Oakland City Council
May 5, 2026

Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 4 Foundational Research and Analysis ......................................................................................... 7 Introduction & Background ......................................................................................................... 8 Overview of Five-Point Plan Components ................................................................................ 10 System Roles & Responsibilities ............................................................................................. 20 City of Oakland ................................................................................................................... 21 Alameda County ................................................................................................................. 23 City and County Funding Landscape and Outlook .................................................................... 25 Landscape Overview ........................................................................................................... 25 Outlook .............................................................................................................................. 26 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 28 Racial Equity Impact Analysis (REIA): Overview ....................................................................... 28 Review of Disparity Data .......................................................................................................... 29 Grounding Data ...................................................................................................................... 29

1. Homelessness in Oakland .......................................................................................... 30

2. Place of Last Permanent Residence............................................................................. 32

3. New Entries into Homelessness .................................................................................. 32

4. Exits Destinations from Oakland-Funded Interim Homelessness Programs ................... 32

5. Returns to Homelessness from a Permanent Housing Situation ................................... 33

6. Income and Rent Burden............................................................................................. 34 Community Engagement & Feedback Sessions ....................................................................... 35 Guiding Principles .................................................................................................................... 39 Investment Framework & Funding Model ................................................................................. 41 Calculating Investments to Meet the Plan Goals ...................................................................... 42 Implementing Oakland’s Five Point Plan .................................................................................. 45 Strategy #1 – Prevention: Prevent inflow by stemming new homelessness ................................. 45 Five-Year Objectives ............................................................................................................ 45 Key Activities ...................................................................................................................... 46 Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................................. 46 Funding Outlook ................................................................................................................. 47 Strategy #2 – Access and Coordination: Strengthen Outreach and Service Coordination ........... 47 Five Year Objectives ............................................................................................................ 47

Key Activities ...................................................................................................................... 47 Roles & Responsibilities ...................................................................................................... 49 Funding Outlook ................................................................................................................. 49 Strategy #3 – Encampment Engagement and Neighborhood Health: Improve Living Conditions for Unsheltered Households and Surrounding Communities. ........................................................ 50 Five-Year Objectives ............................................................................................................ 50 Key Activities ...................................................................................................................... 51 Roles & Responsibilities ...................................................................................................... 54 Funding Outlook ................................................................................................................. 55 Strategy #4 – Interim housing: Increase Access to Dignified Interim Housing ............................. 56 Five Year Objectives ............................................................................................................ 56 Key Activities ...................................................................................................................... 56 Roles and responsibilities ................................................................................................... 57 Funding Outlook ................................................................................................................. 58 Strategy #5 – Permanent Housing: Create More Dedicated Permanent Affordable Housing ........ 59 Five-Year Objectives ............................................................................................................ 59 Key Activities ...................................................................................................................... 59 Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................................. 60 Funding Outlook ................................................................................................................. 61 Local, State, and Federal Advocacy Agenda ............................................................................. 61 Conclusion and Next Steps ...................................................................................................... 64 Cross-Cutting Implementation Tasks: Years 1-5 ....................................................................... 64 Implementation Tasks for Year One ......................................................................................... 65 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 66 Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 67

Executive Summary
Homelessness is the result of decades of underinvestment in affordable housing, public health, mental health care, and education, as well as the rising cost of living without a commensurate increase in wages. While there are innumerable, complex, and in some cases seemingly intractable reasons why people find themselves homeless—from systemic racism to the foreclosure crisis—the evidence-based solutions of providing dignified housing options and supportive services are surprisingly straightforward.

However, while these solutions are cost-effective, they are also expensive and need to be sustained over time.

Homelessness is also dynamic—every day, new people fall into homelessness, while others exit homelessness to permanent housing. When homelessness grows year over year, it is the result of new homelessness outpacing exits to permanent housing.

