Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
home-together-2026-year-3-progress-update-report
HOME TOGETHER 2026 COMMUNITY PLAN YEAR 3 PROGRESS UPDATE July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024 ii Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Contents Progress Update 1 Year 3 Key Takeaways 2 Takeaway 1: Fewer number of people who gained housing reflects reduced investment 2 Takeaway 2: Measures of racial equity improve, yet stark racial disparities remain 5 Takeaway 3: Lack of investments continue to stall key activities 8 Takeaway 4: Sustainable funding is essential for stability and effectiveness 10 Year 2 Actions on Home Together Goals 11 Goal 1: Prevent Homelessness 11 Goal 2: Connect People to Shelter and Needed Resources 12 Goal 3: Increase Housing Solutions 13 Goal 4: Strengthen Coordination, Communication and Capacity 14 Conclusion 15 Appendices 16 Appendix A: Funding and Investments 16 Appendix B: System Inventory 26 Appendix C: Key Performance Measures 30 1 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update HOME TOGETHER YEAR 3 Progress Update SLOW PROGRESS DURING A TIME OF UNCERTAINTY In Year 3 of the Home Together 2026 Community Plan (referred to as “The Home Together Plan”) Alameda County saw the tangible impacts of reduced investments made in the homelessness response system in Year 2 — resulting in a smaller increase in housing inventory and fewer people gaining housing. Despite these challenges, the system still achieved meaningful progress, successfully housing thousands of individuals, serving nearly 25,000 people in programs and with services, and making some strides in addressing racial inequities. The Home Together Plan was written in 2021, shortly after voters in Alameda County expressed their desire to invest in efforts to address the homelessness crisis by passing a local tax measure intended to provide needed expansions in homelessness response system housing and services throughout the county. The Home Together Plan was designed as a guide for how to most effectively use new local resources in combination with existing funding for the homelessness response system. To date, these new local resources have not been brought to bear to help address the challenge of homelessness but are anticipated to become available to the County in the coming year. As a result, efforts to quickly plan for their allocation to housing and services for the homelessness response system are underway. However, at this time there is also great uncertainty for the system regarding funds that were previously considered reliable from federal and state sources. These uncertain conditions threaten to further impact the ability not only to maintain progress, but also to expand and innovate — both of which are critical to making a significant impact on reducing homelessness. As this update reveals, resource fluctuations have a delayed but direct impact on progress and outcomes, and the response system remains at risk of plateauing or losing ground without continued investment. The current Home Together 2026 Community Plan will sunset in FY25–26. Learnings from this plan and the experience implementing it are being brought into the creation of a new, refreshed five-year strategic plan. Development of the Home Together 2030 Plan began in January 2025. Building on the goals of Home Together 2026, this updated strategic plan will integrate new system modeling, an updated and expanded racial equity analysis, feedback from a wide variety of stakeholders, especially people with lived experience of homelessness, and the latest Point-in-Time Count and systemwide data. These elements will help shape actionable strategies to address homelessness and racial disparities within a shifting California and local funding landscape. Home Together 2030 will also integrate the County’s recently released Homelessness Prevention Framework and align with the new 10-Year Housing Plan. In May 2022 the Home Together 2026 Community Plan for Alameda County was released. This five- year plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the Oakland, Berkeley/ Alameda County Continuum of Care and mayors and city councils throughout the county. TOG E T H E R 2 0 2 6 5-yea r p l a n t o e n d h o m e l e s s n e s s i n A l a m e d a C o u n t y 2 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update TAKEAWAY #1 Reduction in number of people who gained housing reflects reduced investment in prior year (FY22–23) In Year 3 of the Home Together Plan, 3,594 people served by the homelessness response system gained permanent housing. While this is a significant achievement, representing the second highest annual outcomes since data collection began (FY19–20), it is a decrease compared to the number of people who gained housing in the previous year (FY22–23). Investments in the homelessness response system were lower in Year 2 than in Year 1, leaving fewer resources to develop and operate housing opportunities, and resulting in fewer people gaining housing this fiscal year (FY23–24). At the same time, the inflow (the number of people who became newly homeless or re-entered the system) continued to increase in Year 3 compared to the previous year. As a result, 1,148 more people entered or returned to homelessness (inflow) than gained housing (outflow). Year 3 Key Takeaways Figure 1 | Homelessness Response System Inflow and Outflow 4,164 3,884 4,043 4,443 4,742 4,084 3,594 2,671 3,474 2,915 New Homelessness + Returns to Homelessness People Who Gained Housing 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FY 19–20 FY 20–21 FY 21–22 FY 22–23 FY 23–24 3 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Cumulatively, since FY19–20, more than 4,500 people entered or returned to homelessness than gained housing through the homelessness response system, a stark reality highlighting the critical need for flexible resources to launch countywide prevention efforts and expand permanent housing pathways. While nearly 3,600 people gained housing, thousands of people who enrolled in programs and services within the homelessness response system remain unhoused. Over the course of FY23–24, 17,902 people experiencing homelessness accessed services of some kind, far more than the number of people that the homelessness response system was able to rehouse. Figure 2 | Homelessness Response System Inflow, Outflow and People Served (Experiencing Homelessness), Year 3 (FY23–24) 3,594 Outflow (people who gained housing) 4,742 Inflow (new homelessness + returns to homelessness) 17,902 People Served (experiencing homelessness) 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 The severely impacted nature of the homelessness response system was also reflected in the 2024 Point-In-Time Count (conducted in January 2024.) Fifty-nine percent (59%) of individuals surveyed reported lengths of time homeless of 36 months or more, underscoring that resource limitations are leading to longer stays and increasingly complex needs for the majority of individuals surveyed in the count. $98,400,000$51,000,000$254,000,000 4 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Lack of new investment in both homelessness prevention and housing opportunities has resulted in a growing gap over the past three years between the scenario modeled for the Home Together Plan (to reach functional zero by Year 5) and the current number of households experiencing homelessness that are awaiting a housing resource. Annual funding for homelessness response system programs and inventory typically ebbs and flows due to the cyclical nature of housing capital funds1 and the inconsistency of one- time funding.2 This volatility has demonstrable impacts on system performance. When investments surge one year, we see systemwide outcome improvements the following year. For example, a surge in investments in FY21–22 was followed by improved outcomes in FY22–23, and decreased investment recorded in FY22–23 was followed by fewer people housed in FY23–24. 1 Refers to awards such as Homekey and No Place Like Home. 2 Includes one-time funding such as Community Care Expansion and Behavioral Health Bridge Housing.Figure 4 | Countywide Investments and Outcomes by Year Figure 3 | Homelessness Response System Progress and Home Together Plan Scenario 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Homeless Households Awaiting a Housing Resource Scenario Modeled in Home Together 2026 Plan Year 0 FY20–21 Year 1 FY21–22 Year 2 FY22–23 Year 3 FY23–24 Year 4 FY24–25 Year 5 FY25–26 8,641 9,319 10,246 10,282 8,641 8,400 8,200 7,000 4,200 0 People Who Gained Housing New Capital Funding FY19-20 FY20–21 FY21–22 (Year 1)FY22–23 (Year 2)FY23–24 (Year 3) 4,084 3,594 2,671 3,474 2,915 5 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update TAKEAWAY #2 Continued improvements on measures of racial equity, yet stark disparities remain for people of color. While slightly lower as a percentage than in past years, people who are Black/African American continue to be vastly overrepresented among those experiencing homelessness in Alameda County (51%) compared to their representation in the Alameda County general population (10%). Some areas within the homelessness response system where improvements in inequities have been made for people who are Black/African American include: • The proportion of Black/African American people who gained housing (58.3%) is higher than the proportion of Black/African American people experiencing homelessness (51%) • The rate of returns to homelessness among people who are Black/African American declined from 17.8% in Year 1 of the Home Together Plan to 15.6% in Year 3. • The proportion of people newly experiencing homelessness decreased among people who are Black/African American (from 55% in Year 1 to 53% in Year 3) but remain vastly disproportionate among those newly experiencing homelessness (and overall). Figure 5 | Homeless Population in HMIS by Race and Ethnicity, FY23–24a a) Represents only people in: Coordinated Entry, Emergency Shelter, Safe Haven, Street Outreach, Transitional Housing, Day Shelter, Services Only and Other. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 Et h n i c i t y Ra c e 20,000 Race Ethnicity White Non-Hispanic/Latina/e/o Black/African American Asian Hispanic/Latina/e/o American Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Multiracial Doesn’t know/Refused/DNC Doesn’t know/Refused/DNC Ye a r 3 3.6%2.8%1.7% 10.0%6.1%51.1% 20.5% 24.1% 79.5% Ye a r 2 25.8% 77.6% 53.0% 19.0% 6.4% 4.0%2.7%1.5% 6.6% 3.4% Et h n i c i t y Ra c e 3.5%2.4%1.6% Ye a r 1 25.7% 79.1% 54.5% 16.8% 6.6%5.8% 4.1% Et h n i c i t y Ra c e Ba s e l i n e 27.9% 80.0% 54.1% 17.1% 6.9% 2.9% 3.7% Et h n i c i t y Ra c e 2.6%3.2%1.6% 6 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update The proportion of people experiencing homelessness who are Latina/e/o (20.5%) is less than their representation in the Alameda County general population (22%). However, other systemwide outcomes for this population have been declining since the launch of the Home Together Plan: • The proportion of people who are Latina/e/o who gained housing in Year 3 (16.3%) was lower than the proportion of Latina/e/o people experiencing homelessness (20.5%). • The rate of returns to homelessness for people who are Latina/e/o increased from 15.8% in Year 1 to 17.9% in Year 3. • The proportion of people newly experiencing homelessness who are Latina/e/o increased from 18% in Year 1 to 21% in Year 3. These issues will continue to be examined and addressed in the refreshed Home Together strategic plan. Figure 6 | Proportion of People Served (Experiencing Homelessness) and Those Who Gained Housing, for Black/African Americans and Latina/e/o, Year 3 (FY23–24) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 58.3% 16.3% 51.1% 20.5% Black/African American Latina/o/e Served ServedGained Housing Gained Housing Figure 7 | Rates of Return to Homelessness by Race and Ethnicity, Years 2 and 3 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Year 2 (FY22–23) Rate of Return Year 3 (FY23–24) Rate of Return Year 3 (FY23–24) Systemwide Average (15.7%) Black, African American, or African White Asian or Asian American American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Multi-Racial Latina/e/o 15.9%15.6% 17.2% 11.8%12.5% 19.7% 16.1% 9.5%10.7% 16.2% 12.7% 17.9% 14.1% 15.1% 7 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update The rate at which people who have gained housing (after experiencing homelessness) later return to homelessness remained similar in Year 3 (15.7%) compared to Year 2 (15.1%). This rate is lower than before the Home Together Plan was launched (18% in FY20–21) but still higher than the Home Together 2026 goal of a 9% return rate. Lack of resources for homelessness prevention and long-term rental assistance has hindered additional progress to reduce returns to homelessness. Figure 8 | Proportion of People Newly Experiencing Homelessness, by Race and Ethnicity, Years 1, 2 and 3 60% 70% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Year 1 (FY 21–22) Year 2 (FY 22–23) Year 3 (FY 23–24) 2024 Alameda County General Population Black, African American, or African White Asian or Asian American American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Multi-Racial Latina/e/o The representation of people who are American Indian/Alaska Native among those experiencing homelessness (3.6%) is more than double the proportion of people who are American Indian/ Alaska Native in the Alameda County general population (1%). While the proportion of people newly experiencing homelessness has decreased among people who are American Indian/Alaska Native (from 4% in Year 1 to 3% in Year 3), people who are American Indian/ Alaska Native still remain overrepresented among those newly experiencing homelessness compared to their representation in the general population of Alameda County (1%). 8 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update TAKEAWAY #3 Without new investments, the homelessness response system has not been able to expand or implement many key Home Together strategies. Between FY22–23 and FY23–24 the gap between the annual Home Together Plan funding target and the actual funding for homelessness response system operations grew (from -$156.2M in Year 2 to -$204.9M in Year 3). Lack of new funding for permanent housing programs comprised the majority of this shortfall, particularly for Dedicated Affordable Housing and Shallow Subsidies. Since the launch of the Home Together Plan investment in Shallow Subsidies and Dedicated Affordable Housing has been consistently lacking, leading to little to no growth in the inventory for these program models which were identified as priorities by the community, and that comprise a significant portion of the permanent housing inventory targeted in the Home Together Plan. Table 1 | Program Operations Relative to Projected Need, Year 3 (FY23–24) Inventory Type Year 3 Actual Investments Year 3 Investment Target % of Investment Target Achieved in Year 3 Year 3 Funding Gap (Actual – Target) Housing Problem Solving/Rapid Resolution $5.9M $3.5M 168.6% + $2.4M Crisis Response (shelter/interim) $151.3M $103.6Ma 146%+ $47.7M Transitional Housing for Youth $916,407 $5.3M 17.3%- $4.4M Rapid Re-Housing $13.7M $36.8M 37.2%- $23.1M Supportive Housing (PSH) $116.3M $195.9M 59.3%- $79.6M Dedicated Affordable Housing $520,350 $117M 0.4%- $116.5M Shallow Subsidies $418,617 $31.9M 1.3%- $31.5M TOTAL $289.1M $494M 58.5%- $204.9M a) Note that this includes more than $60M from the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing award to Alameda County, which will be spent over four years. 9 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Since the launch of the Home Together 2026 Community Plan, funding for supportive housing has remained static, while funding for crisis response has grown (see Appendix A, Figure A-7). Operation of emergency shelter and transitional housing remains the top funded activity for more than half of the cities in Alameda County (see Appendix A, Table A-5). Systemwide investments for shelter (crisis response) in Year 3 exceeded the Home Together modeling target. Yet, similar to previous years, the simultaneous lack of growth in permanent housing leaves people who are sheltered without opportunities to move out of homelessness, thus increasing the need for shelter. Total capital investments awarded in Year 3 were significantly higher than in Year 2 ($96.8M vs $26.7M) mostly due to investments in Supportive Housing.3 Funding for the operation of street outreach programs also increased in Year 3 compared to Year 2, while funding invested in homelessness prevention decreased during this time. 3 $54M in cyclical Homekey funding was awarded in Year 2. Figure 9 | Year 3 (FY23–24) Home Together Funding: Total Investments by Program Type ($435.8M) Total Investments: $435.8M Diversion/Rapid Resolution — $5.9M Crisis Response — $151.3M Rapid Re-Housing — $13.6M Supportive Housing (PSH) — $116.3M Shallow Subsidy — $0.4M Transitional Housing for Youth — $0.9M Crisis Response — $2.4M Dedicated Affordable Housing — $0.09M Supportive Housing (PSH) — $96.8M Homelessness Prevention — $0.72M Street Outreach — $17M Admin/Sys Infrastructure — $21.9M Health Care Services — $7.3M Housing and Shelter Programs $289.1M Capital Investments $99.3M Other Programs $47.4M 10 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update TAKEAWAY #4 Sustainable funding is essential for a stable and effective homelessness response system. Overall, more than half (55%) of the operations funding for key system programs was one-time/non-renewable in Year 3, which is higher than the proportion of one-time funds in Year 2 (39%). Reliable, ongoing funds are critical to maintaining the existing system inventory and programs and allow for new funds to be used to expand efforts to serve more people (instead of backfilling prior year funding to sustain existing programs). Crisis Response funding (interim/shelter funding) represented the highest proportion of one-time/non- renewable funding across the response system. This presents an acute problem, as shelter projects are often launched by local jurisdictions without dedicated long-term funding to begin with. As local budgets tighten, more and more projects are at risk of insolvency if stable funding to support this inventory longer term are not identified. As in past years, while a smaller portion of systemwide funding comes from federal sources ($96.1M or 22%) most of this federal funding has been considered recurring/ renewable. In contrast, the largest portion of funding in Year 3 (FY23–24) comes from State sources ($237.3M or 54.4%) which are primarily considered one-time/non-renewable. Local funding ($102.4M) comprised 23.5% of investments in the homelessness response system in Year 3, and 57% of these funds were considered one-time commitments. Ongoing political and economic uncertainties call into question the stability of funding sources that have previously been considered reliable year to year, raising concerns about long-term sustainability. In the third year of the Home Together 2026 Community Plan, fewer people experiencing homelessness were rehoused, reflecting funding cuts in the prior year. Investments in the first two years of the Plan, while not at the level projected, expanded the system’s resources. However, investments in new housing have slowed, resulting in fewer housing opportunities even as a greater number of shelter beds have become available. Small improvements in equity were seen with decreases in new entries and returns to homelessness, especially for African- Americans, but vast disparities in rates of homelessness remain. Figure 10 | Nonrecurring and Recurring/ Renewable Funding by Source, Year 3 $50M $100M $150M $200M $250M $0M Nonrecurring Recurring/renewable Local State Federal $64,204,051 $173,054,875 $80,506,130 $15,565,208 $44,121,498 $58,266,768 Figure 11 | Nonrecurring vs. Recurring/Renewable Funds for Key System Programs, Year 3 $0.9M Health Care Services $13.6MRapid Re-Housing Transitional Housing for Youth $7.3M Admin & System Infrastructure $22M Shallow Subsidies $116.3MPermanent Supportive Housing $0.4M Street Outreach $17.4M Crisis Response $151.3M Housing Problem Solving/ Rapid Resolution $0.7MHomelessness Prevention $5.9M One-Time Funds Recurring/Renewable Funds Y3 Investments TOTAL FUNDING $336.5M45% 41% 77% 30% 83% 100% 75% 79% 86% 55% 59% 23% 70% 17% 25% 21% 14% 28% 100% 72% 11 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Activities Launched • The Alameda County Homelessness Prevention Framework was finalized. The Framework outlines the actions and resources needed to significantly prevent homelessness in Alameda County. • The City of Oakland, in partnership with Bay Area Community Services, launched the Targeted Homelessness Prevention Program, targeting short-term financial assistance and resource coordination to those most likely to fall into homelessness. The program has served 1,146 households. • The City of Alameda launched Rise Up Alameda, a Guaranteed Income Pilot program supporting 150 low-income participants with $1,000 per month over a 2-year period. • The Cities of Hayward, Berkeley and Oakland continue to operate Shallow Subsidy programs with the goal of preventing at-risk households from becoming homeless, and the City of San Leandro is preparing to launch a shallow subsidy/rental assistance program for households at imminent risk of homelessness by the Spring of 2025. Pending Funding • Homelessness prevention is a critical component to achieving the HT goal of dramatically reducing homelessness in Alameda County. Recommended strategies to reduce inflow and address racially disproportionate inflow into homelessness and returns to homelessness are detailed in the Alameda County Homelessness Prevention Framework, and include new prevention programs and networks, mainstream coordination and increased tenant protections. Funding is needed to support the implementation of this framework. Year 3 Actions on Home Together Goals GOAL #1 Prevent homelessness for our residents 12 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Activities Launched • The City of Livermore opened the Vineyard Resource Center which provides domestic violence emergency shelter beds, on-site case management services, and helps connect people experiencing homelessness with housing and resources. • The City of Oakland acquired Mandela Homes, which will offer 105 rooms of interim housing for single adults and couples from three Oakland encampments, and will transition to 125 units of Permanent Supportive Housing in Spring 2026. • Behavioral Health Bridge Housing funding was used to support the addition of 160 interim housing beds to support people experiencing homelessness with serious mental illness and substance use. • The City of Alameda added a full-time clinician on site for the Dignity Village homeless shelter. • Health Care for the Homeless expanded mobile shelter based dental services for people experiencing homelessness. • Health Care for the Homeless was awarded SAMSHA funding to provide Medications for Opioid Use Disorders, including medicated assisted treatment and substance use recovery services, providing services in shelters. Pending Funding • Despite exceeding the Home Together targets for interim housing and shelter inventory (118%) and corresponding funding investments (146%), additional shelter is necessary to meet existing and future need, as insufficient permanent housing opportunities were created to achieve rapid flow out of interim beds. • Dedicated funding is needed in order to expand and develop partnerships and programs that serve to prevent discharge from mainstream systems such as jails, foster care and hospitals into homelessness. GOAL #2 Connect people to shelter and needed resources 13 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Activities Launched • An estimated 863 units of permanent housing were added to the homelessness response system in Year 3 (FY23–24). • Three new construction sites (in Oakland, Hayward and Fremont) brought 14 new dedicated affordable housing units and 108 new permanent supportive housing units online, 45 of which are for Seniors. • There are currently over 500 homeless housing units under construction in Oakland; this includes three Homekey developments and interim housing specifically for youth ages 18–24. • Two County-owned Homekey sites in Oakland are preparing for construction and rehabilitation to convert inventory from interim to permanent supportive housing units. Pending Funding • Significant gaps remain between existing and target levels of dedicated affordable housing and shallow subsidy inventory that helps formerly homeless and people at risk of homelessness to maintain their housing. • Additional progress is still needed to expand the number of permanent supportive housing units for older/medically frail adults. • More resources are needed to achieve the Home Together Year 3 goals for Rapid Re-Housing and Permanent Supportive Housing. GOAL #3 Increase housing solutions 14 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Activities Launched • Cities throughout Alameda County collaborated to conduct the 2024 PIT Count, which was supported by a record number of volunteers (more than 1,300) who used new technology to help capture a detailed snapshot of homelessness that will inform future planning, budgeting, and investment strategies. • The Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda County CoC fully seated their committees, of which more than 40% of members are people with lived experience of homelessness. • The Alameda County HMIS team continues to build capacity to analyze and provide data that informs strategic direction and understanding of the outcomes within the homelessness response system. • The City of Newark funded a local “point-in-time” analysis of their unhoused community, intended to foster relationships and promote better coordination and communication with people experiencing homelessness. • The City of Livermore conducted a Tri-Valley needs assessment and will work to implement strategies that address the needs of people experiencing homelessness. Pending Funding • Dedicated resources are needed to support community- based organizations with hiring and retaining staff, increasing capacity and infrastructure, and providing cost of living adjustments for ongoing programs. More funding and effort is needed to improve HMIS data tracking at the city level, to geographically map homelessness system inventory, and to establish the capacity to support and monitor new and expanded homelessness response system programs. GOAL #4 Strengthen coordination, communication and capacity 15 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update HOME TOGETHER YEAR 3 Conclusion The third year of action on the Home Together 2026 Community Plan showed a drop in the system’s ability to rehouse people experiencing homelessness, reflective of decreases in funding in the previous year. Investments in the first two years, while not at the level projected, brought progress in expanding the system’s resources. However, investments in new housing have slowed, resulting in fewer housing opportunities even as a greater number of shelter beds have become available. Small improvements in equity were seen with decreases in new entries and returns to homelessness, especially for African- Americans, but vast disparities in rates of homelessness remain. Community partners continue to work to address homelessness and advance equity with the available resources, but the continued rate of new homelessness, challenges piecing together funding, and the lack of critical new investments to take efforts to scale have held up progress. The outlook for Year 4 looks similar at this time. New resources from a local tax measure are on the horizon but these will not come into play in time to influence the Plan’s fourth year. A new Plan for 2026–2030 is underway, which will benefit from all that has been learned, though future progress will be contingent not only on good joint planning but on securing resources to address the need. 16 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Funding and Investments Background The system modeling conducted for the Home Together 2026 Community Plan estimated the amount and cost of homelessness response system inventory needed to fully meet the needs of people experiencing or at risk of homelessness in Alameda County by 2026. Over five years, the Plan shows a need for a cumulative $2.5 billion in investments to support homelessness system operations.1 This translates to a growth in annual operational funding that supports programs and services from just over $270M in Year 1 (FY21–22) to approximately $730M by Year 5 (FY25–26). The funding investments tracked as part of the Year 3 Home Together progress update include data collected from Alameda County and cities about funding awarded or received in FY23–24 that was allocated for programs, services, operations and inventory within the homelessness response system. 1 This estimate is for operations only and does not account for development/ capital costs or other programs and services not included in the Home Together System Modeling. HOME TOGETHER YEAR 3 PROGRESS UPDATE Appendix A Table A-1 | FY23–24 (Year 3) Funding, by Recipient a) Some funding allocated to Alameda County, such as the State Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) grant, is sub-contracted (in part) to cities throughout Alameda County. Data in Figure A-1 includes funding as allocated to the original recipient (and does not indicate how funds may have later been sub-allocated). b) In FY22–23 funding reported as awarded to/invested by the City of Oakland comprised just 11% of total system funding, compared to 35% in FY23–24. Much of this increase in funding can be attributed to improved availability and incorporation of funding data from the City of Oakland. c) “Other” refers to known funding from a Federal or State source that goes directly to a provider, developer, or Public Housing Authority. Recipient Total Reported Funding Percent of Total Reported Funding Alameda Countya $219,650,030 50.4% Alameda $1,395,182 0.3% Albany $626,136 0.1% Berkeley $30,513,428 7.0% Dublin $229,051 0.1% Emeryville $293,830 0.1% Fremont $4,448,649 1.0% Hayward $3,062,538 0.7% Livermore $1,344,814 0.3% Newark $96,375 0.0% Oaklandb $150,580,257 34.6% Piedmont $89,091 0.0% Pleasanton $244,720 0.1% San Leandro $10,296,526 2.4% Union City $253,935 0.1% Otherc $12,688,968 2.9% TOTAL $435,813,530 100% 17 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update State Funding Federal Funding Local Funding Total System Funding Received YEAR 1 $368.6M (64.0%)$118.6M (20.6%)$86.2M (14.9%)$576.3M YEAR 2 $179.2M (51.2%)$98M (28.0%)$72.5M (20.7%)$349.8M YEAR 3 $237.3M (54.4%)$96.1M (22.0%)$102.4M (23.5%)$435.8M Table A-2 | Funding by Source, Years 1, 2 and 3 Figure A-1 | Year 3 (FY23–24) Funding from Local Sources, by Jurisdiction Total Local Funding: $102.4M19% Alameda County 15% Berkeley 58% Oakland 5% Others Contributing between 1–2%: Hayward, Alameda, Livermore, San Leandro, Emeryville, Pleasanton, Albany and Dublin 3% Fremont Figure A-2 | Year 3 (FY23–24) Funding by Originating Source a) Private sources of funding include only those resources going from a private/philanthropic source directly to the county or a city. Othera $95,000 0.02% State $237.3M 54.4% Local $102.4M 23.5% Federal $96.1M 22% Efforts to ensure data quality are ongoing. While the many lessons learned since the launch of the Home Together 2026 Community Plan have been applied to improve the quality of annual data collection and reporting, variance in data quality is always a factor that can impact findings. Where possible, this report notes instances where data quality may be a factor impacting reported findings. Year 3 Homelessness Response System Funding by Recipient and Source Table A-1 shows total funding used for homelessness response related activities received by Alameda County and local jurisdictions in FY23–24 (Year 3). Figure A-1 shows locally generated funding that was allocated towards homeless programs, services, and inventory in Year 3, by jurisdiction that invested the funding. Locally generated funds include county or city general funds, including funding generated from sources such as local tax measures, etc. As Figure A-2 illustrates, more than half of homelessness response system funding received in Year 3 originated from the State of California, 22% was awarded from the Federal government and more than 23% of funding came from locally generated revenue. This breakdown of funding by originating source shows notable increases in state (+32%) and local funding (+41%) over the last year and a slight decrease in federal funds (-3%). 18 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update a) Note that the $151.3M in funding investments for Crisis Response includes more than $60M from the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing award to Alameda County, which will be spent over four years. Table A-3 | Investments in Program Operations Relative to Projected Need, Year 3 compared to Years 1 and 2 Inventory Type Year 1 Actual Investmentsa Year 2 Actual Investments Year 3 Actual Investments Year 3 Estimated Resources Needed % of Investment Target Achieved in Year 3 Year 3 Funding Gap (Actual- Target) Year 3 Amount and % of One-time Funding (non- renewable) Housing Problem Solving/ Rapid Resolution $3.4M $5.2M $5.9M $3.5M 168.6% + $2.4M $3.5M 59% Crisis Response Beds (shelter/interim) $80.7M $93.2M $151.3Ma $103.6M 146% + 47.7M $106.1M 70% Transitional Housing for Youth N/A $2.1M $916,407 $5.3M 17.3% – $4.4M N/A N/A Rapid Re-Housing $20M $8.6M $13.7M $36.8M 37.2% – $23.1M $3.8M 28% Supportive Housing (PSH) $121M $122.5M $116.3M $195.9M 59.3% – $79.6M $29.5M 25% Dedicated Affordable Housing $24.9M N/A $520,350 $117M 0.4% – $116.5M N/A N/A Shallow Subsidies $3.1M $2.6M $418,617 $31.9M 1.3% – $31.5M N/A N/A TOTAL $253.1M $234.3M $289.1M $494M 58.5% – $204.9M $143M 49% Home Together Funding, Years 1, 2 and 3 Table A-3 shows funding received in Year 3 compared to Years 1 and 2 for programmatic activities included in the Home Together system modeling.2 The table also indicates the percent of the Home Together target achieved in Year 3, the funding gap that exists between actual investments and the investment target, and the proportion of funding for each inventory type that is non-renewable (one-time funding). Figure A-6 shows, for Year 3, the breakdown of total system funding for the operation of housing and shelter programs and services by program type. Figure A-7 shows funding for these program areas in Years 1 through 3. 2 Data in the table does not include capital funding or funding for other programs such as homelessness prevention and street outreach that were not included in the Home Together system modeling. 19 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Figure A-4 | Nonrecurring vs. Recurring/Renewable Funds for Key System Programs, Year 3 $0.9M Health Care Services $13.6MRapid Re-Housing Transitional Housing for Youth $7.3M Admin & System Infrastructure $22M Shallow Subsidies $116.3MPermanent Supportive Housing $0.4M Street Outreach $17.4M Crisis Response $151.3M Housing Problem Solving/ Rapid Resolution $0.7MHomelessness Prevention $5.9M One-Time Funds Recurring/Renewable Funds Y3 Investments TOTAL FUNDING $336.5M45% 41% 77% 30% 83% 100% 75% 79% 86% 55% 59% 23% 70% 17% 25% 21% 14% 28% 100% 72% Figure A-5 | Nonrecurring and Recurring/ Renewable Funding by Source, Year 3 $50M $100M $150M $200M $250M $0M Nonrecurring Recurring/renewable Local State Federal $64,204,051 $173,054,875 $80,506,130 $15,565,208 $44,121,498 $58,266,768 Figure A-3 | Year 3 (FY23–24) Home Together Funding: Total Investments by Program Type Total Investments: $435.8M Diversion/Rapid Resolution — $5.9M Crisis Response — $151.3M Rapid Re-Housing — $13.6M Supportive Housing (PSH) — $116.3M Shallow Subsidy — $0.4M Transitional Housing for Youth — $0.9M Crisis Response — $2.4M Dedicated Affordable Housing — $0.09M Supportive Housing (PSH) — $96.8M Homelessness Prevention — $0.72M Street Outreach — $17M Admin/Sys Infrastructure — $21.9M Health Care Services — $7.3M Housing and Shelter Programs $289.1M Capital Investments $99.3M Other Programs $47.4M 20 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Figure A-7 | Housing and Shelter Program Investments, Years 1, 2 and 3 $50M $100M $150M $200M $250M $300M $0M Supportive Housing (PSH) Dedicated Affordable Crisis Response (Shelter/TH)a Shallow Subsidy Transitional Housing for Youth Diversion/Rapid Resolution Rapid Re-housing $3.1M (1%)$3.4M (1%) Year 1 (FY21–22) $121M (48%) $80.7M (32%) $24.9M (10%) $20.1M (8%)$5.2M (2%) $2.6M (1%) $8.6M (4%) $2.1M (1%) Year 2 (FY22–23) $5.9M (2%) $0.4M (0.1%) $13.7M (5%) $0.5M (0.2%) $0.9M (0.3%) Year 3 (FY23–24) $122.5M (52%)$116.3M (40%) $93.2M (40%)$151.3M (52%) a) Note that the $103.6M in Crisis Response funding in FY23–24 includes more than $60M from the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing award to Alameda County, which will be spent over four years. Shallow Subsidy — 0.1% Figure A-6 | Year 3 (FY23–24) Total Housing and Shelter Program Investments ($289.1M) Transitional Housing for Youth — 0.3% Diversion/Rapid Resolution — 2%Rapid Re-housing — 4.73% Dedicated Affordable — 0.2%Crisis Response (Shelter/TH) 52.3% Supportive Housing 40.3% 21 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update 4% ($9.5M) 9% ($5.1M) 6% ($14.4M) Figure A-8 | Capital Investments, Years 1, 2 and 3 $50M $100M $150M $200M $250M $300M $0M Year 1 (FY21–22) Dedicated Affordable Crisis Response (Shelter/TH) Supportive Housing (PSH) 91% ($230.4M) 47% ($26.7M) 44% ($24.6M) Year 2 (FY22–23)Year 3 (FY23–24) 4% ($9.5M) 6% ($14.4M) 97% ($96.8M) Capital