Skip to content
5Facts

Desalojos en California y soluciones para mantener a las familias en sus viviendas

Un panorama general de programas estatales y soluciones de política pública para proteger a los inquilinos de California de los desalojos

June 2026 | By Monica Davalos, Kyle Nelson, and Francisco Dueñas

Young adult woman helping senior woman understand documents and technologies at home

Read this publication in English.

Conclusión clave

Las demandas de desalojo en California han alcanzado su nivel más alto en seis años; sin embargo, la mayoría de los inquilinos enfrentan el proceso solos y sin apoyo legal. Los programas estatales están lejos de satisfacer la necesidad existente y, sin una inversión sostenida y un compromiso estatal con la defensa legal, más californianos perderán sus viviendas y quedarán en la calle.

Todos los californianos merecen un lugar seguro donde vivir, y eso requiere protecciones sólidas para los inquilinos y acceso a defensa legal, independientemente de sus ingresos o antecedentes. La defensa legal en casos de desalojo, junto con la educación, la mediación y la intervención temprana, son herramientas comprobadas para evitar que las personas pierdan su vivienda, reducir la inestabilidad habitacional y proteger las familias de problemas a futuro.  Sin embargo, mientras las demandas de desalojo continúan aumentando y millones de californianos de bajos ingresos enfrentan altos costos de vivienda junto con amenazas a su cobertura médica y a la asistencia alimentaria. Los líderes estatales pueden hacer mucho más para garantizar que los californianos puedan permanecer en sus hogares.

Este informe se basa en A Civil Injustice: The State of Eviction in California (Una injusticia civil: examina las principales tendencias de los desalojos formales en California, explica los programas estatales y el financiamiento destinados a la defensa contra desalojos, y presenta recomendaciones de medidas pública que los líderes estatales pueden implementar para mantener a los inquilinos en sus viviendas, promover la estabilidad habitacional y prevenir que las personas queden en la calle.

Para obtener más información sobre el proceso de desalojo de California, vea The Pipeline, una herramienta de aprendizaje interactivo. Siga a un inquilino que pasa por el sistema de desalojo de California para ver cómo las barreras procesales expulsan a las familias de sus hogares antes de que puedan ver a un juez.

Acerca de este informe

Este informe fue escrito en colaboración por Kyle Nelson, director de investigación y política en Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE), y Francisco Dueñas, director ejecutivo de Housing Now!/ ¡Vivienda Ahora!.

Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE) es una organización de base comunitaria y de defensa de derechos con sede en Los Ángeles que trabaja para promover la justicia económica en comunidades de color de bajos ingresos. SAJE colabora con inquilinos, trabajadores y miembros de la comunidad para fortalecer el poder colectivo, combatir el desplazamiento y promover políticas que amplíen el acceso a viviendas asequibles, empleos de calidad y vecindarios saludables. A través de la organización comunitaria, la incidencia en políticas públicas y el desarrollo de liderazgo, SAJE desempeña un papel fundamental en la formulación de iniciativas locales y estatales destinadas a proteger a los inquilinos y fortalecer la estabilidad de la vivienda.

Housing Now!/ ¡Vivienda Ahora! es una coalición de defensa de derechos a nivel estatal dedicada a promover políticas e inversiones para hacer frente a las crisis de la vivienda asequible y la falta de hogar en California. La coalición reúne a organizaciones dedicadas a la vivienda, la salud, el trabajo y las iniciativas comunitarias con el fin de impulsar un aumento de la financiación estatal, una mayor protección de los inquilinos y soluciones a largo plazo que amplíen el acceso a viviendas asequibles. Housing Now! desempeña un papel fundamental en la definición de las prioridades presupuestarias y políticas del estado, centrándose en garantizar que los recursos lleguen a las comunidades más afectadas por la inestabilidad de la vivienda.

1. Los desalojos están aumentando en California a pesar de las protecciones disponibles para los inquilinos

En 2024 se presentaron más de 130  mil casos de desalojo formal en California, y la cantidad de demandas de desalojo durante los últimos dos años ha sido la más alta de los últimos seis años, superando los niveles previos a la pandemia a pesar de las protecciones estatales y locales disponibles para los inquilinos.

Detrás de cada demanda de desalojo hay una familia o una persona en riesgo de perder su vivienda, así como su estabilidad económica, su empleo y sus vínculos comunitarios. Las ramificaciones de esto afectan con mayor dureza a los californianos de bajos ingresos y a las mujeres de color, en especial a las mujeres afroamericanas, quienes enfrentan desalojos de manera desproporcionada debido al persistente legado de las políticas de vivienda racistas y las prácticas discriminatorias que durante mucho tiempo han limitado el acceso de las comunidades de color a viviendas estables y asequibles, así como a la seguridad económica.

Según el informe de SAJE, las demandas formales de desalojo en California subieron un 282% entre los años fiscales 2020–21 y 2022–23, y la cantidad de demandas en los años fiscales 2022–23 y 2023–24 es la más alta en seis años, superando los niveles anteriores a la implementación de la Ley de Protección de Inquilinos (Tenant Protection Act) (TPA) a pesar de estas nuevas protecciones estatales. La TPA exigió que los propietarios tuvieran una “causa justificada” para desalojar a un inquilino y estableció un límite estatal al aumento de renta aplicable a la mayoría de los propietarios de viviendas residenciales. Si bien estas salvaguardas y protecciones son importantes para proteger a los inquilinos y los costos de vivienda que enfrentan, lamentablemente hacen poco por quienes afrontan un desalojo formal. La TPA no cerró las brechas legales que permiten a los propietarios aumenten los costos de vivienda mediante otros cargos arbitrarios y sigan imponiendo aumentos de alquiler significativos que pueden causar dificultades económicas y derivar en desalojos.

La falta de pago de renta continúa siendo la causa más común de los desalojos formales, lo que refleja las dificultades que los inquilinos de bajos ingresos enfrentan en el estado. Sin embargo, las demandas de desalojos formales reflejan sólo una parte de la situación. Muchas más personas en California son desalojadas de manera informal, sin un registro judicial, lo que significa que la verdadera magnitud de los desalojos probablemente sea mucho mayor de lo que muestran los datos.

Gráfico informativo que muestra tres datos clave sobre los desalojos en California: más de 130 mil demandas formales de desalojo en 2024 (356 familias por día); un aumento del 282 % en los desalojos entre 2020–21 y 2022–23 a pesar de la ampliación de las protecciones para los inquilinos; y la falta de pago de alquiler como la principal causa, impulsada por los problemas de asequibilidad que enfrentan los inquilinos de bajos ingresos en todo el estado.

2. Muchos inquilinos enfrentan su desalojo sin ayuda, y en California faltan datos para entender plenamente el alcance de la situación

Cuando los inquilinos de California enfrentan un desalojo formal, la mayoría lo hacen sin ayuda. A diferencia de los demandados en el sistema de justicia penal, los inquilinos de California no tienen garantizado el derecho a representación legal porque  sus casos avanzan en el sistema de justicia civil. Esto ocurre a pesar de la evidencia que demuestra que las intervenciones preventivas y legales son una forma rentable y eficaz de ayudar a las personas a permanecer en sus hogares.

California carece de un sistema estatal integral para dar seguimiento a los desalojos. Además, los datos disponibles no incluyen los desalojos informales. La información disponible proviene directamente de cada uno de los 58 condados de California, todos los cuales tienen sus propios métodos para documentar los resultados y poner esa información a disposición del público, si es que lo hacen.

Las investigaciones de SAJE destacan importantes deficiencias en los datos de los resultados de los desalojos, o datos consistentes, en especial en los condados grandes como Los Ángeles, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego y San Francisco. Esto es preocupante ya que contienen ciudades con grandes poblaciones de inquilinos, mercados de vivienda de precios elevados y la mayor cantidad de demandas de desalojo.

Estas brechas indican que California no cuenta con una comprensión plena de los resultados de los desalojos y la gente que queda sin hogar. Por esta razón, la verdadera escala y los efectos de los desalojos, en especial los informales, seguramente son mucho mayores que los sugeridos por los datos actuales.

3. Casi la mitad de los californianos pierde su caso de desalojo antes de ver a un juez

Según los registros de desalojo disponibles, más del 46% de los casos concluye con una sentencia en rebeldía, lo cual significa que los inquilinos pierden antes de ver a un juez.. Las sentencias en rebeldía ocurren cuando un inquilino no presenta una respuesta formal a la demanda de desalojo formal del propietario dentro del plazo obligatorio o no se presenta en el tribunal. Casi todos estos fallos en rebeldía (96 %) ocurren en esta etapa inicial, cuando el inquilino no responde a la demanda de desalojo, antes incluso de que se programe una audiencia. Esto suele ocurrir por una falta de acceso a apoyo legal, procesos complejos y difíciles de entender, una imposibilidad de ausentarse al trabajo o dificultades de transporte, así como por temor al sistema judicial.

Hasta 2024, los inquilinos tenían solo cinco días para responder; desde entonces, ese plazo se amplió a diez días, lo que podría reducir las tasas de sentencias en rebeldía con el tiempo, aunque aún está por verse el impacto total de este cambio. También es poco común que un caso de desalojo llegue a juicio, ya que aproximadamente el 85 % de los resultados en casos de desalojo se producen antes del juicio, a pesar de que los juicios con jurado suelen ser más favorables para los inquilinos.

California financia la defensa legal contra desalojos a través de un pequeño conjunto de programas estatales, pero las inversiones están muy por debajo de lo que se necesita. No existe una fuente estatal permanente y exclusiva de financiamiento dedicada únicamente a la defensa legal contra desalojos o a la prevención de la falta de vivienda relacionada con procesos judiciales. En cambio, un pequeño grupo de programas estatales financia este trabajo junto con otros tipos de casos civiles.

Los principales programas estatales de prevención y defensa legal contra desalojos son:

5. El sistema de defensa contra desalojos en California sigue siendo fragmentado y enfrenta amenazas de financiamiento

Los principales programas estatales han demostrado resultados, pero no alcanzan a cubrir la necesidad de los californianos. El sistema estatal de defensa contra desalojos es fragmentado, limitado en alcance y desigual entre distintas regiones y no ha habido financiamiento estatal destinado específicamente a la defensa legal contra desalojos desde el presupuesto estatal de 2023–24.

Las organizaciones de asistencia legal que proporcionan servicios de prevención de desalojos o defensa legal entre otros dependen de una combinación fragmentada de fondos locales, federales y subvenciones únicas de disponibilidad y alcance variados. Solo existen programas de derecho a contar con representación legal en dos jurisdicciones principales, pero incluso estos se ven limitados por topes de elegibilidad según los ingresos, restricciones geográficas y plazos de respuesta cortos que los inquilinos suelen incumplir.

La red fragmentada de proveedores de defensa legal contra desalojos es solo una parte del panorama. Los programas no judiciales de prevención de la falta  de hogar, tales como el programa de asistencia y prevención para personas sin hogar (Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention) (HHAP) que puede financiar asistencia para el pago del alquiler y otras iniciativas de prevención, también son implementados a través de proveedores diversos con financiamiento igualmente insuficiente. El resultado es un sistema de prevención de la carencia de hogar que deja a muchos inquilinos de California sin recurso cuando se enfrentan a un desalojo.

Simultáneamente, el financiamiento federal de organizaciones de asistencia legal sigue siendo incierto. En el presupuesto federal de 2026, se propuso eliminar por completo el financiamiento federal para la Legal Services Corporation (LSC), la mayor entidad financiadora de asistencia legal civil del país. En California, eso habría significado la pérdida anual de $55.7 millones de dólares en fondos de la LSC, los cuales financian servicios para más de 165 mil personas en todo el estado, casi la mitad de las cuales (48 %) tuvieron casos relacionados con la vivienda.

Junto con otras propuestas federales, California corría el riesgo de perder un total de $187 millones en financiamiento para servicios legales. Si bien el presupuesto federal final incluyó una reducción menor, el financiamiento sigue siendo incierto, ya que debe volver a aprobarse anualmente. Además, las amenazas derivadas de la H.R.1 (2025) y de otras medidas federales aumentarán las dificultades para los californianos, haciendo que sea mucho más difícil costear el alquiler y otras necesidades básicas. Estas presiones ocurren al mismo tiempo que también disminuyen los fondos estatales y federales para la carencia de hogar, multiplicando la inseguridad de vivienda y estresando aún más los limitados sistemas de apoyo legal y de vivienda.

Mirando hacia al futuro, los responsables de formular políticas públicas pueden tomar medidas para proteger a los inquilinos de los desalojos

California aún no ha asumido un compromiso estatal de brindar apoyo legal a los inquilinos que enfrentan un desalojo. Los responsables de formular políticas cuentan con las herramientas necesarias para cambiar esta situación, comenzando con las siguientes medidas:

Establecer un derecho estatal a contar con representación legal para los inquilinos de ingresos bajos y moderados que enfrentan un desalojo y aumentar el financiamiento destinado a la defensa legal contra desalojos. Las inversiones estatales actuales en defensa legal contra desalojos son insuficientes en relación con la magnitud de la necesidad. Garantizar representación legal plena para todos los inquilinos que enfrentan procesos de desalojo, junto con sólidos esfuerzos de divulgación, educación y recursos, resulta mucho más rentable y eficaz que afrontar las consecuencias posteriores de la carencia de vivienda. The Roadmap Home estimó que el costo de proporcionar representación legal plena a una familia que se enfrenta a un desalojo formal es $3,500. Las investigaciones también demuestran que cada dólar invertido en asistencia legal produce una ganancia económica de por lo menos $7 dólares, pues reduce la presión en los tribunales, los sistemas de salud y los programas de redes de seguridad social.

Fortalecer y hacer permanente la Ley de Protección de Inquilinos (Tenant Protection Act, TPA). La TPA ha reducido los desalojos injustificados en los lugares donde se aplica, pero necesita ser más sólida y amplia. Los líderes estatales deberían hacer permanente la TPA, reducir el límite anual permitido para los aumentos de renta, eliminar exenciones para ampliar la cobertura a más inquilinos, incrementar los requisitos de asistencia para la reubicación y eliminar las remodelaciones sustanciales y las demoliciones como justificaciones permitidas para desalojar a los inquilinos por causas ajenas a ellos. La extensión de estas protecciones podría cubrir a 1.65 millones de inquilinos más.

Exigir la recopilación estatal de datos sobre desalojos y la publicación pública de dicha información. California no puede resolver un problema que se niega a medir ni calcular adecuadamente los recursos necesarios para subsanar. El estado debería exigir que los 58 condados recopilen y publican de manera uniforme datos sobre los resultados de los desalojos, incluidos los resultados de los casos, información demográfica y tasas de representación legal.

Establecer una ley estatal de subsanación del incumplimiento de pago de la renta. Siguiendo el ejemplo de 21 estados más, California debería permitir que los inquilinos que enfrentan un desalojo por falta de pago subsanen el incumplimiento de su alquiler —y permanezcan en su vivienda— mediante el pago del alquiler adeudado, incluso después de que se haya presentado una demanda de desalojo.

Destinar recursos de asistencia para la renta. Asignar recursos de asistencia con el pago de renta, incluidos subsidios de emergencia y subsidios parciales para el alquiler, vales de vivienda e iniciativas de realojamiento rápido, a fin de garantizar que las personas puedan permanecer en sus hogares durante períodos de crisis económica.

Conclusión

Mantener a los inquilinos de California en sus hogares mediante protecciones significativas para los inquilinos,apoyo legal robusto y políticas centradas en la equidad es una de las herramientas más eficaces que tienen los líderes estatales para proteger a los inquilinos de los desalojos. Esto es especialmente importante ahora, cuando los recortes federales derivados de la H.R. 1 y otras medidas regresivas amenazan con agravar los ya graves problemas de asequibilidad.

Fortalecer la base de ingresos públicos de California garantizando que las corporaciones más rentables y los californianos más acaudalados paguen lo que les corresponde podría generar los recursos necesarios para proteger a las comunidades. Al hacerlo, los líderes estatales contarían con los recursos necesarios para proteger a las comunidades de los perjuicios derivados de las medidas federales y financiar las protecciones para los inquilinos, la asistencia para el pago del alquiler y el apoyo legal que permiten que los inquilinos permanezcan establemente alojados en sus viviendas.

Salena Copeland y Lorin Kline de la Legal Aid Association of California contribuyeron a esta publicación.

Housing & Homelessness

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Read this publication in Spanish.

key takeaway

Eviction filings in California are at a six-year high, yet most renters face the process alone and without legal support. State programs fall far short of the need — and without sustained investment and a statewide commitment to legal defense, more Californians will lose their homes and face homelessness.

All Californians deserve a safe place to call home and that requires robust renter protections and access to legal defense, regardless of their income or background. Eviction legal defense, along with education, mediation, or early intervention are proven tools to prevent homelessness, housing instability, and protect families from future hardship. Yet as eviction filings continue to rise — and millions of Californians with low incomes face high housing costs alongside threats to their health care coverage and food assistance — there is drastically more that state leaders can do to ensure Californians can remain in their homes.

This brief builds on A Civil Injustice: The State of Eviction in California by SAJE and Housing Now!, and examines key trends on formal evictions in California, explains state programs and funding for eviction defense, and outlines policy recommendations state leaders can implement to keep renters housed, promote housing stability, and prevent homelessness.

To learn more about the California eviction process see The Pipeline, an interactive learning tool. Follow a tenant through California’s eviction system to see how procedural barriers push families out of their homes before they ever see a judge.

About This Report

This report was co-authored by Kyle Nelson, director of research and policy at Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE), and Francisco Dueñas, executive director at Housing Now!.

Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE) is a Los Angeles–based community organizing and advocacy organization that works to advance economic justice in low-income communities of color. SAJE partners with tenants, workers, and community members to build power, fight displacement, and promote policies that expand access to affordable housing, good jobs, and healthy neighborhoods. Through grassroots organizing, policy advocacy, and leadership development, SAJE plays a key role in shaping local and state efforts to protect renters and strengthen housing stability.

Housing Now! is a statewide advocacy coalition focused on advancing policies and investments to address California’s housing affordability and homelessness crises. The coalition brings together housing, health, labor, and community-based organizations to push for increased state funding, stronger renter protections, and long-term solutions that expand access to affordable homes. Housing NOW! plays a key role in shaping state budget and policy priorities, with a focus on ensuring resources reach communities most impacted by housing instability.

1. Evictions Are Rising Across California, Even with Tenant Protections in Place

Over 130,000 formal eviction cases were filed in California in 2024, and filings over the past two years are the highest they have been in six years — surpassing pre-pandemic levels despite state and local tenant protections.

Behind each eviction filing is a family or individual at risk of losing their home and their financial stability, employment, and community ties. The ramifications fall hardest on Californians with low incomes and women of color, particularly Black women, who face eviction at disproportionate rates due to the ongoing legacy of racist housing policies and discriminatory practices that have long limited communities of color from stable, affordable housing and economic security.

According to the SAJE report, formal eviction filings in California spiked 282% between FY 2020–21 and FY 2022–23, and filings in FY 2022–23 and FY 2023–24 are the highest in six years — exceeding pre-Tenant Protection Act (TPA) levels despite these new state protections. TPA required landlords to have “just cause” to evict a tenant and a statewide rent cap that applied to most residential landlords. While these safeguards and protections are important in protecting renters and their cost of housing, they unfortunately do little for tenants facing a formal eviction. The TPA left room for loopholes for landlords to increase housing costs through other arbitrary fees and still allow for significant rent increases that can cause financial hardship and lead to evictions.

Failure to pay rent remains the most common reason for formal eviction, reflecting the affordability challenges squeezing renters with low incomes across the state. But formal filings tell only part of the story, many more Californians are displaced informally, without a court record, meaning the true scale of displacement is likely far greater than data show.

Infographic showing three key facts about evictions in California: over 130,000 formal eviction filings in 2024 (356 families per day); a 282% increase in evictions between 2020–21 and 2022–23 despite expanded tenant protections; and failure to pay rent as the leading cause, driven by affordability challenges facing low-income renters statewide.

2. Many Renters Face Eviction Alone — and California Lacks the Data to Fully Understand the Scope

When California renters face a formal eviction, they face it alone. Unlike defendants in the criminal legal system, California renters have no guaranteed right to legal representation as their cases go through the civil legal system. This is despite evidence showing that preventative and legal interventions are a cost-effective way to keep people in their homes.

California lacks a comprehensive statewide system to track evictions. And the data that is available leaves out informal evictions. The available data come directly from each of California’s 58 counties, all of which have their own approach to documenting outcomes and making that information publicly available, if they do at all.

Research from SAJE highlights significant gaps in eviction outcome data (or consistent data), particularly from large counties like Los Angeles, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco. This is concerning as they contain cities with large tenant populations, expensive housing markets, and the highest numbers of eviction filings.

These gaps mean California lacks a full understanding of eviction outcomes and displacement. As a result, the true scale and impacts of eviction — especially informal evictions — is likely far greater than current data suggests.

3. Nearly Half of Californians Lose Their Eviction Case Before Stepping Into a Court Room

Among available eviction records, over 46% of cases end in default judgment, meaning tenants lost before they ever made it to court. Default judgments occur when a tenant fails to file a formal response to their landlord’s eviction lawsuit within the mandated timeframe or fails to appear in court. Nearly all of these defaults (96%) happened at this earliest stage as a tenant failed to answer the eviction filing — before a hearing was ever scheduled. This often happens because of the lack of accessible legal support, complex and hard-to-navigate processes, inability to take time off work or transportation difficulties, or fear of the legal system.

Until 2024, tenants had just five days to respond; that window has since been extended to ten days, which may reduce default rates over time, though the full impact remains to be seen. It is also rare for an eviction case to make it to trial, as roughly 85% of eviction outcomes occur before trial, even though jury trials are typically more favorable to tenants.

California funds eviction legal defense through a small set of state programs, but investments fall far short of the scale of need. There is no statewide, dedicated funding source solely for eviction legal defense or judicial-related homelessness prevention. Instead, a small set of state programs fund this work alongside other types of civil cases.

The core state programs for legal eviction prevention and defense are:

5. California’s Eviction Defense System Remains Fragmented and Faces Funding Threats

Key state programs have shown results, but fall short of what Californians need. The state’s eviction defense system is fragmented, limited in scope, and unequal across regions — and since the 2023-24 state budget, there has been no state funding specifically for eviction legal defense.

Legal aid organizations that provide eviction prevention or legal defense among other services rely on a patchwork of local funds, federal funds, or one-time grants that vary in availability and scope. Right-to-counsel programs only exist in two major jurisdictions, but even those are limited by income eligibility caps, geographic restrictions, and short response windows that tenants may miss.

The patchwork of eviction legal defense providers is also only part of the picture. Non-judicial homelessness prevention programs, such as the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) program which can fund rental assistance and other prevention efforts, are delivered through equally underfunded and diverse providers. The result is a homelessness prevention system that leaves many California renters without support when facing eviction.

Simultaneously, federal funding for legal aid organizations remains uncertain. Federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) — the nation’s largest civil legal aid funder — was proposed to be fully eliminated in the 2026 federal budget. In California, that would have meant $55.7 million annually lost in LSC funding, which supports services for over 165,000 Californians statewide, nearly half (48%) of whom had housing-related cases.

Alongside other federal proposals, California was at risk of losing $187 million in total legal services funding. While the final federal budget included a smaller reduction, funding remains uncertain as it must be reappropriated annually. Plus, threats from H.R.1 (2025) and other federal actions will increase hardship for Californians, making it very difficult to afford rent and other basic needs. These pressures come at the same time state and federal homelessness funding is also declining, compounding housing insecurity and further straining already limited legal and housing support systems.

Looking Ahead, Policymakers Can Take Action to Protect Renters from Evictions

California has yet to make a statewide commitment to legally support renters facing eviction. Policymakers have the tools to change that — starting with the following steps:

Establish a statewide right to counsel for low-to-moderate income tenants facing eviction and augment funding for eviction legal defense. Current state investments in eviction legal defense are insufficient relative to the scale of the need. Guaranteeing full legal representation for all tenants facing eviction proceedings, paired with robust outreach, education, and resources, is far more cost-effective than addressing the downstream consequences of homelessness. The Roadmap Home estimated the cost to provide full representation to a family facing formal eviction is $3,500. Research also demonstrates every $1 invested in legal aid yields at least $7 in economic return, reducing the strain on courts, health systems, and social safety net programs.

Strengthen and make permanent the Tenant Protection Act (TPA). The TPA has reduced unjust evictions where it applies, but it needs to be stronger and broader. State leaders should make the TPA permanent, lower the annual allowable rent increase cap, remove exemptions to cover more renters, increase relocation assistance requirements, and eliminate “substantial remodel” and demolition as allowable no-fault eviction justifications. Extending these protections could cover an additional 1.65 million renters.

Mandate statewide eviction data collection and public reporting. California cannot solve a problem it refuses to measure nor adequately account for the resources needed. The state should require all 58 counties to collect and publicly report consistent eviction outcome data, including case outcomes, demographic information, and representation rates.

Establish a statewide redemption law. Following the lead of 21 other states, California should allow tenants facing eviction for nonpayment to redeem their tenancy — and remain in their home — by paying the rent owed, even after an eviction action has been filed.

Direct resources for rental assistance. Directing resources for rental assistance, including emergency and shallow rental subsidies, housing vouchers, and rapid-rehousing efforts to ensure people can remain in their homes during times of financial crisis.

Conclusion

Keeping California renters in their homes through meaningful tenant protections, robust legal support, and equity-centered policies is one of the most effective tools available to state policymakers to protect renters from evictions — particularly as federal cuts through H.R. 1 and other rollbacks threaten to deepen already severe affordability challenges. Sustained state investments in eviction legal defense, stronger renter protections, and consistent statewide data are not only essential for keeping Californians housed — they are critical to prevent homelessness and advance housing stability.

Strengthening California’s revenue base by ensuring the most profitable corporations and wealthiest Californians pay their fair share could generate the resources needed to protect communities. By doing so state leaders would have the resources to protect communities from federal harm and fund the tenant protections, rental assistance, and legal supports that keep renters stably housed.

Salena Copeland and Lorin Kline with the Legal Aid Association of California contributed to this publication.

Housing & Homelessness

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

California’s homelessness investments continue to decline despite evidence that they are working, and proposed HHAP funding reductions combined with federal threats endanger continued progress.

California has both the resources and the responsibility to ensure every resident has a stable, dignified place to call home. In 2024, homeless service providers served over 350,000 Californians experiencing homelessness — demonstrating both the scale of need and the increased capacity of the state’s response systems. This progress was driven largely by prior one-time state investments that fund critical homelessness prevention and resolution services.

These investments have produced real, measurable results: early homelessness point-in-time count data show a 9% reduction in unsheltered homelessness in 2025, youth homelessness has dropped 24% since 2019, and over 90,000 Californians have been moved into permanent housing since 2023. But this progress hinges on sustained state funding to continue upholding the solutions that have achieved these results. State dollars are especially critical now as the Trump administration is defunding evidence-based homelessness solutions and a Republican-led Congress is failing to adequately fund housing assistance programs that allow many Californians to afford their rent.

This brief discusses how California has scaled back homelessness investments, shifted funding away from long-term solutions, and come to rely on the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Grant Program (HHAP) as a core funding source — all while looming federal actions and harmful regulations threaten to undo recent progress.

California Homelessness Investments Have Dropped Sharply in Recent Years

Even as more Californians move off the streets into housing, state homelessness investments have sharply declined over the last three years. Homelessness-related spending peaked at $6.9 billion in 2022–23, driven largely by one-time COVID-19 pandemic-era revenues and flexible federal funding. Since then, funding declined to $2.5 billion in 2024–25 and further to $1.5 billion in 2025–26 — as the most recent HHAP dollars were promised, but not actually allocated, in the 2025–26 budget. HHAP is critical because it’s the only significant source of state funding that allows communities across California to fund homelessness solutions tailored to their local needs.

The governor’s proposed 2026–27 budget appropriates $500 million for HHAP Round 7, but these funds will not materialize until the state budget is enacted in June, if current budget negotiations keep this amount intact.

A closer look at what is being categorized as homelessness investments also raises concerns. State investments have increasingly shifted away from permanent housing solutions toward temporary housing and institutionalization responses. Institutionalization-related spending has remained relatively stable or grown, even as HHAP and other homelessness programs have seen one-time funds reduced or not reappropriated. This includes investments in the Incompetent to Stand Trial program, which serves many people experiencing homelessness, but does not resolve homelessness and instead reflects the justice system’s lack of appropriate alternatives.

HHAP Remains Core to Addressing Homelessness Across the State

Statewide HHAP spending underscores how the program has become central to California’s homelessness response. Over 93% of HHAP Rounds 1-5 dollars the state has awarded have been obligated by recipients as of November 30, 2025, meaning these funds have already been contracted for specific uses, even if they have not been fully expended. Of this, nearly 70% has already been spent.

Even so, it’s clear local governments and service providers have largely directed and obligated HHAP dollars for operating costs and interim housing or sheltering.1Because HHAP eligible activities and reporting categories have shifted across HHAP Rounds 1-5, and jurisdictions have flexibility in how they classify obligated funds, some overlap across categories is inherent and reflects changes in reporting structures rather than double-counting as seen in the chart. Operating funds are essential for keeping the doors open and the lights on for permanent affordable and supportive housing, as well as short-term housing options such as shelters and bridge housing. It includes day-to-day expenses such as staffing, utilities, and other ongoing costs.

Interim housing or sheltering covers a range of expenses such as services to people in interim housing, motel or hotel vouchers, or the acquisition or improvement of buildings for interim housing to name a few. New navigation centers and emergency shelters are a form of interim housing, but are shown separately in the chart to reflect their distinct categorization in earlier HHAP rounds. These categories have been prioritized alongside investments in permanent housing and innovative solutions (such as hotel or motel conversions), and rapid rehousing, which can cover rental subsidies, landlord incentives, and move-in expenses.

The prominence of operating costs — for both permanent and interim housing — makes clear that HHAP now funds core system functions, even though it was originally designed as a temporary funding source. Without HHAP funding, there is no clear or adequate replacement for these dollars to continue the operation of existing permanent housing placements and interim housing, including supportive housing and shelters.

However, under the governor’s 2026–27 proposed budget, the only major state homelessness investment is the $500 million in HHAP funding promised last year — a 50% cut from prior funding levels. There are also no state General Fund dollars for affordable housing. As the final round of HHAP dollars is spent, and if no new funding is made available, communities across the state will face immediate consequences. Service providers will be forced to scale back or eliminate programs, reduce staffing and capacity, and, in some cases, push people back into homelessness as early as next year as the dollars dry up.

While the governor points to the Behavioral Health Services Act as ongoing dollars to address homelessness, these funds flow to county behavioral health departments and can only assist unhoused Californians with behavioral health conditions. County behavioral health departments have flagged that these funds will not significantly expand their ability to serve more people due to other costs they must absorb, such as ongoing operating costs for behavioral health or supportive housing projects recently built with one-time state or bond dollars.

Federal Funding Threats to Homelessness Services and Housing Assistance

These state funding gaps are compounded by escalating federal threats. The proposed 2026–27 budget includes no resources to backfill potential federal cuts, including health care, food assistance, and other core programs that help Californians remain stably housed. As of January 20, 2026, the proposed Transportation, Housing and Urban Development federal appropriations bill largely maintains current levels of housing assistance programs, but even then this falls short of meeting the full needs of people experiencing homelessness and Californians eligible for housing assistance.

Plus, Congress could still reverse course, fail to renew funding at adequate levels next year, or the Trump administration could further delay or disrupt funding, as has already happened. These risks are compounded by other harmful actions being advanced by the Trump administration that criminalize homelessness, defund Housing First approaches, and target LGBTQ+ and mixed-status families in federally assisted housing.

Federal harms also extend beyond housing. Recent CalFresh (SNAP) changes under H.R. 1 impose new work requirements and time limits on unhoused adults without dependents — at least 1 in 4 who are at high risk of losing food assistance this year. Taken together, these federal actions will disproportionately harm people of color, mixed-status families, older adults, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ Californians, and others already struggling to remain housed.

Without common-sense efforts to raise new revenue and sustain state housing investments, policymakers risk reversing hard-won progress and worsening California’s homelessness crisis. Long-term revenue solutions are especially urgent as large, wealthy corporations are poised to receive massive tax breaks under the Republican federal megabill, H.R. 1.

Housing & Homelessness
  • 1
    Because HHAP eligible activities and reporting categories have shifted across HHAP Rounds 1-5, and jurisdictions have flexibility in how they classify obligated funds, some overlap across categories is inherent and reflects changes in reporting structures rather than double-counting as seen in the chart.

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

For most Californians experiencing homelessness, CalFresh (SNAP) is among the few safety net programs that consistently provide basic access to food. Under the Republican megabill H.R. 1, arbitrary time limits and work requirements threaten food assistance for unhoused adults ages 18–64 without a disabling condition or dependents.

Many Californians experiencing homelessness rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or CalFresh in California, to meet their basic food needs while searching for or on a waitlist for a stable home. Republican Megabill H.R. 1 included historic cuts, eligibility restrictions, ineffective work requirements, and time limits for SNAP that are estimated to impact over 97% of CalFresh households. These additional administrative requirements will cost California $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion in federal funding annually, funds that could be better spent on ensuring people receive the benefits they need to survive.

Among unhoused Californians without children who reported receiving SNAP, at least 1 in 4 adults experiencing homelessness — over 24,000 Californians — could lose their benefits in 2026 due to federal changes. This includes nearly 30 percent of unhoused adults ages 18-49 and one in six unhoused older adults age 50-64.

Unhoused adults of color who reported receiving SNAP will be disproportionately harmed, with the highest risk of losing food assistance among Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Asian, Black, and Multi-Race adults aged 18-49. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Asian, and Multi-Race unhoused older adults aged 50-64 also face disproportionate risk of losing their benefits.

Adults experiencing homelessness without dependents were previously exempt from a time limit on their SNAP benefits. The Republican megabill, H.R.1, explicitly removed people experiencing homelessness, along with veterans and former foster youth, from this category. Now, adults without children — whether living on the streets of their communities, in emergency shelters, or in vehicles — face a punitive 3-month SNAP time limit unless they qualify for an exemption or meet an 80-hours per month work requirement. The new federal rule leaves Californians experiencing homelessness in an impossible situation, as the median length of homelessness in California is nearly two years, largely due to a severe shortage of housing assistance and deeply affordable housing.

Portrait of child girl eating on snack time at school

H.R. 1 and the Federal Budget

H.R. 1, the harmful Republican mega bill passed in July 2025, will deeply harm Californians by cutting funding for essential programs like health care, food assistance, and education.

See how California leaders can respond and protect vital supports.

Learn More

While implementation guidelines are still being developed, SNAP recipients could be subject to these new restrictions at their next recertification within the next year. For unhoused adults, maintaining even the minimal food assistance they receive will be nearly impossible unless they meet strict exemptions, like having “certified” physical or mental limitations, participating in qualifying substance use disorder programs (which may not have a housing component), or pursuing education at least half-time. Adults with self-reported disabilities may be denied, depending on how the state verifies disabilities and applies exemptions.

People experiencing chronic homelessness or those receiving Supplemental Security Income/Social Security Disability Insurance (SSI/SSDI) should be exempt from the time limits, but many others may still lose their benefits due to administrative and eligibility barriers. Chronic homelessness has a narrow definition, and countless of unhoused Californians with disabilities are waiting on approvals, appealing denials, or stuck in the process of applying for Social Security benefits — a process worsened by federal staffing cuts at the Social Security Administration. Plus, many adults experiencing homelessness do not qualify under either of these designations, leaving them at the highest risk of losing food assistance.

chronic Homelessness

An individual experiencing chronic homelessness is defined as a person with a disability who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more or has experienced at least four episodes of homelessness in the last three years where the combined length of time unhoused is at least twelve months.

How H.R. 1’s SNAP Rules Push Survival Beyond Reach

The federal changes to SNAP create a direct threat to the survival of thousands of unhoused Californians by driving hunger, creating red tape, and compounding trauma that pushes people deeper into poverty. While many Californians who are unhoused are employed, H.R. 1’s 80-hour-per-month work or education requirement is particularly severe for people experiencing homelessness, since homelessness disrupts work and schooling. Being unhoused also limits access to transportation, water, places to prepare and store food, and other daily activities like rest — all of which are  fundamental conditions needed to maintain a job or attend school. Adults without dependents are also the largest share of California’s unhoused population, and these restrictions further erode the minimal safety net supports for which they qualify.

California Can Ensure Unhoused Adults Retain Basic Access to Food Assistance

State policymakers can protect unhoused Californians’ access to food assistance by strengthening investments in CalFresh and ensuring that all Californians meet their most basic needs. Key strategies to mitigate the harm from H.R. 1 include:

  • Expand and embed flexible exemption criteria so adults experiencing homelessness are not excluded due to traditional work or education requirements. Policies and exemption qualifications should reflect the realities and daily activities that come with living in shelters, on the streets, or in vehicles. 
  • Leverage the Homeless Data Integration System (HDIS) and relationships with homeless service providers to identify individuals who are at-risk of losing benefits or who may qualify for exemptions based on self-reported information not captured in other databases. 
  • Increase state resources to support CalFresh access by allocating additional funding for benefit continuity and application and outreach assistance.

In a state as wealthy and influential as California, no one should go hungry. State leaders can act to defend communities from harmful federal policies and ensure Californians have access to the food assistance they need to survive.

Monica Saucedo contributed to this publication.

CalFresh
Federal Policy
Housing & Homelessness

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

California’s behavioral health system depends on Medi-Cal to serve adults and children. Changes under H.R. 1 threaten Medi-Cal’s core funding and eligibility, putting at risk the state’s investments in behavioral health and housing and leaves more Californians without access to needed care.


California has made historic progress in transforming its behavioral health system, ranging from expanding access, integrating care, and linking success with housing and community supports. But looming federal cuts to Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid program), enacted under H.R. 1 — the harmful Republican mega bill — threaten to strip care away from children, youth, adults, and older Californians, causing lasting harm and long-term costs for California communities.

More than one in three Californians rely on Medi-Cal for essential health care, including life-saving behavioral health services, which encompass mental health care and substance use disorder treatment. These services range from preventative and lower-acuity care delivered by Medi-Cal Managed Care providers to more acute, high-need treatment delivered by county behavioral health departments. They are critical at every stage of life — from school-based mental health services for kids to care for adults navigating trauma, chronic illnesses, or recovery.

Yet, H.R. 1 has imposed Medicaid cuts, harmful red tape and administrative barriers, and discriminatory restrictions based on age or immigration status, undermining the foundation of care millions of Californians need. While H.R. 1 does not eliminate behavioral health benefits, it will reduce coverage and funding in ways that threaten access, especially for preventative and lower-acuity provided by Medi-Cal providers. This will increase demand on county-administrered higher-acute services, placing further strain on the entire behavioral health system.

The erosion of coverage and Medi-Cal funding restrictions could also destabilize the major interconnected behavioral health reforms state leaders have advanced in recent years, such as CalAIM, BH-CONNECT, the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, and the voter-approved Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), each of which heavily rely on leveraging federal dollars and were crafted with current coverage levels in mind.

As Medi-Cal enrollment is poised to decline, the effects will be felt across California’s behavioral health system and these key reforms. Health providers will lose critical Medi-Cal reimbursements that sustain community-based services, which will lead to weakened capacity and even more forced reductions in care. In practice, H.R.1 threatens to erode the health system from both sides — reducing coverage while stripping away the funding needed to continue serving those who remain — leaving Californians with mental health and substance use needs with even fewer pathways to treatment and at risk of their conditions worsening.

These harmful consequences also extend beyond health care. Federal cuts and restrictions will weaken California’s homelessness response by making it harder for unhoused people with behavioral health needs to access and maintain Medi-Cal funded services that help them find and keep stable housing. They may also impair the state’s ability to pair state funds with federal dollars to bridge behavioral health and housing supports, disrupting the continuity of care and housing for many.

Ultimately, as Medi-Cal faces deep reductions, with millions of people poised to lose coverage, so too will the services that support Californians’ health, housing, and well-being. This report provides an overview of who California’s behavioral health system serves, why Medi-Cal is integral to its success, and how the Republican mega bill, H.R.1, could undermine key state reforms. As state leaders confront these challenges, it’s critical for policymakers to protect proven policies, reduce harm, and ensure all Californians receive the essential care they need to be healthy and thrive.

Key Terms

A note on county behavioral heath services

County behavioral health systems serve Californians with the most acute and complex behavioral health needs. While these systems rely heavily on Medi-Cal, individuals receiving specialty services counties provide — including Specialty Mental Health Services (SMHS) and Drug Medi-Cal services — are exempt from H.R. 1’s new work requirements and other direct recipient cost-sharing, and Medi-Cal reimbursements for these covered services will continue. This means that Californians with more acute behavioral health needs will continue to be able to access the specialty services that counties provide.

However, Medi-Cal also provides preventive and lower-acuity behavioral health care delivered outside county systems. As Californians lose Medi-Cal coverage under H.R. 1, they will also lose access to early intervention and preventive behavioral health care, increasing the likelihood that untreated conditions would worsen into more severe needs that counties are typically responsible for addressing if they have the resources. But because county behavioral health departments operate with relatively fixed financing and limited capacity, they are not positioned to absorb an influx of higher-need patients created by the loss of preventive Medi-Cal coverage — potentially leaving many Californians with little, if any, access to appropriate behavioral health treatment.

jump to

Californians of All Ages and Backgrounds Need Behavioral Health Care

Medi-Cal is the foundation of California’s behavioral health system, providing mental health and substance use treatment for Californians of all ages. In 2023, over half of all people enrolled in Medi-Cal — roughly 8.25 million people or every 1 in 5 Californians — accessed mental health services.

Adults

Nearly 1 in 5 California adults experience some form of mental illness, and about 1 in 20 have a serious mental illness that makes it difficult to carry out daily activities. Substance use disorders are also notable, affecting roughly 1 in 6 adults in the state. However, these conditions often overlap, with 1 in 14 California adults experiencing both a mental illness and a substance use disorder. People with co-occurring conditions often face greater barriers to care and benefit most when services are integrated and address both needs together. In 2021-22, nearly 345,000 adults over the age of 21 had at least one Medi-Cal Speciality Mental Health Services visit, reflecting how essential Medi-Cal has become in serving Californians with the most acute need to care.

For adults experiencing homelessness who have a behavioral health condition, Medi-Cal is often the only pathway to consistent care and stability. Among unhoused Californians, roughly 75% were covered by Medi-Cal, although even more are likely to qualify. Data quantifying the number of unhoused people with behavioral health conditions are not precise, but there is strong evidence that homelessness can trigger or worsen mental health conditions and push people toward coping behaviors like substance use. The UCSF Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness found that over 80% of participants had experienced a mental health condition for a significant period of time that impaired their life function, mainly anxiety or depression, and nearly 65% reported using substances regularly at some point. These issues often co-occur, but the full extent is not reported.

Children and Youth

Medi-Cal covers every 3 in 7 California children, providing critical behavioral health care for those facing anxiety, depression, or trauma. In 2021-22, 5.8 million children and youth under the age of 21 were eligible for Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health Services in California, and more than 246,000 received care. In 2024-25 alone, California schools received over $1 billion in Medi-Cal payments for services rendered to students, which includes school-based mental health services.

Still, the need continues to grow. Previous research shows that 1 in 14 children has an emotional disturbance that limits daily functions, a figure likely higher today given the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on children’s mental health. A recent survey found that 94% of Gen Z youth reported having mental health challenges in a typical month, with youth of color and LGBTQ+ youth reporting very high rates of stress and fear of discrimination.

These challenges are also not carried equally. Black, Latinx, Native American, and Pacific Islander children and youth face the highest rates of serious emotional disturbances because of the compounding factors that increase the risk of behavioral health conditions. This includes the effects of generational trauma, economic insecurity, barriers to care, and the impacts of historical and ongoing racism and discrimination towards them and their families.

Despite the great need for increased behavioral health services, new cuts and restrictions to Medicaid will limit access to life-saving care.

Portrait of child girl eating on snack time at school

H.R. 1 and the Federal Budget

H.R. 1, the harmful Republican mega bill passed in July 2025, will deeply harm Californians by cutting funding for essential programs like health care, food assistance, and education.

See how California leaders can respond and protect vital supports.

Learn More

Recently Enacted Harmful Republican Mega Bill, H.R. 1, Will Impede Californians’ Access to Behavioral Health Care

Medi-Cal is the backbone of public mental health and substance use services in California. Federal matching funds — drawn down through Medi-Cal reimbursements — form the core of financing for behavioral health care across a range of needs.

TIMELINE OF FUNDING CUTS TO MEDI-CAL AND CALFRESH IN CALIFORNIA

Explore our new timeline with up-to-date implementation dates for provisions in H.R. 1 and the 2025-26 California state budget that cut funding for Medi-Cal and CalFresh, putting the health and well-being of millions of Californians at risk.

In July 2025, Republicans in Congress and the Trump Administration enacted H.R. 1, a sweeping law that delivers the deepest health care cuts in U.S. history. The bill slashes roughly $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade. For California, the consequences are especially severe. As many as 3.4 million Californians could lose Medi-Cal coverage and the state could lose up to $30 billion in federal Medicaid funding each year.

These cuts will destabilize Medi-Cal and threaten core health services, including behavioral health care, in two major ways. The new law:

  • Imposes financing restrictions that strip billions of dollars in federal support to states.
  • Creates eligibility and access barriers that make it harder for Americans to enroll in and keep their coverage.

No matter the mechanism, these changes amount to deep cuts that will ripple across all Medi-Cal services and hit behavioral health care especially hard.

How H.R.1 Financing Restrictions Will Impact Californians with Behavioral Health Conditions

California has long used provider taxes — most notably the Managed Care Organization (MCO) tax — to raise state revenue that is then matched with federal Medicaid dollars. These revenues sustain Medi-Cal.

H.R. 1 undermines this model by banning new provider taxes and imposing rules that invalidate California’s current MCO tax structure. The law also caps provider tax rates over time and lowers the federal cap on Medicaid managed care payments, further restricting California’s ability to draw down federal funds.

While not all provider tax revenues are dedicated to behavioral health, Proposition 35 (approved by voters in 2024) earmarks a portion of MCO tax revenue for behavioral health facilities, workforce expansion, and other investments in mental health and substance use treatment. With H.R. 1 now law, these investments are at risk because California’s MCO tax is out of compliance with new federal restrictions.

If provider tax revenues are significantly reduced or eliminated, California will face major budget shortfalls that threaten Medi-Cal coverage and funding streams providers depend on. The result: less revenue, fewer federal matching dollars, and diminished resources for behavioral health care — particularly in communities that already face barriers to treatment.

How H.R. 1 Eligibility and Access Restrictions Will Limit Behavioral Health Coverage for Californians

H.R. 1 introduces sweeping eligibility and access restrictions that will push Californians off Medi-Cal and disrupt reliable coverage for preventative and lower-acuity behavioral health services. Losing Medi-Cal coverage could disrupt access to medications, counseling, and treatment programs, heightening the risk of crisis, hospitalization, or incarceration. The new law:

  • Excludes immigrant groups from Medi-Cal coverage. Refugees, asylees, humanitarian parolees, trafficking survivors, and other immigrants previously eligible under humanitarian protections will lose Medi-Cal, which would take away access to Medi-Cal behavioral health care from some of the most vulnerable people in the state.
  • Imposes burdensome work requirements for adults in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) expansion population, which could result in 3 million adults in California losing Medi-Cal coverage. These reporting requirements create barriers for people with a behavioral health condition who may struggle to maintain steady employment and complete complex paperwork. The barriers posed are especially acute for people experiencing homelessness. While exemptions exist — for example, for individuals considered “medically frail” due to a disabling mental health condition or substance use disorder — it remains unclear how these will be applied or what documentation will be required.
  • Increasing Medi-Cal eligibility checks for adults in the ACA expansion population, which will make it more challenging for them to maintain their Medi-Cal coverage even if they remain eligible. Disruptions in coverage can interrupt treatment plans and destabilize recovery for people managing chronic mental health or substance use conditions.
  • Limits retroactive Medi-Cal coverage from 3 months to 1 month for ACA expansion adults and to 2 months for all other adults. This change may leave people who enter treatment during a behavioral health crisis, such as a psychiatric emergency or overdose, without financial protection for care received before enrollment.

Overall, this new law will not only strip health coverage from millions of Californians but also undermine the stability of the behavioral health care system. People with mental health conditions and substance use disorders depend on stable, continuous access to care. Under H.R. 1, more people are likely to lose access to healthcare coverage, experience worse health outcomes, and turn to emergency rooms as substitutes for care.

Note: The ACA expansion population refers to adults under age 65 without dependents who qualify for Medi-Cal based on income (up to 138% of the federal poverty level) and immigration eligibility criteria. California fully implemented this expansion in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act.

The consequences of these cuts to financing, as well as eligibility and access, will have a significant impact on the health care system. As Medi-Cal enrollment declines, so too will reimbursements that providers depend on to sustain behavioral health services. This loss of revenue will weaken provider capacity, reduce the availability of community-based programs, and further strain county behavioral health systems that are already stretched thin.

In effect, H.R. 1 squeezes the system from both sides — fewer people insured and fewer dollars to care for those who remain — leaving Californians with mental health and substance use needs with even fewer pathways to treatment.

H.R. 1 Puts Interconnected State Behavioral Health Initiatives At Risk

H.R. 1 jeopardizes California’s significant behavioral health reforms that were designed to support the state’s most vulnerable residents and are fundamentally dependent on Medi-Cal’s flexibility and federal funding. This includes efforts such as CalAIM, BH-CONNECT, the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative (CYBHI), and voter-approved reforms to the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA). Each is a strategic, interconnected effort designed to create a more equitable and coordinated system of care that supports the well-being of vulnerable Californians.

Initiatives like CalAIM and BH-CONNECT rely on federal waivers to use Medicaid funding for flexible purposes such as housing navigation. While the federal government has the authority to rescind or modify waivers or withhold funding, doing so would require navigating complex legal and administrative processes. Plus, such actions could provoke legal challenges from state officials and advocacy organizations.

However, by weakening Medicaid financing and eligibility, H.R. 1 still undermines the financial foundation that makes all of these initiatives possible. It threatens essential supports ranging from intensive case management to in-school mental health services for children to wrap-around housing supports and transitional rent that help unhoused individuals with behavioral health conditions move into stable housing. It also undermines billions of dollars the state has already invested in transforming care and reducing homelessness.

Medi-Cal is the common thread tying together these reforms, making its stability essential to sustaining these supports.

CalAIM’s Homelessness-Ending Housing Supports and the BHSA Rely on Medi-Cal

CalAIM (California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal) is targeted to enhance care coordination, improve health outcomes, and address social determinants of health for Medi-Cal enrollees — particularly for those facing complex challenges such as homelessness, chronic medical conditions, and justice system involvement. Two key components of CalAIM are particularly important for serving unhoused or at risk Californians: Enhanced Care Management and Community Supports. Together they ensure robust case management is paired with non-clinical services like housing navigation, security deposits, and transitional rent, interventions proven to help people move into and stay in stable homes.

Between January and March 2025 alone, these supports served 68,000 adults and nearly 13,000 children experiencing homelessness, with providers serving youth nearly doubling. Altogether, nearly 430,000 Californians have accessed CalAIM Community Supports, with 1.1 million services delivered since 2022.


CalAIM Community Housing Supports are also integral to the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), which requires counties to dedicate 30% of their BHSA dollars to housing interventions. Counties must first leverage Medi-Cal housing-related supports before using BHSA funds, making Medi-Cal fundamental to this system. However, if people lose or experience lapses in coverage, or if federal approvals that allow these services to be reimbursed are weakened, the state risks losing the foundation that makes these interventions possible.

