion of cash for local governments, but it later became a recurring feature of the administration’s strategy to reduce homelessness. For four years in a row, the state awarded $1 billion a year for distribution among counties, big cities, and Continuums of Care, with each round described as “one-time,” even as state-collected data indicated that at least a quarter of the money went to day-to-day operating programs.
It said that last year, the budget lacked extra cash for grant funds and the state’s main homelessness program received no new money. Instead, the Legislature committed to spend $500 million—a 50% reduction from the last round—in the coming fiscal year, contingent on “clear accountability requirements.” The article said the follow-up budget bill signed into law last fall laid out accountability requirements that include having a state-approved housing plan known as a housing element; having a “Prohousing Designation” from state housing regulators; having a local encampment policy “consistent with administration guidance”; providing some local funding to match the state contribution; and demonstrating “progress” and “results” on housing and homelessness metrics.
Quirk-Silva said the current list of requirements is not final and that she expects additional legislative language in February, with lawmakers fighting over details through the June budget deadline. The article said she expects particular pushback over any prohousing designation requirement, noting concerns that such penalties could fall on local providers for factors outside their control. Monica Davalos, a policy analyst with the California Budget and Policy Center, said revoking funds from areas lacking such a designation would be “penalizing service providers for something that is outside of their control.”
San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan also argued that the state should focus more directly on measurable outcomes rather than on whether jurisdictions earn a “prohousing” stamp. “We’re making this way too complicated,” he said, according to the article, adding that he wished the state would look at measures such as the number of people housed using state dollars.