and Other Program Investments Data in Table A-4 highlights funding awarded or invested in programs not included in the Home Together 2026 system modeling. These include some service programs such as prevention and street outreach, as well as capital investments to develop new shelter and permanent housing inventory. As Table A-4 and Figure A-8 show, total capital investments reported in Year 3 were significantly higher than what was allocated in Year 2, mostly due to increased investments for Supportive Housing. However, this increase was much lower than Year 1 investments and significantly short of the amount needed to substantially grow the inventory. Almost no capital/development funds were reported for dedicated affordable housing, despite the importance placed on this resource type in the Home Together Plan. Funding for the operation of street outreach programs increased in Year 3 compared to Year 2, while funding awarded/allocated towards homelessness prevention decreased during this time. Table A-4 | Capital and Other Program Investments, Years 1, 2 and 3a a) Prevention funding tracked as part of the Home Together Plan implementation only includes investments targeted towards people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Therefore, funding for broader sources of emergency rental assistance or legal support for general low income populations at risk of eviction are not included in the estimates of eviction prevention and emergency rental assistance presented in this report. Program Types Year 1 (FY21–22) Investmentsa Year 2 (FY22–23) Investments Year 3 (FY23–24) Investments Year 2–3 Difference Capital Investments Crisis Response $14.4M $24.6M $2.4M – $22.2M Dedicated Affordable $9.5M $5.1M $0.1M – $5.0M Supportive Housing $230.4M $26.7M $96.8M + $70.2M Total $254.2M $56.4M $99.3M + $43.0M Other Programs Homelessness Prevention $7.9M $5.3M $0.7M – $4.6M Street Outreach $14.6M $11.4M $17.4M + $6.0M Admin/Sys Infrastructure $27.3M $17.1M $22.0M + $4.8M Health Care Services $0.0M $9.8M $7.3M – $2.5M Total $68.8M $43.6M $47.4M + $3.8M 22 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Table A-5 | Year 3 (FY23–24) Activities Funded by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Total Allocations Top 3 Funded Activities Investment City of Alameda $1.4M Crisis Response (Shelter/TH) — Ops & Svcs $1.4M City of Albany $0.6M Crisis Response (Shelter/TH) — Ops & Svcs Street Outreach Rapid Re-Housing Rental Assistance $0.3M $0.2M $0.2M City of Berkeley $30.5M Crisis Response (Shelter/TH) — Ops & Svcs PSH Rental Assistance (Tenant-Based) Street Outreach $12.0M $5.8M $4.8M City of Dublin $0.2M Crisis Response (Shelter/TH) — Ops & Svcs Health Care Services $0.2M $0.03M City of Emeryville $0.3M Street Outreach Rapid Re-Housing Rental Assistance Rapid Re-Housing Services $0.1M $0.1M $0.03M City of Fremont $4.4M Crisis Response (Shelter/TH) — Ops & Svcs Street Outreach Homelessness Prevention $2.2M $1.6M $0.3M City of Hayward $3.1M Crisis Response (Shelter/TH) — Ops & Svcs Prevention $3.0M $0.1M City of Livermore $1.3M Crisis Response (Shelter/TH) — Ops & Svcs Street Outreach Crisis Response (Shelter/TH) Development $0.4M $0.3M $0.3M City of Newark $0.1M Crisis Response (Shelter/TH) — Ops & Svcs $0.1M City of Oakland $151.0M PSH Development Crisis Response (Shelter/TH) — Ops & Svcs PSH Operations (Project-Based) $86.3M $38.7M $16.2M City of Piedmont $0.1M Dedicated Affordable Housing — Dev.$0.1M City of Pleasanton $0.2M Street Outreach PSH Operations (Project-Based) Rapid Re-Housing Services $0.1M $0.06M $0.04M City of San Leandro $10.3M PSH Development PSH Operations (Project-Based) Crisis Response (Shelter/TH) — Ops & Svcs $8.1M $1.3M $0.3M City of Union City $0.3M Street Outreach $0.3M Alameda County $219.3M Crisis Response (Shelter/TH) — Ops & Svcs PSH Rental Assistance (Tenant-Based) PSH Services $92.7M $43.7M $23.3M Other (Provider/Developer/Public Housing Authority) $12.7M PSH Rental Assistance (Tenant-Based) PSH Services Street Outreach $4.4M $3.9M $2.7M TOTAL $435.8M Funding Investments, by Jurisdiction Table A-5 shows the top 3 program activities that Year 3 funding was allocated towards in each jurisdiction. The top funded activity for more than half of the jurisdictions is the operation of emergency shelter and transitional housing. Street outreach is also one of the top 3 funded activities among more than half of the jurisdictions. 23 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update List of Year 3 Funding Sources The following is a list of sources for the funding awards reported in Year 3 of the Home Together Progress Update. Funding sources were reported along with funding award and investment data from Alameda County and cities. Sources listed in bold are new funding sources (not included as funding sources in Year 2/FY22–23). 1. AB109 2. Affordable Housing Fund — City of Fremont 3. Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF) 4. Alameda County Social Services Agency (SSA) — Housing Fast Support Network (HFSN) 5. American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) 6. Behavioral Health Bridge Housing (BHBH) 7. Boomerang 8. CalAIM (Medi-Cal) 9. CalWORKs Housing Support Program (HSP) 10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 11. City of Fremont Social Service Grant 12. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 13. Emergency Solutions Grant — COVID (ESG CV) 14. Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) 15. Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF) 16. Family Homelessness Challenge Grant 17. General Fund — Alameda County 18. General Fund — City of Alameda 19. General Fund — City of Albany 20. General Fund — City of Emeryville 21. General Fund — City of Fremont 22. General Fund — City of Hayward 23. General Fund — City of Livermore 24. General Fund — City of Oakland 25. General Fund — City of Piedmont 26. General Fund — City of Pleasanton 27. General Fund — City of San Leandro 28. Alameda County General Fund — Tobacco Master Settlement Fund (TMSF) 29. Health Resources & Services Administration 30. HOME Investment Partnerships Program 31. Homekey 32. Homeless Housing, Assistance & Prevention (HHAP) 33. Housing and Disability Advocacy Program (HDAP) 34. Housing and Homelessness Incentive Program (HHIP) 35. Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Initiative (HUD EDI-SP) 36. Housing in Lieu — City of Livermore 37. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 38. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program Income (HOPWA PI) 39. HUD — Continuum of Care (CoC) 40. HUD CoC Unsheltered Award 41. Human Services Facility Fee — City of Livermore 42. Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG) Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) — City of Oakland 43. Jobs/Housing Impact Fund (JHIF) — City of Oakland 44. Low Income Housing Fund — City of Pleasanton 45. Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (LMIHAF) — City of Oakland 46. Measure A — Alameda County 47. Measure P — City of Berkeley 48. Measure Q — City of Oakland 49. Measure U — City of Oakland 50. Medical Administrative Activities (MAA) 51. Mental Health Block Grant (MHBG) 52. Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) 53. Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) — Innovations Funding (INN) 54. Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) — Capital Facilities and Technological Needs (CFTN) 55. Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) — American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) 56. Oakland Path Rehousing Initiative/ Sponsor-Based Housing Assistance Program (OPRI/SBHAP) 57. Providing Access and Transforming Health — Capacity and Infrastructure Transition, Expansion and Development (PATH CITED) 58. Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) — City of Oakland 59. Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) — City of Alameda 60. Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) — City of Fremont 61. Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) — City of Hayward 62. Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) — City of Livermore 63. Private Donation 64. Realignment Housing Program (RHP) 65. Social Opportunity Endowment 66. Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA)/Grants for the Benefit of Homeless Individuals (GBHI) 67. Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA)/Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) 68. Tipping Point Foundation 24 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Category Category Type Definition Funding Type Federal Funding that is allocated directly from the federal government to an Alameda County recipient (county or city agency). State Funding that is allocated from the State of California to an Alameda County recipient (county or city agency). Federal funding that passes through the State (e.g., State ESG) are classified here as a state source. Local Revenue that is generated and appropriated at the county or city level. Other Private or philanthropic funding. Total Funding N/A The total amount of funding going to a particular program activity. Program Activity Administrative Activities Funding retained by a recipient or passed through to a subrecipient to support grant/program administration expenses. Crisis Response (ES, TH, SH) — Development Funding to support acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of a building to be used for emergency shelter (ES), transitional housing (TH), safe haven (SH), or other crisis response programs. Crisis Response (ES, TH, SH) — Operations & Services Funding to cover operations, case management, and support services for emergency shelter (ES), transitional housing (TH), safe haven (SH), or other crisis response programs. Operations includes expenses such as leases, maintenance, repairs, insurance, utilities, cleaning, security, food, furnishings, equipment, and supplies. Dedicated Affordable Housing (DAH) — Development Funding to support acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of a building to be used as DAH. Dedicated Affordable Housing (DAH) — Rental Assistance Funding to cover rental assistance for households in scattered-site DAH programs. Diversion/Rapid Resolution Funding to support shelter diversion and rapid resolution at the front-door of the homelessness response system. Health Care Services Funding for direct health care services provided to populations experiencing homelessness. Homelessness Prevention Funding for emergency rental assistance/arrears, emergency utility assistance/arrears, landlord-tenant mediation, and/or legal assistance to help households avoid eviction, as well as funding dedicated for additional targeted homelessness prevention activities. PSH — Development Funding to support acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of a building to be used as PSH. PSH — Operations (Project-Based)Funding to cover operations in buildings used for PSH. Operations includes expenses such as leases, maintenance, repairs, insurance, utilities, cleaning, security, food, furnishings, equipment, and supplies. PSH — Rental Assistance (Tenant-Based) Funding to cover rental assistance for households in scattered site PSH programs. PSH — Services Funding to cover case management and stabilization services for households in PSH programs. Table A-6 | Year 3 Home Together Funding Category Definitions 25 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Category Category Type Definition Program Activity RRH — Rental Assistance Funding to cover security deposit and rental assistance for households in rapid re-housing. RRH — Services Funding to cover case management and stabilization services for households in rapid re-housing. Shallow Subsidy Funding to cover shallow rental subsidies, providing a partial rent payment on behalf of an eligible tenant to reduce the household’s rent burden and increase their available income. Street Outreach Funding to provide street outreach, street health, supportive services and case management/housing navigation support for clients in unsheltered locations. System Infrastructure Funding that supports system operations, including (but not limited to) development of new IT systems or improvements to existing systems, staff to support system administration (e.g., CoC board staffing, Coordinated Entry Staffing, HMIS Administrator staffing), stipends for people with lived experience, provider training or capacity building support, etc. Transitional Housing for Youth Temporary housing and appropriate supportive services geared toward transition age youth to facilitate movement to permanent housing. To Be Allocated Program activities to be supported by the funding are not yet determined. One-Time or Recurring/Renewable One-Time A one-time appropriation or grant not expected to be funded in future years. The funding may have a multi-year expenditure or draw-down period, but would still be considered one-time if it’s not anticipated to be funded again or eligible for renewal in future years. Recurring/Renewable Funding that is expected to continue (be eligible for renewal) in future years (i.e., once appropriated, it is assumed to be part of the baseline budget in future years). Existing or New Inventory Existing Inventory Funding that supports existing units or subsidy slots, such that the inventory remains at a steady state. The inventory may serve new people over time (due to turnover of slots), but the funding does not provide new inventory. New Inventory Funding that supports the creation of new/additional units or subsidy slots. Baseline + Some New Some amount of funding is used to support existing inventory, but a portion is used to expand inventory. This will typically be the case when a funding source increases substantially from one year to the next (i.e., beyond inflation adjustments designed to cover rent increases for the current inventory). Table A-6 | Year 3 Home Together Funding Category Definitions, Continued 26 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update HOME TOGETHER YEAR 3 Appendix B System Inventory Background The Home Together 2026 Community Plan identifies the need for more than 24,000 housing opportunities across a range of program types to meet existing and anticipated need by 2026. This range of housing is a combination of new short and long-term subsidies and permanent housing units. The Plan also calls for a short-term surge in shelter availability while the system is simultaneously growing its inventory of permanent housing interventions to reduce unsheltered homelessness.1 It is important to emphasize that a decline in the need for shelter will come only when housing opportunities are available for people to move into and when unsheltered homelessness declines. 1 Detail about housing and shelter inventory needs in the Home Together 2026 Community Plan can be found at https://homelessness. acgov.org/homelessness-assets/docs/reports/Home-Together-2026_ Report_051022.pdf. Figure B-1 | Home Together System Inventory Needs vs. Actualsa a) Interim/Shelter Inventory includes Crisis Response (Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, Safe Haven) and Transitional Housing for Youth. Year 3 Homelessness Response System Inventory Figure B-1 shows totals for actual permanent housing and crisis response (shelter and transitional housing) inventory2 compared to annual targets set for Years 1, 2 and 3 of the Home Together Plan. 2 Permanent housing inventory in this figure includes Rapid Re-Housing, PSH, Dedicated Affordable Housing and Shallow Subsidies. Crisis response inventory in this figure includes Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, Safe Haven and Transitional Housing for Youth. See Table B-1 for more detail. 7,890 16,530 21,160 27,850 12,020 3,000 3,470 2,270 1,790 3,690 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Year 1 (FY21–22) Year 2 (FY22–23) Year 3 (FY23–24) Year 4 (FY24–25) Year 5 (FY25–26) HT Inventory Needs HT Inventory Needs Permanent Housing Inventory Crisis Response Inventory Inventory Actuals Inventory Actuals 5,692 3,459 6,801 7,664 3,8663,298 27 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Home Together System Inventory Tracking Table B-1 shows detailed inventory totals for rapid resolution, interim and shelter programs, and permanent housing programs from Years 1, 2 and 3. The table also includes the percentage of the Home Together Year 3 (FY23–24) inventory target achieved for each program type. Inventory in Year 3 (FY23–24) for rapid resolution, crisis response and transitional housing for youth exceeds the targets set in the Home Together Plan for FY23–24; however, Year 3 permanent housing inventory is below target levels for all programs. Without sufficient expansion of housing opportunities, people who are sheltered cannot move out of homelessness, and the need for additional shelter will continue to increase. Inventory Type Year 1 (FY21–22) Inventory Year 2 (FY22–23) Inventory Year 3 (FY23–24) Inventory FY23–24 Home Together Target % of FY23–24 Target Achieved Rapid Resolution Housing Problem Solving/Rapid Resolutiona 574 732 975 190 + 513% Interim/Shelter Inventory Crisis Response (Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, Safe Haven) 3,343 3,163 3,693 3,140 + 118% Transitional Housing for Youth 116 135 173 140 + 123% Permanent Housing Inventory Rapid Re-Housing 1,112 824 1,197 1,560 - 77% Supportive Housing (PSH)b 4,028 4,800 5,203 6,980 - 74% Dedicated Affordable Housing 495 880 960 5,240 - 18.3% Shallow Subsidy 57 297 304c 2,750 - 11% Table B-1 | Homelessness Response System Inventory, Years 1, 2 and 3 a) Targets for the category of Housing Problem Solving/Rapid Resolution are intended to track Housing Problem Solving and Rapid Resolution programs, which were much smaller in number when these targets were set. The system model did not incorporate Eviction Prevention and other financial assistance programs at the time, as available funding for these program types was small, not specifically targeted to dedicated homelessness prevention, and not within the homelessness response system’s purview at that time. b) Supportive housing (PSH) includes Supportive Housing for older/frail adults. c) The 304 Shallow Subsidies come from programs funded by the cities of Berkeley (43), Hayward (46) and Oakland (215). 