California Governor Vetoes Bill for Sober Living in Homelessness Strategy

• “This bill was about giving people in recovery a real choice to have safe, sober housing when they need it.” – Assemblymember Matt Haney

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed Assembly Bill 255, legislation that would have allowed state funding for abstinence-based recovery housing as part of California’s homelessness response system.

In his veto message, Newsom said the bill conflicted with California’s “evidence-based Housing First policy, which has demonstrated success in reducing homelessness.” He stressed that state homelessness programs “must remain aligned with the Housing First model, which is supported by decades of research and federal policy.”

Assemblymember Matt Haney, a San Francisco Democrat who authored the measure, criticized the decision. “It’s disappointing that the Governor vetoed AB 255,” Haney said in a statement. “This bill was about giving people in recovery a real choice to have safe, sober housing when they need it. Californians who are working hard to stay sober are often forced into housing where drug use is allowed, and that puts their recovery and their lives at risk.”

AB 255 sought to create a new category of “supportive-recovery residences” eligible for a portion of state homelessness funding. The bill would have allowed local jurisdictions to dedicate up to 25 percent of their state funding to abstinence-focused housing, while still requiring that at least 75 percent of funding go to programs operating under harm-reduction principles.

The legislation also noted that residents could not be evicted solely for relapse and must be provided with access to permanent housing if they chose to leave a recovery residence.

The measure included a number of safeguards, such as requiring overdose prevention training, the availability of overdose reversal medication, and protections for access to prescribed medications for both mental health and substance use disorders. It also required certification based on standards approved by the National Alliance for Recovery Residences or equivalent national benchmarks.

Haney argued that the proposal was about expanding choice for people in recovery.

“Although housing that does not require sobriety works for thousands of people who aren’t yet ready to enter drug free housing, it doesn’t work for everyone. There are thousands of people who want, and need, to live in a strictly sober living arrangement, but they can’t access it because this type of housing is limited and hard to find,” he said.

San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, a co-sponsor of the bill, said the measure was necessary to strengthen the state’s housing system. “One of my top priorities is to drastically expand the number of shelter beds and crisis interventions in our City, so that we can get everyone off of the street and into housing,” Lurie said.

He added, “Additionally, a key piece of this system is abstinence-based housing for those who are in the midst of their recovery journey. We have to expand abstinence-based options; we never want someone to worry about jeopardizing their recovery in exchange for a roof over their head.”

Opponents of the legislation expressed concern over embedding third-party certification requirements into state law. Some groups said the certification requirement could create additional barriers for providers and increase costs.

Fiscal estimates prepared for the Legislature projected significant new costs to implement the program. The Department of Housing and Community Development estimated more than $4 million in first-year costs, including $1 million for contracting and information technology, and about $3 million annually for ongoing staffing.

The California Interagency Council on Homelessness estimated additional staff costs in the mid-hundreds of thousands annually for monitoring and compliance. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation projected at least $500,000 in added reimbursements to its contracts with providers, with the possibility of additional costs if certification requirements reduced available facilities.

Advocates for Housing First pointed to extensive research showing its effectiveness compared to abstinence-based models. Legislative analyses cited multiple studies indicating that Housing First programs decreased homelessness by 88 percent and improved housing stability by 41 percent.

Research from the Pathways to Housing program, one of the earliest Housing First efforts in the country, found that nearly 80 percent of participants remained stably housed after six months, compared to 27 percent in abstinence-based programs. Long-term data showed 88 percent of Housing First participants remained housed after five years, while fewer than half of those in abstinence-based programs did.

Supporters of AB 255 said the bill was not an attempt to replace Housing First but to add options for people seeking sobriety. The bill required that abstinence-based residences continue to comply with Housing First principles, including lease protections, respect for tenant rights, and access to alternative housing if residents were unable to remain in a recovery residence.

The debate reflected broader divisions over how California addresses homelessness. Proponents argued the high cost of housing remains the primary driver of homelessness, while treatment and recovery supports are essential to stability. Opponents worried that diverting funds toward abstinence-based models could undermine the state’s evidence-based approach.

Haney said the state should recognize recovery housing as one part of a larger strategy. “AB 255 aligns California policy with federal guidelines by recognizing that drug free housing is a component of the Housing First model and should get some statewide funding,” he said.

With Newsom’s veto, California’s state homelessness funds will continue to be restricted to programs operating under the harm-reduction framework of Housing First, leaving abstinence-based recovery housing ineligible for state dollars.

Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook.  Subscribe the Vanguard News letters.  To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue.  Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.

Categories:

Tags: