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.
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.
Secure Your Early Bird Spot!
Join us in Sacramento on April 22, 2026 for engaging sessions, workshops, and networking opportunities with fellow changemakers, inspiring speakers, and much more.
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 $6.8 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.
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:
There was a problem processing your signup. Please try again. Or contact us
Please check your email to confirm your signup.
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.
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.
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.
Secure Your Early Bird Spot!
Join us in Sacramento on April 22, 2026 for engaging sessions, workshops, and networking opportunities with fellow changemakers, inspiring speakers, and much more.
There was a problem processing your signup. Please try again. Or contact us
Please check your email to confirm your signup.
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.
Applies to adults who have experienced a mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder within the past year.
Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health Services
Mental health services that are designed to mitigate the need for acute mental health care. It includes various supports such as: individual and group therapy, medication support, day programs, case management, crisis support, and in-home support, among other services. These are administered by county behavioral health departments.
Serious emotional disturbance
Applies to children who, within the past year, have had a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder that resulted in functional impairment that substantially interfered with or limited the child’s role or functioning in family, school, or community activities.
Serious mental illness
Applies to adults who, within the past year, have had a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder that substantially interfered with their life and ability to function. Examples include bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There was a problem processing your signup. Please try again. Or contact us
Please check your email to confirm your signup.
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.
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:
These dollars would support individuals with behavioral health conditions (i.e., serious mental illness and/or a substance use disorder) in accessing or maintaining housing. Counties can use these funds to cover rental subsidies, operating subsidies, family housing, and shared housing. Half of this funding is dedicated to housing interventions for those experiencing chronic homelessness and up to 25% may be used for capital development.
35% for Full Service Partnerships
This is a “Whatever It Takes” approach to supporting individuals with complex needs. It encompasses recovery-oriented, comprehensive services for individuals who are or at risk of experiencing homelessness and have a serious mental illness, and who often have a history of criminal justice involvement and repeat hospitalizations. These services are designed to serve people in the community rather than in locked state hospitals. FSP services include, but are not limited to, mental health treatment, housing, medical care, vocational training, and crisis support.
35% for behavioral health services and supports
This allocation would support workforce education and training, innovation, early intervention, and capital facilities. A minimum of 51% of these dollars must be directed towards early intervention supports for Californians who are 25 years and younger.
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.
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.
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.
There was a problem processing your signup. Please try again. Or contact us
Please check your email to confirm your signup.
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.
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.
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.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Choice Voucher Dashboard
Utilities:
Source: Budget Center analysis of US Census Bureau, 2023 American Community Survey
Note: Data reflect the median cost of electricity and gas in San Bernardino County in 2023. Data have been adjusted to reflect 2025 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All Items in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.
Cellular Phone Service:
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021-2022 Consumer Expenditure Survey
Note: Data reflect the average cost of cellular phone service for “consumer units” in California with the lowest 20% of income before taxes. Data have been adjusted to reflect 2025 dollars using the “Wireless telephone services in the U.S.” Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
Groceries:
Source: US Department of Agriculture, USDA Food Plans: Monthly Cost of Food Report for Low, Moderate, and Liberal Food Plans for January 2025
Note: Data reflect the monthly low-cost plan for a three-year-old, six-year-old, and a woman between the ages of 19 and 50.
Transportation:
Source: MIT Living Wage Calculator
Note: Reflects transportation costs for a household with one adult and two children.
Child Care:
Note: The cost of child care for a preschool-age and school-age child is calculated using the 2021 Regional Market Rate Survey adjusted for inflation using the “Tuition, other school fees, and childcare” Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles metro area.
Source: Budget Center analysis of data from the California Department of Social Services
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.
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
Every Californian deserves the dignity of a safe, affordable home — an attainable reality in a state as prosperous and resourceful as California. Yet state homelessness and affordable housing investments are approaching critical funding cliffs, with deeper cuts expected in 2025 if one-time allocations are discontinued and federal dollars face cuts under the Trump administration. Ensuring vital housing efforts continue will require sustained funding and new revenue to protect and uplift Californians and communities statewide.
Noteable state investments in California’s homelessness response and affordable housing production began in 2019. Over the past six years, the combination of flexible federal dollars during the COVID-19 pandemic, strong state revenues, and a growing urgency to address housing costs led to unprecedented state investments in affordable housing and other homelessness solutions — however, continuing this progress hinges on ongoing funding.
Core State Investments to Solve Homelessness Are Temporary
California homelessness-related spending reached a high of $6.8 billion in 2022-23, fueled by the surge in state revenue during the pandemic and flexible federal dollars. However, 2024-25 spending dropped to $2.5 billion, nearly half of which is not guaranteed in the next budget cycle. Although these investments have not fully met the scale needed to end homelessness, they have helped more Californians experiencing homelessness to access stable housing than ever before. These dollars, while designed as temporary, are also now core to California’s homelessness response systems statewide, making the potential loss of funding a significant threat to ongoing progress.
State Affordable Housing Investments Remain Low
Meaningful investments in affordable housing, particularly for individuals and families with the lowest incomes, can help solve the ongoing struggle of more Californians falling into homelessness and facing housing insecurity faster than they can be stably housed. Yet, despite the critical need, the 2024 Budget Act cut over $1 billion for various housing programs, while continuing some modest one-time augmentations.
Despite the state's unprecedented recent investments in affordable housing, state General Fund dollars comprised less than 20% of funding that supported affordable housing and homeownership attainment between 2019 and 2023. The majority of non-General Fund dollars for affordable housing primarily reflects federal funds and private bonds that are likely threatened with the incoming Trump administration. Potential cuts to federal funding for affordable housing underscore the need for state leaders to amplify and continue efforts, particularly given that all of these investments are still a small share of the sustained funding needed to solve California’s housing shortage.
As California faces projected budget shortfalls and potential federal funding cuts to vital housing and safety net programs under the Trump administration, it’s more urgent than ever to sustain the programs that are building affordable housing and keeping Californians housed. Without robust new revenue streams and continuous funding, these successful efforts face dire cuts that will have devastating consequences for Californians who rely on them and communities across the state.
There was a problem processing your signup. Please try again. Or contact us
Please check your email to confirm your signup.
key takeaway
California’s homeless population is aging rapidly, with adults 50+ making up nearly 40% of those needing shelter. Without swift and intentional policy action, California faces a future with a growing number of unhoused older adults as the state’s population ages.
Every Californian deserves an affordable, dignified, and accessible home, regardless of their age, ability, race, gender, or economic status. Yet thousands of Californians — increasingly composed of older adults age 50 and over — continue to fall into homelessness faster than our systems can house them. During the course of the 2022-23 fiscal year, local California homeless service providers made contact with over 215,000 adults without children needing to find a home or search for other life-sustaining services — and even more were likely served by the end of 2023.1Adults without children, also referred to as single adults, are categorized by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development as being age 25 and over. This includes sole individuals, adult couples with no children, groups of adults, and may capture noncustodial parents. Sole individuals ages 18 to 24 are considered unaccompanied youth. The terms homeless and unhoused are also used interchangeably. Of these, 85,310 — nearly 40% — were adults age 50 and over. While experiencing homelessness at any age is severely destructive to an individual’s well-being, older adults are the fastest-growing population experiencing homelessness and the largest share of individuals who are encountering homelessness for the first time in their lives. Without swift and intentional policy action, California faces a future with a growing number of unhoused older adults as the state’s population ages.
Understanding the diverse characteristics, circumstances, and tailored interventions unhoused older Californians need is key to effectively addressing their housing needs and solving homelessness across the state.
“Older adults” refers to individuals who are age 50 and over. This determination was made to parallel current research on older adults at risk of or experiencing homelessness. It also acknowledges the increased physical and behavioral health vulnerabilities that are being experienced by unhoused individuals aged 50 and over which have been traditionally seen in older populations and require tailored interventions.
1. Older Californians Are a Large Share of the Unhoused Population
Unhoused Californians age 50 and over comprised 40% of adult-only households who connected with the homelessness response system in the 2022-23 fiscal year. Yet older adults account for only 34% of the state’s entire population.
Individuals who became unhoused earlier in life and have consequently faced heightened vulnerabilities that led to prolonged periods of homelessness.
Early life homelessness episodes significantly raise the chance of facing adverse experiences, such as higher rates of incarceration, chronic medical conditions, behavioral health conditions, adverse childhood experiences, and underemployment compared to those who experience it later in life. These compounding experiences are recognized upstream factors contributing to homelessness, often resulting in recurrent episodes and increased likelihood over a lifetime.
Individuals who have encountered homelessness for the first time at an older age.
Economic hardship, housing insecurity, and financial, familial, and medical emergencies later in life are the primary drivers that push older adults already struggling to make ends meet into homelessness.
Prolonged economic hardship and insufficient wages have also prevented many from building savings or retirement accounts, leading to economic insecurity among older Californians. Adults without children are also ineligible for many cash-based safety net programs as they typically target people with children.2For more on the shortfalls of safety net programs for low-income non-elderly adults see: Joseph Llobrera et al., A Frayed and Fragmented System of Supports for Low-Income Adults Without Minor Children (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 28, 2021), https://www.cbpp.org/research/a-frayed-and-fragmented-system-of-supports-for-low-income-adults-without-minor-children#state-general-assistance-programs-provide-cbpp-anchor.
Available programs often have minimal benefit amounts that are even lower for adults without dependents. Some program benefits vary by county (particularly for General Assistance/General Relief), have time restrictions, strict asset limits, and may require an age threshold or a physical/developmental disability. Nationally, inadequate rental assistance funding also prevents more than 4 in 5 low-income, non-elderly adult households without children from obtaining the support they qualify for.3General Assistance/General Relief which is a state-mandated program that counties must offer to indigent adults. Each California county administers and fully funds its own program and sets their own benefits, payment levels, and eligibility requirements. Regardless of the circumstances leading to homelessness for older adults, it is clear that there is an urgent need for amplified, targeted safety net and housing interventions at various points to ensure aging Californians can remain in their homes.
2. Stark Racial Disparities Persist in California’s Unhoused Older Adult Population
Older Black, Indigenous, and Pacific Islander Californians disproportionately experience homelessness in California. While Black Californians age 50 and older make up roughly 5.4% of the state’s population, they comprised over 1 in 4 (26%) older adults who made contact with homeless service providers in the 2022-23 fiscal year. Disparities are also evident within Indigenous and Pacific Islander communities, with Indigenous individuals being almost six times as likely and Pacific Islanders twice as likely to connect with the homelessness response system. Separate data from the state’s point-in-time counts reflect homelessness increased among Latinx Californians across the whole population, which captures older adults as well.
The stark racial disparities parallel the broader racial disparities observed in California's unhoused population, underscoring that people of color bear the disproportionate and harmful impacts of homelessness. These disparities reflect the enduring effects of intentional racist policies that created educational, housing, economic, and health barriers for people of color — all of which directly affect an individual’s ability to obtain and sustain stable housing, especially at older ages.
Racist institutionalized practices, such as redlining, government-sanctioned displacement, and predatory practices, have placed generations in positions that make it harder to obtain housing and economic security.4For more see: Danyelle Solomon, Connor Maxwell, and Abril Castro, Systemic Inequality: Displacement, Exclusion, and Segregation: How America's Housing System Undermines Wealth Building in Communities of Color (Center for American Progress, August 7, 2019), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/ and California Department of Justice, California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans, The California Reparations Report (2023), https://oag.ca.gov/ab3121/report.
Discriminatory practices have also caused Black and other communities of color to face the highest risk of justice system involvement, familial disruptions, and traumatic experiences which can cause and exacerbate homelessness throughout a lifetime.
3. Most Unhoused Older Adults Have a Disabling Condition
Most older adults experiencing homelessness reported having a disabling condition (72%) in the 2022-23 fiscal year. Disabling conditions include physical, mental, or emotional impairments that are long continuing, significantly impeding an individual’s ability to live independently, and could be improved with housing. It also captures people with developmental disabilities. Research demonstrates many unhoused individuals experience health conditions and mobility limitations prematurely, often decades before housed adults of the same age. The striking differences reflect the detrimental health effects experiencing homelessness has on the lives of Californians, especially as they age. This pivotal factor underscores the need for policy interventions to be both accessible and tailored to the diverse demographic of older adults starting at age 50.
Unhoused Californians face steep barriers to medical access, face daily safety concerns, and often have limited access to basic necessities such as consistent meals, proper medication storage, and sanitation. Even temporary homeless shelters are often not equipped to accommodate older individuals with complex medical or mobility conditions. Combined, the lack of access to care, medical support, and appropriate housing exacerbates negative health outcomes. Experiencing homelessness ultimately limits the opportunity to live a long, healthy life and reach older ages, which is reflected by higher mortality rates in unhoused populations when compared to their housed counterparts.
Ensuring older unhoused Californians with disabilities have appropriate housing and care is largely achievable through scaling supportive housing. This effective, evidence-based intervention combines robust housing interventions with wraparound supportive services to meet the medical, physical, and behavioral health needs of unhoused Californians with disabling conditions.
4. Most Unhoused Older Adults Have an Income Source — But It's Not Enough
Most unhoused older adults who made contact with homeless service providers in the 2022-23 fiscal year reported having at least one source of income. These older adults had a median total monthly income of $1,000 — an amount that cannot cover fair market rent for a studio apartment in nearly 70% of the state’s counties, let alone other basic living expenses like food, utilities, and transportation.