28 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Homelessness Response System Inventory by Jurisdiction, Year 3 The Oakland, Berkeley/Alameda County Continuum of Care (CoC) reports its Housing Inventory Count (HIC) annually to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The HIC reflects the beds and units known to the CoC on the night of the Point in Time Count of the given year (generally at the end of January). Table B-2 includes data from the 2024 HIC, updated through June 2024, showing inventory by jurisdiction, in program types tracked and monitored as part of the Home Together Plan. Table B-2 | Homelessness Response System Inventory by Jurisdiction, Year 2a a) Source: 2024 Housing Inventory Count, modified to reflect additions between February and June and updates reported by jurisdiction to H&H. b) Castro Valley is located in Unincorporated Alameda County. Cities Crisis Response Transitional Housing for Youth PSH Rapid Re- Housing Shallow Subsidies Dedicated Affordable TOTAL Alameda 160 —488 ———648 Albany ——————0 Berkeley 421 11 636 52 43 —1163 Castro Valleyb 50 —74 ———124 Emeryville 76 —36 ———112 Fremont 111 —572 231 —25 939 Hayward 173 56 1377 49 46 —1701 Livermore 83 —103 6 —7 199 Newark 32 —106 ———138 Oakland 2,523 106 1688 750 215 14 5296 Pleasanton ———8 ——8 San Leandro 64 —118 101 ——283 Union City ——————0 Countywide —————914 914 Unknown ——5 ———5 TOTAL 3,693 173 5,203 1,197 304 960 11,530 29 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Homelessness Response System Pipeline Inventory Looking ahead, an additional 1,300 units of permanent supportive housing, more than 120 Dedicated Affordable Housing units and 370 shelter beds are anticipated to be added to the homelessness response system inventory over the next one–two years. Table B-3 shows how this inventory will be allocated by household type. Table B-3 | Homelessness Response System Pipeline Inventory, Coming Online in Years 4 and 5 (FY24–25 and FY25–26)a a) Source: Alameda County Office of Homeless Care and Coordination Housing Services Division and data provided by City Homeless Departments. b) Note that a significant proportion of these beds are short term; for more detail see breakdown of one-time funding for Crisis Response in Appendix A. Inventory Type Adult Only Households Households with Children Transitional Housing for Youth 20 beds — Crisis Response (ES, TH, SH)b 250 beds 120 beds Rapid Rehousing 30 — Supportive Housing (PSH) 1,017 285 Dedicated Affordable Housingb 108 15 Shallow Subsidy 88 — 30 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update HOME TOGETHER YEAR 3 Appendix C Key Performance Measures Background Performance measures help to provide an understanding of how well the homelessness response system is moving towards the goal of reducing homelessness. These measures identify rates of inflow into and outflow from the homelessness response system, and indicate where resources and system expansion are necessary to meet current and future need. Data to calculate these measures comes primarily from the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), a local database which collects client-level data and data on the provision of housing and services to homeless individuals and families and persons at risk of homelessness. Unlike the Point in Time (PIT) Count, HMIS data is collected continuously throughout the year. Measure 2019 PIT 2022 PIT 2024 PIT Number of persons experiencing homelessness at point in time 8,022 (7,659 Households) 9,747 (8,211 Households) 9,450 (8,635 Households) Table C-1 | Alameda County Homelessness Point in Time Counta, 2019, 2022, 2024 a) EveryOne Counts! Alameda County Homeless Count & Survey. Applied Survey Research (ASR), 2019. Alameda County Homeless Count & Survey Comprehensive Report, Applied Survey Research (ASR), 2022. Alameda County Point-In-Time Report 2024. Prepared by Simtech Solutions. Homelessness Response System Measures Data in the tables below shows annual changes in key measures of how the homelessness response system is functioning from baseline year of the Home Together Plan through Year 3 of the Plan. • Between the baseline year (FY20–21) and Year 3 (FY23–24) the number of people served in homelessness response system programs has increased by 44% (from 17,222 to 24,865). • Between Year 1 (FY21–22) and Year 2 (FY22– 23) the number of people served annually increased by 14%, and between Year 2 and Year 3 this increase was 1.3%. 31 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Data Source System Performance Measure FY20–21 HT Baseline Year FY21–22 HT Year 1 FY22–23 HT Year 2 FY23–24 HT Year 3 HUD Annual Performance Reporta Number of persons served annually 17,222 (14,230 Households)21,511 (17,714 Households) 24,547 (20,321 Households) 24,865 (20,385 Households) HUD Annual Performance Report Number of persons served annually who are enrolled in permanent housing programs PSH: 2,199 RRH: 2,182 Other Hsg. Pgms: 631 Total: 5,012 (29%) PSH: 2,083 RRH: 1,966 TSS/Other Hsg. Pgms: 2,277 Total: 6,326 (29%) PSH: 2,950 RRH: 1,978 TSS/Other Hsg. Pgms: 1,986 Total: 6,911 (28%) PSH: 3,221 RRH: 2,181 TSS/Other Hsg. Pgms: 1,773 Total: 7,175 (29%) HUD System Performance Measuresb Number of persons who became homeless for the first time 3,466 3,623 4,006 4,321 HUD System Performance Measuresc Average length of time persons remain homeless 214 Days 225 Days 217 Days 241 Days HUD Annual Performance Reportd Total number of persons exiting from the homelessness response system 5,255 8,601 10,999 12,521 HUD Annual Performance Reporte Number of persons served (experiencing homelessness) exiting to positive housing destinations 2,027 (1,776 Households) 1,767 (1,579 Households) 2,420 (2,185 Households) 2,445 (2,175 Households) Custom HMIS Reportf Number of persons who moved into housing within the homelessness response system (without a program exit) 1,520 1,178 1,664 1,149 Total number of persons who gained housing 3,595 3,010 4,084 3,594 HUD System Performance Measuresg Number of persons returning to homelessness within 2 years 418 (18%) 420 (18%) 437 (15.1%)421 (16%) a) HUD Annual Performance Report: Q7a, Q8a. b) HUD System Performance Measures, Measure 5.2 (Change in the number of persons entering ES, SH, TH, and PH projects with no prior enrollments in HMIS). c) HUD System Performance Measures, Measure 1a/Metric 2. Length of Time Persons Remain Homeless (Average LOT Homeless). d) HUD Annual Performance Report of total people served: Q23c. (Exit Destination; Total persons exited minus persons exiting to excluded destinations). e) HUD Annual Performance Report of people served in non-housing projects: Q23c. (Exit Destination; Total persons exiting to positive housing destinations). f) Custom HMIS Reports: Enrollments in Permanent Housing projects during the FY with move-in dates that do not appear in the APR Exits to Positive Housing report. Note: Beginning in FY22–23, individuals enrolled in Services Only projects designed for housed individuals were incorporated into this group. g) HUD System Performance Measures, Measures 2a and 2b (number and percentage of persons who exit homelessness to permanent housing destinations and then return to homelessness within 2 years). Table C-2 | Homelessness Response System Measures FY20–21 through FY23–24 32 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Race/Ethnicity Number of Persons Served (Experiencing Homelessness) % of Total Persons Served (Experiencing Homelessness) 2024 Alameda County General Populationc White 4,318 24.1%30% Black, African American, or African 9,149 51.1%10% Asian or Asian American 501 2.8%33% American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous 651 3.6%1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 313 1.7%1% Multi-Racial 1,099 6.1%12% Hispanic/Latina/e/o 3,665 20.5%22% Table C-3 | Race and Ethnicity of People Served (Experiencing Homelessness) in Year 3, Compared to Alameda County’s General Populationa,b a) Represents only people in: Coordinated Entry, Emergency Shelter, Safe Haven, Street Outreach, Transitional Housing, Day Shelter, Services Only and Other. b) Note that analysis of race and ethnicity data for this report looked at separate/individual race and ethnicity fields to enable comparison with trends from before 2023, when HMIS methodology for collecting and reporting data on race and ethnicity was updated. c) Simtech Solutions. Alameda County Point-In-Time Report 2024. • In Year 3 (FY23–24), 29% of people served by the homelessness response system were enrolled in housing programs such as Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) or Rapid Re-Housing. The remainder of those served annually are comprised of people newly experiencing homelessness, people returning to homelessness, and other people in programs (including temporary shelter) awaiting a resource to support their ability to be housed. • The number of people who gained housing decreased from 4,084 in Year 2 (FY22–23) to 3,594 in Year 3 (FY23–24), a 12% reduction. In order to measure progress towards addressing racial disparities in Alameda County’s homeless population, data about race and ethnicity within systemwide outcomes are tracked and measured annually. 33 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 Et h n i c i t y Ra c e 20,000 Race Ethnicity White Non-Hispanic/Latina/e/o Black/African American Asian Hispanic/Latina/e/o American Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Multiracial Doesn’t know/Refused/DNC Doesn’t know/Refused/DNC Ye a r 3 3.6%2.8%1.7% 10.0%6.1%51.1% 20.5% 24.1% 79.5% Ye a r 2 25.8% 77.6% 53.0% 19.0% 6.4% 4.0%2.7%1.5% 6.6% 3.4% Et h n i c i t y Ra c e 3.5%2.4%1.6% Ye a r 1 25.7% 79.1% 54.5% 16.8% 6.6%5.8% 4.1% Et h n i c i t y Ra c e Ba s e l i n e 27.9% 80.0% 54.1% 17.1% 6.9% 2.9% 3.7% Et h n i c i t y Ra c e 2.6%3.2%1.6% a) Represents only people in: Coordinated Entry, Emergency Shelter, Safe Haven, Street Outreach, Transitional Housing, Day Shelter, Services Only and Other. Figure C-1 | Proportion of People Served (Experiencing Homelessness) by Race and Ethnicity, Years 1, 2 and 3a Figure C-1 shows the annual proportion of people enrolled in homelessness response system programs by race and ethnicity since the launch of the Home Together Plan in FY20–21. The figure illustrates a slight decrease in the number of people experiencing homelessness that are served by programs and resources within the homelessness response system. In addition, although the proportion of people experiencing homelessness who are Black/ African American has decreased since Year 1 (FY21–22), this population remains vastly overrepresented compared to the general county population. Percentages/Proportions and Rates The data in this appendix about race and ethnicity of people exiting the homelessness response system into housing as well as for people who return to homelessness after previously gaining housing is presented in two ways. Proportions (relative to all people served) provide information about the relative size of a particular group, and rates provide information about differences in experience or outcomes within particular groups, regardless of the size of that group.1 1 Percentages/proportional numbers show, for people who exited to permanent housing (or who returned to homelessness), what percent were in each racial group. These numbers help to provide a sense of the relative size of different racial/ethnic groups compared to one another, but, alone, do not indicate disparities. Rates allow for comparison across different racial/ethnic populations, regardless of the size of the individual group. Rates also allow for comparison within the same outcome; to look at which groups had higher and which had lower rates of a particular outcome. Rates also allow comparison to an average rate for everyone; this allows us to see which group’s rate is higher than the average, and which group’s rate is lower than the average. A rate is determined by comparing two numbers/percentages about the same group. Rates are used to determine disparities for particular racial/ethnic populations. 34 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update System Total Black, African American, or African White Asian or Asian American American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Multi-Racial Latina/e/o People Served (Experiencing Homelessness) 17,902 51.1% (9,149)24.1% (4,318)2.8% (501)3.6% (651)1.7% (313)6.1% (1,099)20.5% (3,665) Proportion of People Who Gained Housing 3,594 58.3% (2,094) 24.3% (874) 2% (71) 3.1% (112) 1.3% (47) 7.5% (271) 16.3% (586) Table C-4 | Proportion of People Who Gained Housing, by Race and Ethnicity, Year 3 Total Population Black, African American, or African White Asian or Asian American American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Multi-Racial Latina/e/o Number of People Who Gained Housing 3,594 2,094 874 71 112 47 271 586 Number of People Served (Experiencing Homelessness) 17,902 9,149 4,318 501 651 313 1,099 3,665 Served to Housed Rate (Gained Housing/Served)20.1%22.9%20.2%14.2%17.2%15%24.7%16% Table C-5 | Housing Rate for People Served (Experiencing Homelessness), Year 3 Exits to Permanent Housing Table C-4 shows the breakdown by race/ ethnicity of all people who gained housing in Year 3. Table C-5 shows, by race and ethnicity, the housing rate for people experiencing homelessness. This rate is calculated for each population by dividing the annual number of people who gained housing by the annual number of people served (experiencing homelessness). The data shows that Black/ African American Multiracial populations have housing rates that are higher than the systemwide average, and that Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Latina/e/o populations have housing rates furthest below the systemwide average. Figure C-2 | Proportion of People Served (Experiencing Homelessness) and Those Who Gained Housing, for Black/African Americans and Latina/e/o, Year 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 58.3% 16.3% 51.1% 20.5% Black/African American Latina/o/e Served ServedGained Housing Gained Housing 35 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Black, African American, or African White Asian or Asian American American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Multi-Racial Latina/e/o Year 3 (FY23–24) Proportion of Returns to Homelessnessa 56% (235)29% (121)2% (9)4% (15)1% (6)7% (30)20% (86) Year 2 (FY22–23) Proportion of Returns to Homelessnessa 59% (260)27% (119)2% (8)3% (15)1% (4)8% (34)17% (75) Year 1 (FY21–22) Proportion of Returns to Homelessnessa 65% (274) 22% (93) 1% (3) 4% (15) 2% (7) 6% (27) 15% (65) Baseline Year (FY20–21) Proportion of Returns to Homelessnessa 58% (241)23% (95)1% (3)4% (18)2% (8)12% (50)13% (56) Table C-6 | Proportion of People Returning to Homelessness Within 2 Years, by Race and Ethnicity a) HMIS, HUD System Performance Measures (FY23–24), Measures 2a and 2b (number and percentage of persons who exit homelessness to permanent housing destinations and then return to homelessness within 2 years). Figure C-3 | Proportion of People Returning to Homelessness, by Race and Ethnicity, Years 1, 2 and 3 60% 70% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Year 1 (FY 21–22) Year 2 (FY 22–23) Year 3 (FY 23–24) 2024 Alameda County General Population Black, African American, or African White Asian or Asian American American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Multi-Racial Latina/e/o Returns to Homelessness Preventing racially disproportionate returns to homelessness is a key strategy in the Home Together Plan. Data about the race and ethnicity of people returning to homelessness helps to guide the ways in which housing programs will be targeted and tailored to specific household needs. Data in figure C-3 and table C-6 shows the proportion of all people returning to homelessness, by race and ethnicity. The proportion of people returning to homelessness who are Black/African American and people who are American Indian, Alaska Native or Indigenous is significantly higher than their representation in the general population of Alameda County. Data in table C-7 shows the rates of returns to homelessness by race and ethnicity. These rates are determined by calculating the proportion of people from each group (race/ethnicity) who return to homelessness out of the total number of people from this group that was housed 2 years prior. 36 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Table C-7 | Rate of Returns to Homelessness by Race and Ethnicity, Years 1, 2 and 3 Systemwide Rate Black, African American, or African White Asian or Asian American American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Multi-Racial Latina/e/o Year 3 (FY23–24) Rate of Return 15.7%15.6% (235)17.2% (121)12.5% (9)16.1% (15)10.7% (6)12.7% (30)17.9% (86) Year 2 (FY22–23) Rate of Return 15.1%15.9% (260)14.1% (119)11.8% (8)19.7% (15)9.5% (4)16.2% (34)15.1% (76) Year 1 (FY21–22) Rate of Return 18%19.4% (277)17.6% (96)9.5% (4)17.9% (15)15.6% (7)16.5% (26)15.8% (66) FY20–21 (Baseline) Rate of Return 18%17.8% (242)18% (95)5.5% (3)17.3% (18)22.2% (8)24.8% (51)19.3% (80) FY19–20 Rate of Return 17%19.8% (244)12.6% (68)9.7% (7)19.0% (15)7.1% (2)15.8% (35)13.9% (58) Figure C-4 | Rates of Return to Homelessness by Race and Ethnicity, Years 2 and 3 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Year 2 (FY22–23) Rate of Return Year 3 (FY23–24) Rate of Return Year 3 (FY23–24) Systemwide Average (15.7%) Black, African American, or African White Asian or Asian American American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Multi-Racial Latina/e/o 15.9%15.6% 17.2% 11.8%12.5% 19.7% 16.1% 9.5%10.7% 16.2% 12.7% 17.9% 14.1% 15.1% 37 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Table C-8 | Proportion of People Newly Experiencing Homelessness, by Race and Ethnicity Black, African American, or African White Asian or Asian American American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Multi-Racial Latina/e/o HT Baseline Year (FY20–21)54% (1,870)29%(1,016)3%(94)5% (158)2% (55)7% (243)19% (674) Year 1 (FY21–22)55% (1,984)28% (1,026)3% (98)4% (147)2% (71)7% (240)18% (668) Year 2 (FY22–23)55% (2,193)27% (1,082)3% (116)4% (173)2% (75)6% (248)20% (788) Year 3 (FY23–24)53% (2,279)21% (925)3% (126)3% (129)2% (85)6% (250)21% (924) Persons Served (Experiencing Homelessness), Year 3 (FY23-24) 51.1% (9,149)24.1% (4,318)2.8% (501)3.6% (651)1.7% (313)6.1% (1,099)20.5% (3,665) Figure C-5 | Proportion of People Newly Experiencing Homelessness, by Race and Ethnicity, Years 1, 2 and 3 60% 70% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Year 1 (FY 21–22) Year 2 (FY 22–23) Year 3 (FY 23–24) 2024 Alameda County General Population Black, African American, or African White Asian or Asian American American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Multi-Racial Latina/e/o New Entries Into Homelessness Tracking data about people newly experiencing homelessness by race and ethnicity is critical in order to guide homelessness prevention efforts. Figure C-5 and Table C-8 show, annually, the proportion of all people experiencing homelessness for the first time, by race and ethnicity. This data indicates that people who are Black/African American, people who are American Indian/Alaska Native or Indigenous, and people who are Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander are overrepresented among those newly experiencing homelessness compared to their representation in the general population of Alameda County. 38 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update © 2025 Alameda County. All rights reserved. (08-25)