California Legislature Passes Homelessness Prevention Bill, Sets 2028 Target for Statewide Strategy

The California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1924 by a vote of 77-1 in the Assembly and 40-0 in the Senate late last month. The bill now awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature.

AB 1924, authored by Assemblymembers Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) and Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton), requires the California Interagency Council on Homelessness to develop a statewide homelessness prevention strategy by July 2028.

California allocated nearly $24 billion to housing and homelessness from 2018 to 2023, according to the state auditor. The number of homeless people continues to grow. Nearly 190,000 Californians are experiencing homelessness.

Advertisement

For every person who exits homelessness, nearly three more fall into it for the first time statewide, according to the bill’s supporters. In Los Angeles County, that ratio climbs to 4-to-1.

A legislative analysis of AB 1924 cited the rising cost of housing as the root cause of California’s homelessness. Families need to earn roughly $40 an hour to afford a two-bedroom rental, the analysis stated.

Despite legislation passed over the last several years to allow residential housing on almost any site in the state, housing hasn’t improved for many families across California, according to the bill analysis.

The bill requires relevant state agencies to build their own homelessness prevention action plans. It also directs the state to identify and disseminate evidence-based model practices that local governments and service providers can adopt.

Santa Clara County and Sonoma County already run homelessness prevention programs. Those programs provide temporary financial assistance, legal aid, case management, or other services to people who would otherwise lose their homes.

A Notre Dame University study of a Bay Area prevention program found it returned $2.47 for every public dollar spent, according to bill supporters citing the research.

The Breakdown

• AB 1924 passed the State Senate 40-0 and the State Assembly 77-1.
• The bill requires the California Interagency Council on Homelessness to develop a statewide homelessness prevention strategy, including goals and accountability measures, by July 2028.
• State agencies would be required to build their own homelessness prevention action plans.
• The state would identify and disseminate evidence-based model practices for local governments and service providers.
• Even if signed, no immediate change in services or conditions would occur for residents currently experiencing or at risk of homelessness — the target date is July 2028.

What This Means for You

As a Fresno voter, AB 1924 requires a statewide prevention strategy by July 2028 that will include goals and accountability measures for how agencies address homelessness before people lose their housing. The material doesn’t state Newsom’s position on the bill, so whether this framework becomes policy is still uncertain.

The July 2028 target means this legislature’s vote won’t produce visible change in homelessness conditions or available services for years, regardless of the bill’s stated intent.

What to Watch

The state has spent nearly $24 billion on housing and homelessness from 2018 to 2023, and the number of homeless people continues to grow.

The cited Notre Dame study showing a $2.47 return per dollar spent comes from bill supporters referencing the research, not an independent evaluation of the bill itself. That figure applies to one Bay Area program, not a guaranteed statewide outcome.

The bill sets a July 2028 deadline for a strategy. The material doesn’t state whether agencies are required to take interim action or whether this is a four-year pause before anything changes. A strategy that takes four years to draft while the homeless population grows by thousands annually raises the question of whether this is prevention or postponement.

The bill analysis cited housing cost as the root cause and noted that years of legislation allowing residential housing on almost any site hasn’t improved conditions for many families. If the problem is affordability and supply, does a prevention strategy that doesn’t directly address either actually change the calculus, or does it rearrange how the state manages an unaffordable housing market it hasn’t fixed?