Governor Newsom’s Homelessness Record

Governor Gavin Newsom, this is a policy challenge. California has invested heavily in housing and homelessness programs. The question is not whether government should act. The question is whether every public dollar can be connected to a verified result.

California’s own State Auditor reported that the state allocated nearly $24 billion for homelessness and housing from fiscal years 2018 to 2019 through 2022 to 2023. The audit did not conclude that every dollar was wasted. It reached a more precise and deeply troubling conclusion: the state lacked current, consistent information about costs and outcomes across its programs.

Credit where the evidence supports it

A serious policy review must acknowledge success. The State Auditor found that two of the five programs examined appeared cost-effective. Homekey converted hotels, motels and other existing properties into housing at substantially lower cost than newly constructed units. The CalWORKs Housing Support Program helped families avoid or escape homelessness at a lower cost than allowing the crisis to continue.

Those ideas deserve consideration beyond California. Rapid reuse of safe existing buildings and early intervention for families can form part of a responsible national strategy.

The failure was accountability

The auditor could not determine the cost-effectiveness of the State Rental Assistance Program, Encampment Resolution Funding Program, or Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grants because sufficient outcome data had not been collected. California’s coordinating council had not consistently tracked statewide funding, aligned its action plan with statutory accountability goals, or ensured accurate and comparable information.

That is the part I challenge. A government should not wait until billions have moved through dozens of programs before deciding how success will be measured.

Questions Governor Newsom should answer

1. Why were common outcome standards not attached to every major program before funding was distributed?
2. How much did each program spend per person permanently housed, and how many people remained housed after 12 and 24 months?
3. Which contractors and local agencies failed to produce reliable records, and what corrective action followed?
4. How much funding reached direct housing and services compared with administration, consulting and overhead?
5. Which successful programs will be expanded, and which unmeasurable or ineffective programs will be redesigned, suspended or ended?

The better Badger standard

As President, I would ask Congress to create a National Housing Results and Accountability Standard for major federal homelessness grants. It would not order communities to use one rigid model. It would require every recipient to report comparable results and protect individual privacy.

• One public results ledger. HUD would publish awards, contractors, administrative costs, housing placements, treatment connections and long-term housing retention in a searchable national system.
• Funding released in stages. Initial grants would fund urgent work. Later installments would depend on verified milestones, lawful spending and complete reporting.
• Measure lasting outcomes. Programs would report entries into homelessness, time without shelter, permanent placements, returns to homelessness, and housing retention after 12 and 24 months.
• Scale what works. Safe property conversion, rental-arrears prevention and family stabilization would receive priority when local cost and outcome evidence supports them.
• Coordinate care. Housing programs would build voluntary pathways to mental-health care, substance-use treatment, disability assistance, employment, identification documents and veterans services.
• Recover misused funds. Contracts would include audit rights, conflict disclosures, corrective-action requirements and lawful clawbacks for fraud or material nonperformance.
• Protect dignity and due process. Poverty would not be treated as a crime. Enforcement would focus on genuine public-safety conduct, while housing and services remain centered on individual needs.

Build more homes, not only more programs

Homelessness cannot be reduced permanently when housing supply remains far below need. My administration would ask Congress to reward communities that shorten lawful permitting timelines, allow appropriate housing near jobs and transportation, convert suitable vacant properties, expand manufactured and modular construction, and preserve units already affordable to working families.

Federal incentives must respect state and local authority, fair-housing law, environmental protection and private-property rights. They must also stop rewarding delay. Communities seeking additional federal housing dollars should publish a credible plan for turning approvals into completed homes.

Implementation that can survive scrutiny

This proposal requires congressional authorization and appropriations. The President can direct federal agencies to improve grant administration and reporting within existing law, but cannot create unlimited funding or command every state and city by announcement.

I would submit legislation establishing national definitions, independent audits, privacy protections, public dashboards and five-year program reviews. Programs that demonstrate results could be renewed and expanded. Programs that cannot document outcomes would receive technical assistance and a corrective period, followed by redesign or termination if failures continue.

The challenge

Governor Newsom, I will not claim that every California effort failed, because the evidence does not say that. I will say that spending billions without consistent outcome data is a failure of public accountability. Good intentions do not replace records, and announcements do not replace permanent housing.

Let us place every proposal under the same standard: What did it cost? Who did it help? Did the person remain safely housed? Can the public verify the result? If we cannot answer those questions, government has not finished its work.

This publication is a policy critique based on publicly available government records. It does not allege criminal conduct, deny documented program successes or claim that every California homelessness expenditure was ineffective.