BH-CONNECT Strengthens Behavioral Health Care Through Medi-Cal

BH-CONNECT (Behavioral Health Community-Based Organized Networks of Equitable Care and Treatment) builds on the reforms spearheaded by CalAIM to strengthen California’s behavioral health system for Medi-Cal members living with significant behavioral health needs. Approved by the federal government in 2024, it expands community- and evidence-based services for children, youth, and adults with behavioral health conditions, especially for at-risk Californians like those experiencing homelessness, children in the child welfare system, and people leaving institutional care. It also invests in workforce development and incentivizes counties to improve access, outcomes, and system performance.

CYBHI Improves Medi-Cal Behavioral Health Supports for Youth Amid BHSA Shifts

CYBHI (Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative) expands prevention and early intervention supports for children through schools and community settings, many of which are reimbursed through Medi-Cal. CYBHI’s focus on youth is especially critical now as recent changes to the BHSA are forcing counties to restructure existing funding allocations. This shift will require cuts to certain behavioral health services — particularly in prevention and early intervention, innovative programs, and other core services that primarily support children and youth. Moreover, when parents or guardians lose coverage, their children are often left vulnerable to losing their access to care too. This not only disrupts care for children but also creates additional administrative challenges for schools and providers.

Federal Policy

The federal government plays a major role in shaping California’s budget, economy, and the well-being of its people.

Learn how federal policies shape California’s budget, economy, and vital programs — and how state leaders can respond to protect and support Californians.

Explore Federal Resources

State Leaders Can Act to Protect Californians’ Right to Comprehensive Behavioral Health Care

Massive cuts in the Republican mega bill, H.R. 1, threaten Medi-Cal financing and the behavioral health care that it provides, and California risks losing the progress it has made to connect care, housing, and recovery for Californians of all ages statewide. Addressing the federal cuts will require state leaders to do everything possible to protect communities and minimize harm.

The California Health and Humans Services Agency has announced plans to pursue administrative solutions to minimize disenrollment, such as using existing databases to automatically qualify individuals for exemptions and expand public education on the new requirements. Still, even with these efforts, many Californians will inevitably lose coverage unless the state provides additional funding to protect those most at risk.


Policymakers have a path forward to ensuring California remains a national leader in providing comprehensive behavioral health care. By raising significant, ongoing revenue, state leaders can fund the investments needed to protect care and support the well-being of Californians, especially those who rely on critical behavioral health services. 

Health
Housing & Homelessness

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

California’s Behavioral Health Services Act (formerly MHSA) now directs more funding toward behavioral health care, housing, and treatment for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. As counties prepare to implement new integrated plans by 2026, the BHSA will play a critical role in shaping partnerships across the behavioral health and housing continuum.

California’s county-provided behavioral health services, which address mental health conditions and substance use disorders, are essential to ensuring all Californians have access to care regardless of their race, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, or the county they call home. However, funding to support individuals with behavioral health conditions who are also facing housing instability or homelessness has been scarce.

The MHSA was initially passed in 2004 and established a millionaire’s tax to increase funding for mental health services, with 90% of the revenue allocated directly to counties. These services are typically administered by county behavioral health departments, though in rare cases other local entities, such as cities, provide them instead. (For the purposes of this report, “counties” refers collectively to counties, county behavioral health departments, and other local entities that administer MHSA/BHSA funds.)

The reforms under Prop. 1 aim to provide more targeted funding for behavioral health services and for housing or treatment units serving people with these conditions who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness. These funds are vital to California’s behavioral health system, accounting for nearly one-third of all county behavioral health services funding, and are now viewed as a critical piece in solving homelessness.

Prop. 1 renamed the Mental Health Services Act to the Behavioral Health Services Act (BSHA) and made other key reforms, including:

  • Restructuring how existing funds are allocated, with a new stand-alone category for housing interventions.
  • Expanding its scope to encompass treatment for substance use disorders.
  • Changing the requirements for counties’ three-year program and expenditure plan for behavioral health services and outcomes.
  • Revising accountability and transparency requirements for counties.

Prop. 1 also created a $6.38 billion general obligation bond to fund behavioral health treatment beds, residential facilities, and supportive housing for veterans and people at risk of or experiencing homelessness with behavioral health challenges. These funds are administered through Homekey+ and the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program.

With counties set to begin implementing their BHSA Integrated Plans by July 1, 2026, this FAQ covers key timelines, opportunities for collaboration, and essential points that affordable housing developers, homeless service providers, and county staff should be aware of to strengthen partnerships within the behavioral health and housing continuum.

jump to:

About This Report

This publication was done in collaboration with Housing California.

Housing California brings together a diverse, multi-sector network to prevent and end homelessness, increase the supply of safe, stable, affordable housing options, and reverse the legacy of racial and economic injustice by building power among the people most impacted by housing injustice, shaping the narrative, and advocating for statewide policy solutions.

How is the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) funding different from the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA)?

Under BHSA, counties continue to receive 90% of the funding, however, the spending categories will change beginning in 2026. Most counties will now have to allocate their BHSA funds as follows:

The restructuring of funds means counties are cutting back on vital services, especially in prevention and early intervention, innovative behavioral health programs, and other core services that primarily support children and youth. At the same time, counties are exploring ways to count existing efforts under the housing interventions category, since many have already used MHSA funds to provide housing or housing supports to individuals with behavioral health conditions.

Counties will have the flexibility to move up to 7% between BHSA categories to better meet local needs, which means housing intervention dollars may vary by county. Some could apply to move an additional 7% from the remaining category, for up to a 14% increase to housing interventions. However, small counties with populations under 200,000 can request exemptions from certain housing funding requirements starting with the 2026–29 Integrated Plan (IP). All counties, regardless of size, may request exemptions beginning with the 2032–35 Integrated Plan. Within housing, exemptions could apply to the 30% housing set-aside, the 50% requirement for people experiencing chronic homelessness, or the 25% limit on capital projects.

Reporting

Prop. 1 also changes the way counties plan and report behavioral health funding. Counties will now report on all behavioral health funding through their Integrated Plans, not just BHSA dollars. This includes local, state, and federal funding sources such as opioid settlement funds, SAMHSA and PATH grants, realignment funding, and federal financial participation.

What is a County Integrated Plan?

The BHSA establishes county Integrated Plans (IPs) to serve as a three-year prospective spending plan that describes how county behavioral health departments plan to use all available behavioral health funding, including BHSA. The first IP will span FY 2026-2029. It requires a robust community planning process and approval from the county board of supervisors. Counties are required to provide annual updates, which do not require stakeholder engagement. For more information, see How and when are counties planning on disbursing BHSA funding?

What types of housing and housing supports can BHSA be used for?

BHSA requires that 30% of the dollars a county behavioral health department receives be used on housing and housing-related supports, unless an exemption is approved. For FY 2026-27, DHCS projects the total annual statewide housing component will be approximately $950 million to be distributed among all counties.

The housing interventions offered must follow Housing First approaches in both interim and permanent housing settings, as defined by the Housing First statute, which is geared toward providing low-barrier, harm-reduction focused support. The expanded scope of housing interventions are intended to cover a range of needs and supports.

Critically, counties must first utilize housing-related services funded through Medi-Cal managed care plans (MCPs) before using BHSA funds for housing services. BHSA funds can only cover Community Supports if the MCP has declined to provide the service, the individual is ineligible, or the individual’s needs exceed MCP service limits. For more information see How does BHSA intersect with other funding sources, like Transitional Rent?.

Who is eligible to benefit from BHSA housing funds?

BHSA dollars can now be used to fund services, assistance, and housing for people who are at risk of or experiencing homelessness and have a serious mental health condition or substance use disorder. At least 50% of the housing intervention funds must serve people experiencing chronic homelessness.

County behavioral health departments deliver services directly or partner with housing developers, service providers, and other community organizations to carry out services. Within this population, counties can prioritize different subpopulations, so who BHSA interventions serve can look different by region.

What government entities are in charge of disbursing BHSA funding?

The state passes the revenues collected for BHSA directly to counties. Counties then task their behavioral health departments with the responsibility of disbursing or contracting BHSA funds.

How and when are counties planning on disbursing BHSA funding?

BHSA fund allocations are ultimately determined by each county’s Integrated Plan (IP), which covers a three-year period. IPs are intended to outline all county behavioral health activities, services, and funding streams, including BHSA, Medi-Cal, and other sources. It describes the activities and expenditures a county plans to fund with BHSA, ultimately providing a roadmap for the funds.

What an IP funds can vary widely depending on county size, location, local revenue streams, and community needs. Counties must also distribute funding in accordance with the new categorical percentages outlined in the BHSA, though some flexibility is allowed (see How does BHSA differ from MHSA?).

The first IP under the new BHSA guidelines will span FY 2026–2029. Counties are required to submit their initial draft IPs to the Department of Health Care Services by March 31, 2026, get approval from their Board of County Supervisors, and begin implementing it on July 1, 2026.

There is a community planning process which counties must go through, which is where housing developers and service providers can get involved. For more information on how to get involved, see How can housing developers and homelessness providers participate in BHSA planning?. 

Separate funding from the bond portions of Prop.1 through the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP) and Homekey+ have already begun to be awarded by the Department of Housing and Community Development.

How can housing developers and homelessness service providers participate in BHSA planning?

Counties must submit their initial draft of their 2026-2029 Integrated Plan (IP) to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) by March 31, 2026, which requires a community planning process. If a type of program, service, or strategy isn’t in the IP, it likely won’t receive BHSA support unless the plan is amended. Counties are currently holding integrated planning discussions and beginning their community planning process, during which they must coordinate with various stakeholders such as Continuums of Care, Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans, and providers of mental health services. Counties are not mandated to reach out to housing providers as a part of this Integrated Planning process, which is why proactive outreach is critical.

Now is the time for housing developers and homelessness service providers to start meeting with county behavioral health staff to:

  • Build relationships and identify potential areas of collaboration
  • Clarify which populations the county intends to prioritize, ensuring prioritization of high-need populations
  • Spot possible project overlap and opportunities for joint efforts
  • Explore ways to strengthen coordination and referrals between the county behavioral health system and the Continuum of Care
  • Identify how BHSA dollars could help address current funding gaps, challenges, or scale innovative housing solutions

The county board of supervisors must approve the final IP by June 30, 2026, but before that, each plan must go through a 30-day public comment period. IPs take effect July 1, 2026.

As part of the required community planning process, counties must engage designated local stakeholders in developing the IP. This explicitly includes Continuums of Care, homeless service providers, mental health and substance use disorder treatment providers, county social services and child welfare agencies, and health care service plans, including Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans (MCPs). Counties with populations greater than 200,000 must also engage with the five most populous cities in their jurisdiction which is another point of collaboration for developers and service providers.

After the IP is approved in 2026, counties must submit annual updates in 2027 and 2028. These updates do not require a formal community planning process, which is why maintaining strong, ongoing relationships with county behavioral health departments and other key partners is essential.

Now is a key opportunity for affordable housing developers, homeless service providers, and housing advocates to be proactive. Their input is critical for helping counties identify barriers, such as insufficient housing stock, high development costs, or service delivery challenges, and for ensuring Integrated Plans include collaborative, actionable strategies to reduce homelessness and expand permanent housing options for people with behavioral health needs.

How can housing developers or service providers access BHSA funding for services, operating costs, or capital development funding?

BHSA dollars will flow through counties, which then decide how to use these funds through their Integrated Plans (IPs) and annual updates. The IPs and annual updates are approved by the county board of supervisors and submitted to the Department of Health Care Services.

For housing developers and service providers, the most important step is to work closely with county behavioral health departments so that certain strategies and services are included in the county’s IP. For more information on how to get involved, see How can housing developers and homelessness providers participate in BHSA planning?. 

BHSA housing intervention funding can be used for:

  • Capital development: acquisition, construction, or rehab of housing
  • Operating costs: keeping housing units stable and affordable
  • Supportive services: case management, behavioral health care, and tenancy supports

For projects already funded through Homekey+ or the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP), BHSA is especially important. Homekey+ and BHCIP primarily fund the buildings and infrastructure, but don’t necessarily cover the services and operations needed to keep projects stable long-term. BHSA can potentially fill those funding gaps. However, it is recognized that the timing is tricky, as these infrastructure projects may be underway while the new BHSA plans won’t take effect until July 2026. That mismatch means some projects could be up and running before BHSA dollars are available to ensure funding for services or other supports, leaving a funding gap.

Still, this is a major opportunity. Demonstrating how BHSA funding can keep existing or upcoming projects running by covering services, filling operating cost gaps, or ensuring sustainability is critical. Counties must make every dollar stretch — so projects or other services that leverage other state or private funding, fill a clear community need, and demonstrate strong partnerships could have a strong chance of being considered.

How much will my county receive in BHSA funds?

The amount of BHSA funding your county receives depends on various factors, including population size. For BHSA housing intervention dollars, DHCS estimates the total annual statewide housing component will be approximately $950 million to be distributed among all counties for FY 2026-27. DHCS released example county estimates for BHSA housing interventions based on county size:

  • Very Large (Population 9.6 million): Los Angeles $254.09 million
  • Large (Population 1.6 million): Sacramento, $34.99 million
  • Medium (Population 263K): Santa Cruz $6.79 million
  • Small (Population 133K): Humboldt $3.3 million

It’s important to note that funding levels fluctuate each year because they are tied to a variable revenue stream — a millionaire’s tax that voters approved in 2004 to support mental health services. Counties must account for this uncertainty when developing Integrated Plans and committing to projects with ongoing costs.

How does BHSA intersect with other funding sources, like Transitional Rent?

BHSA dollars are intended to complement existing funding streams and interventions like Transitional Rent or local flex pools. It can help fill funding gaps for housing supports, tenancy services, or capital projects. However, counties must first use Medi-Cal housing-related services if the local Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans (MCPs) offer them. BHSA funds can only be used if MCPs decline to provide services, the individual is ineligible, or if their benefits have been exhausted.

Because of this, ongoing communication between housing developers, homelessness service providers, county behavioral health departments, and MCPs is essential. Early coordination can align funding sources, prevent service gaps, and ensure housing units are paired with the right supportive services — maximizing the impact of BHSA and Medi-Cal dollars. Without early collaboration, services could be delayed, underfunded, or missed entirely.

Divya Shiv is a senior policy advocate focused on homelessness at Housing California. Adriana Ramos-Yamamoto also contributed to this publication.

Housing & Homelessness

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

Without renewed support for the Emergency Housing Voucher program, thousands of Californians could lose stable housing. Policymakers have the power and responsibility to stop harmful cuts and protect everyone’s fundamental right to a stable home.

The federal Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) program currently helps over 15,000 Californians afford a safe place to live in their community. Federal funding will begin to run out in parts of the state by the end of the year if Congress doesn’t act. And with California leaders still failing to fill the gap, thousands of Californians are at risk of losing their homes.

EHV was created during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, meant to provide immediate housing to people experiencing or at risk of homelessness and survivors of domestic violence in crisis. The federal funding for the program had until 2030 to be fully expended. However, with rents rising far faster than incomes, especially for low-wage workers, funding is being depleted faster than expected.

The program has been a lifeline for thousands in California and nationwide, offering rapid access to stable housing for some of the state’s most vulnerable residents. But now, as federal funding dries up, families and individuals are beginning to receive notices that their housing vouchers will expire, forcing them into impossible choices: return to homelessness, leave their communities, or forgo other basic needs to keep a roof over their heads.

Without renewed funding, Californians who are currently safely housed will be pushed back onto the streets to face the cruel and costly reality of homelessness once again. These cuts to essential housing supports come at a time when people living with disabilities and survivors of domestic violence are already facing multiple federal and state cuts to vital funding that supports their health and safety.

Portrait of child girl eating on snack time at school

H.R. 1 and the Federal Budget

H.R. 1, the harmful Republican mega bill passed in July 2025, will deeply harm Californians by cutting funding for essential programs like health care, food assistance, and education.

See how California leaders can respond and protect vital supports.

Learn More

Trade-Offs Families Face Without a Voucher

On average, a standard housing choice voucher covers roughly $1,550 per month in California. This does not account for the full rent but does cover a critical share, with recipients still typically paying 30% of their income. Losing this support means choosing between rent, food, child care, transportation, or education.

For example, the following table quantifies the trade-offs that a single mom with a 3-year old and a 6-year old who live in San Bernardino County would have to face if they lose their housing voucher. The example uses the average cost per housing unit for the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino for simplicity.

Californians who have already faced the devastating impact of homelessness or domestic violence should not have their homes threatened to help millionaires and large corporations receive another round of tax cuts. The threat to not renew EHV funding is part of a broader federal push to cut and defund critical housing and safety net programs to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. As federal leaders work to destroy programs like EHV that help keep people housed, state leaders must secure the revenues needed to keep their constituents housed and stop deeper potential cuts to other vital housing programs.

Forcing Californians out of their homes is not inevitable — just as ending homelessness is possible. Policymakers have the power and responsibility to stop harmful cuts and protect everyone’s fundamental right to a stable home.

Kristin Schumacher contributed to this publication.

Federal Policy
Housing & Homelessness

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

New Data Reveals How the House Budget Framework Could Harm Californians in Every Congressional District

By

SACRAMENTO, CA — A new fact sheet from the California Budget & Policy Center underscores the potential consequences of the House budget framework, revealing how they would negatively impact residents in every congressional district across California. The proposed cuts threaten to undermine access to essential services such as health care, housing, nutrition assistance, and income … Continued