The top three reported income sources were Supplemental Security Income (SSI) (median = $1,037), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) (median = $1,040), and General Assistance (median = $221). All of which reflect the very low incomes and high rates of disabling conditions among the unhoused older adult population. Additionally, nearly 25% of individuals with an income source reported having income from work.
The limited state and federal aid available to adults without children, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities cannot cover the high cost of housing and other basic needs in California creating vulnerabilities that can lead to homelessness. Benefit amounts are insufficient and often have strict asset limits, placing Californians who depend on these supports in severe economic hardship. In 2022, only 24 housing units were affordable and available for every 100 extremely low-income renter households, which older adults on fixed incomes often fall into. The misalignment between safety net income supports and housing costs highlights the urgent need for significant investments in accessible, affordable housing and cash supports to prevent homelessness among older adults.
5. High Housing Costs Drive Homelessness Among Older Californians
The severe shortage of affordable housing in California, leading to skyrocketing housing costs, is the primary factor pushing older adults into homelessness. In 2022, over half (52%) of all older adult California renters were housing cost-burdened, paying more than 30% of their total income in rent, and nearly 1 in 3 (29%) were severely cost-burdened, paying more than 50% of their income in rent. Older Black California renters faced the highest rates, with over 60% paying unaffordable housing costs. Older Californians of color broadly are especially vulnerable to housing insecurity as they are more likely to be renters and consequently do not have home equity to potentially fall back on. Nearly half (45.7%) of older Black Californians are renters, followed by older Latinx (37.1%), other Californians of color (29.6%), and Asian Californians (26.1%).
The increased share of Californians of color in renter households reflects discriminatory policies that have perpetuated the racial wealth gap and limited access to housing and other opportunities, leading to adverse outcomes in later life. As housing costs comprise a significant portion of their income, older adult renters — especially those with low or fixed incomes — are left with fewer resources for essentials like transportation, medicine, and food. This precarious situation can be the tipping point into homelessness due to minor financial setbacks, medical expenses, or rent hikes. Ultimately, California’s housing shortage places older renters in situations where they have to pay more than they can afford, exacerbating housing and economic insecurity.
Policymakers Can Ensure All Older Adults Have a Home
Older Californians are neighbors, parents, grandparents, and invaluable members of our communities who deserve access to an affordable, accessible, and dignified place to call home, regardless of their background or ability. As state and federal policymakers consider choices that will affect California’s unhoused and vulnerable communities, it is important to understand the unique housing, economic, and health conditions older unhoused adults face. By doing so, policymakers can act on proven policies and interventions that can help solve homelessness among older adults, including:
Increasing affordable rental housing and supportive housing to ensure that all Californians have access to an affordable home that is designed to meet the needs of diverse types of households, including older adults, single workers, and people with disabilities.
Expanding and targeting additional financial support for Californians without dependents, low incomes, and disabilities through boosting Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment, General Assistance, and refundable tax credits.
Directing resources for rental assistance and homelessness services, 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 or quickly exit homelessness.
Continuing to strengthen California's aging network and initiatives to connect housing and healthcare systems by leveraging efforts such as CalAIM housing supports and California’s Master Plan on Aging.
Protecting renters through expanding, enforcing, and funding legal aid and eviction protections.
Policymakers can work towards a California where experiencing homelessness is a brief and rare occurrence, and where everyone has a safe and stable home.
Adults without children, also referred to as single adults, are categorized by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development as being age 25 and over. This includes sole individuals, adult couples with no children, groups of adults, and may capture noncustodial parents. Sole individuals ages 18 to 24 are considered unaccompanied youth. The terms homeless and unhoused are also used interchangeably.
General Assistance/General Relief which is a state-mandated program that counties must offer to indigent adults. Each California county administers and fully funds its own program and sets their own benefits, payment levels, and eligibility requirements.
4
For more see: Danyelle Solomon, Connor Maxwell, and Abril Castro, Systemic Inequality: Displacement, Exclusion, and Segregation: How America's Housing System Undermines Wealth Building in Communities of Color (Center for American Progress, August 7, 2019), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/ and California Department of Justice, California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans, The California Reparations Report (2023), https://oag.ca.gov/ab3121/report.
You may also be interested in the following resources:
There was a problem processing your signup. Please try again. Or contact us
Please check your email to confirm your signup.
This website uses cookies to analyze site traffic and to allow users to complete forms on the site. The California Budget & Policy Center does not share, trade, sell, or otherwise disclose personal information. By using our website you agree to our Privacy Policy.
California Budget & Policy Center
Secure Your Early Bird Ticket!
Join us in Sacramento on April 22, 2026 for engaging sessions, workshops, and networking opportunities with fellow changemakers, inspiring speakers, and much more.
