California Governor Gavin Newsom recently vetoed a bill that would have allowed local governments to use up to 10% of state homelessness funds for abstinence-based recovery housing.
The bill sought to adjust the state’s housing-first policies, which prohibit using homelessness funds for abstinence-based recovery housing.
A 2016 law adopting the “housing first” model as state policy prohibits state homelessness money from being spent on programs that are based in abstinence. The rationale is that there should be no condition, such as religious indoctrination or required sobriety, on a homeless person receiving housing.
That could change this year as even some of the strongest proponents of housing first are rethinking that rigid restriction, amid growing evidence that a large share of homeless people would prefer to live in a sober environment.
“When we passed our ‘housing first’ law we were so intent on reducing barriers to addicts that we inadvertently created new barriers to addicts who wanted to get sober,” said Adrian Covert, senior vice president of policy at the Bay Area Council.
Smith, D. (2025, May 13). A push to bring rehab into state’s “housing first” homeless model. Los Angeles Times.
The motivation for adjustments to this policy isn’t an abstract or philosophical preference. It’s been known for years that this approach is failing people with addiction.
A [San Francisco] Chronicle analysis found that of the approximately 650 people who succumbed to accidental overdoses in the Tenderloin and along the adjacent Sixth Street corridor since 2019, more than 40% died inside residential hotels used as permanent housing for the formerly homeless.
In total, San Francisco’s supportive housing SROs have been the site of at least 16% of all fatal overdoses citywide during that same period, though the buildings house less than 1% of the population.
Team, C. D. (2022, December 15). SF’s deadly failure on the drug crisis is unfolding inside its own housing program. The San Francisco Chronicle.
The bill was not endorsing a hardcore abstinence, one-way, zero-tolerance type of program.
This bill would authorize state programs to fund supportive-recovery residences, as defined, that emphasize abstinence under these provisions as long as the state program meets specified criteria, including that at least 90% of program funds awarded to each jurisdiction is used for housing or housing-based services using a harm-reduction model.
This bill would specify requirements for applicants seeking funds under these programs and would require the state to perform periodic monitoring of select supportive-recovery residence programs to ensure that the supportive-recovery residences meet certain requirements, including that core outcomes of the supportive-recovery housing emphasize long-term housing stability and minimize returns to homelessness. The bill would also prohibit eviction on the basis of relapse, as specified. The bill would require, if a tenant is no longer interested in living in a supportive-recovery residence with an abstinence focus, is at risk of eviction, or is discharged from the program, the tenant to reside in the supportive recovery residence until the operator secures the tenant a new permanent housing placement option operated with harm-reduction principles that is also permanent housing. The bill would require supportive housing and services to support residents access to and use of medications to treat behavioral and physical health conditions, as specified, and to provide overdose prevention training and overdose reversal medication to staff and residents, as specified.
AB 255: The Supportive-Recovery Residence Program. (2025). Digitaldemocracy.org. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab255
Governor Newsom’s stated rationale for the veto was that the state already has provisions for recovery housing, but failed to note that current policy prohibits the enforcement of any prohibition of alcohol and other drug use as long as the resident reports that they are pursuing recovery.
This was a pretty modest adjustment1 in the context of a documented and visible failure to prevent death and support recovery. The bill was introduced by a San Francisco progressive, passed by both legislative chambers controlled by Democrats, and vetoed by the Democratic governor. If this adjustment isn’t acceptable under these circumstances, what would be?
- It leaves a minimum of 90% of funds for harm reduction approaches, and a voluntary model that eschews zero-tolerance and requires direct transfer to harm reduction-based housing if the resident changes their mind or faces eviction. ↩︎
Recovery Review 