Homelessness
1 in the City of Oakland (“City” or “Oakland”) grew by 9% between 2022 and 2024, to a total of 5,485 individuals. During the same period, unsheltered2 homelessness grew by 10% to a total of 3,659 individuals. Additionally, in 2025, an estimated 1,921 encampment locations were reported3 throughout Oakland. Despite the many City- assisted programs that connected thousands of people experiencing homelessness to permanent housing in recent years, the fact remains that individuals and families are becoming unsheltered at a higher rate than the number of unsheltered people who exit homelessness.

Preventing entry into homelessness can be accomplished through targeted homelessness prevention programs that assist households from losing their housing by flexibly providing financial assistance, legal support, and social services. Exiting homelessness requires a range of deeply affordable housing options, and these are in short supply.

Oakland and Alameda County (“the County”) already provide many programs to help people facing homelessness. These programs both prevent individuals from losing their housing and help individuals without housing obtain it, thus exiting unsheltered homelessness. However, these programs have been unable to meet the need for several reasons: insufficient funding, system bottlenecks, limited provider capacity, and challenges in advancing innovation. In fact, ending unsheltered homelessness in Oakland

1 Total homelessness includes both sheltered and unsheltered. Sheltered homelessness is defined as living situations in a publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements such as emergency or transitional shelters or Safe Haven facilities.
2 Unsheltered homelessness is defined as a place not meant for habitation (e.g., a vehicle/RV, an abandoned building, tent/makeshift structure, bus/train/subway station/airport or anywhere outside) 3 The number of reported encampments may be inflated due to an inability to "close out" reported encampments when unsheltered residents move. The total number reflects, in part, the mobility of encamped individuals to different locations over weeks and months within the year, rather than a point-in-time count. Data extracted from Cityworks 311 Service Requests having, Homeless, in the Description field and created from 01/01/2025 through 12/31/2025. 311 Service Requests include Open/Closed statuses and eliminated duplicate locations.

would cost an estimated $3.2 billion over 10 years4 for increased permanent housing, interim housing, and homelessness prevention services.

The resources Oakland needs to end homelessness are out of reach. Thus, the Homelessness Strategic Action Plan (“Plan”) sets forth the goal to reduce unsheltered homelessness by 50% over the next five years, i.e., a target year of 2031.

Due to funding realities, unsheltered homelessness will exist in California, the Bay Area, and Oakland for the foreseeable future. As such, a humane and strategic approach to engaging with unsheltered neighbors will continue to be necessary, even as we turn the tide on rising homelessness.

The Five Point Plan (Figure 1) is how Oakland will reduce unsheltered homelessness while improving the living conditions for housed and unhoused Oaklanders alike.

The Plan does the following to articulate the City’s approach to addressing homelessness:

• Provides an understanding of how system flow imbalances lead to enduring homelessness.

4 All Home Oakland-specific system model estimates for 100% reduction in unsheltered homelessness:10-year costs above “maintenance of effort” investments.

• Describes each Five Point Plan component, including current program shortcomings that need improvement and system gaps that need to be filled. • Analyzes the cost and potential sources to fund implementation. • Outlines current roles and responsibilities of the City and County, and the funding each has available for addressing homelessness.
• Employs the Racial Equity Impact Analysis (REIA) rubric and unpacks data to understand the racial equity underpinnings of who is unhoused. Data covers the following elements:
o Homelessness in Oakland
o New Entries into Homelessness
o Poverty, Income, and Rent Burden
o Exits from Homelessness to a Permanent Housing Situation o Returns to Homelessness
o Mortality Rates
• Provides a high-level implementation plan with objectives for each component of the Five Point Plan, key activities, roles and responsibilities, and funding outlook for each component.
• Sets forth an Advocacy Agenda for local, state, and federal government and private and philanthropic partners that touches on three key pillars: funding, systems change, and innovation.

The Plan proposes solutions that: (1) result in equitable outcomes for demographic groups that are disproportionately impacted by homelessness; (2) improve complementarity with Alameda County and regional partners; and (3) build a balanced approach focused on prevention, interim housing, and permanent housing solutions.

Additionally, the Plan analysis surfaces the key challenges that must be tackled:

• Inflow exceeds outflow: More individuals and households enter homelessness than exit to permanent housing each year.
• Bottlenecks in interim housing: Shelters and transitional housing programs lack pathways into permanent housing.
• High returns to homelessness: On average, 15% of those who exit homelessness in Alameda County return to homelessness again within 2 years. 5 The majority of
returns to homelessness within 2 years, about 235 people (56%), are Black residents.6 This higher proportion of return reflects historic and ongoing systemic inequities, limited long-term supports, and gaps in culturally-responsive services. • Uncertain funding: Declines in local, state, and federal funding threaten program stability and may reverse prior successes.

5 Alameda County Heath 2025 Homelessness Prevention Framework A Companion to the Home Together Community Plan pg. 7 6 Home Together 2026 – Year 3 Progress Update Appendix C Returns to Homelessness pg. 35

The approximate annual cost to meet the Plan goals will be substantial, as shown in Table A.

While $284.3 million in additional annual investment is a heavy lift, staying focused, targeting racial inequities, advancing systems change in a forthright manner, and pursuing multiple strategies simultaneously will yield results. With persistence, the City will make incremental progress toward these ambitious funding goals. Even relatively small commitments make a meaningful difference. With a $10,000 investment, the City can prevent one person from becoming unhoused. With a $50,000 investment, an unsheltered person can move indoors to a high-quality interim housing program. For $20,000, the City supports one year of operations and services for a permanent supportive housing unit.

Successful progress toward reducing unsheltered homelessness means moving continually and unwaveringly toward Oakland’s funding goals, even when circumstances make them seem unreachable. With commitments at the local level and advocacy to the regional, state, and federal levels, Oakland is certain to make significant progress in reducing unsheltered homelessness.

Foundational Research and Analysis
This Plan is guided by planning documents, analyses, and local data sources. It builds on prior initiatives and regional collaborations while incorporating current research and financial modeling to inform Oakland’s strategy to prevent and reduce homelessness. Key sources include local Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) data, Point In Time Count (PIT Count) data, and financial and program records from the following City and County Departments: Community Homeless Services (CHS) in the Human Services Department, Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department, Public Works Department, the Encampment Management Team, and Alameda County Housing and Homelessness Services (County H&H).

A “system modeling analysis”
7 conducted by All Home is the basis for the Plan’s
investment recommendations to increase prevention program slots, interim housing beds, and permanent housing opportunities over the next five years. The model estimates the

7 All Home developed an interactive tool to highlight the interdependency of various homelessness solutions, such as prevention, permanent housing, and interim housing. This model emphasizes the need to link expectations for new homelessness cases to expanded prevention assistance investments. All Home used this tool to conduct an analysis of the homelessness response system in Oakland.

additional inventory and investments required to pursue a cost-efficient path toward the 50% reduction goal selected by the City.

Additional reports and data used to inform the Plan include:

• Home Together 2026 Plan - Provides the County’s strategic framework to end homelessness
• Centering Racial Equity in Homeless Systems Design (2021) – Prioritized equity through disaggregated data and community-led decision-making.8 • Bloomberg Initiative (2024) – Informed data-driven approaches and scalable national best practices.
• LeSar Development Consultants Analysis (2024) – Reviewed the City’s homelessness response system and investments.
• PATH (2019) - A five-year framework aimed at addressing homelessness across the full spectrum of services.
• UCSF BHHI Black Californians’ Experiences of Homelessness (2024) - Examines homelessness among Black Californians and provides evidence-based, equitable solutions to prevent and end homelessness among Black Californians. • UCSF BHHI CASPEH (2023) - Provides an in-depth look at causes and consequences of homelessness in California and recommended policy changes to shape program improvements.

Introduction & Background
Homelessness is a crisis that demands a well-coordinated and properly resourced response, as well as a concerted effort to avoid perpetuating the racial disparities that underpin this crisis. Figure 2 depicts the ideal “system fl o w,” which is made up of a continuum of strategies - from prevention to crisis response to permanent housing solutions. However, the current homelessness response system is not adequately resourced, there are systemic dysfunctions that need to be resolved, and racial disparities persist. As such, it does not always function as it should.

8 The equity statements contained in this document are expressions of City values and policy ideals, and do not reflect specific funding, contracting, hiring, or service decisions. The City is committed to intentionally integrate the principle of being “fair and just” in all that the City does in order to achieve equitable opportunities for all people and communities, pursuant to Section 2.29.170 of the Oakland Municipal Code, while adhering to Article 1, Section 31 of the California Constitution (Proposition 209) and the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution.

There is also a fundamental imbalance between inflow to homelessness (depicted in Figure 2 as a person entering the homeless response system) and exits from homelessness (depicted in Figure 2 as a person entering permanent housing). HMIS data indicate that approximately 2,550 people become homeless for the first time each year, while 1,500 unhoused individuals exit to permanent housing.9 This is the fundamental reason that more progress has not been made, despite substantial investment in programs that work.

Addressing this imbalance can be achieved both by reducing new entries into homelessness and by expanding and expediting exits from homelessness to permanent housing. These two strategies—reducing entries and increasing exits – are interrelated:
only by reducing inflow does the amount of new housing needed become remotely attainable.

The most efficient and effective strategic approach will concurrently invest in prevention and permanent housing, along with expanding interim housing as needed to expedite exits to housing (and foster housing stability thereafter) and reduce the traumas associated with living unsheltered.

Successful, evidence-based programs that: 1) prevent homelessness, 2) shorten the amount of time a person is unsheltered, and 3) result in long-term housing security are well documented. Many such programs are operating in Oakland at varying levels of capacity.

To reduce homelessness by 50% in five years, this Plan is grounded in the following objectives:

• Make strategic funding allocations
• Properly resource all programs
• Improve program operations to achieve optimal effectiveness and efficiency • Foster innovation to identify new, even more effective and cost-efficient programs

Overview of Five Point Plan Components
Each point in the City's Five Point Plan is introduced below.

1. Targeted Prevention:

Under this point, the City will grow an existing program – the high-performing Targeted Homeless Prevention Program. Leadership will also aim to reduce any unsheltered homelessness being pushed into Oakland from neighboring jurisdictions.

Each year, at least 2,550 Oakland residents experience homelessness for the first time.

Nearly 59% identify as Black/African American—a disproportionate rate compared to

9 All Home analysis of Alameda County HMIS data, 2025

their 22% share of the City’s overall population.10 Prevention is not just the most cost- effective homeless intervention; it is imperative to achieving racial equity. Targeted prevention identifies households on the brink of losing their current housing that are also statistically most likely to experience homelessness as a result. Characteristics that indicate the highest risk for homelessness, and thus guide prioritization for the Targeted Homelessness Prevention Program, are race-neutral indicators detailed in the Appendix O, REIA: Section 11A “Targeted Homelessness Prevention”. Non-targeted prevention activities, like legal aid for those facing an eviction, or emergency rental support for those who’ve lost work, are also valuable community stabilization services that can be provided to a broader population outside of a Targeted Homelessness Prevention Program. Readers can reference the Anti-Displacement Strategic Action Plan for more details on the spectrum of stabilization services offered in Oakland.

After identifying households most at-risk, Targeted Prevention Programs stabilize people before they enter homelessness, with a flexible “whatever it takes” approach.

The City currently funds an acclaimed prevention program that provides a combination of supportive services, coordination and referrals, legal support, and financial assistance flexibly and creatively. Oakland’s Targeted Prevention Program has proven to be cost-efficient, effective, and has equitable outcomes; 11 as such, scaling up this
type of program is a critical component of the proposed Plan funding framework, as discussed in the Implementing Oakland’s Five Point Plan section.

While preventing new homelessness among Oaklanders, City and regional leadership must prevent homeless people from being pushed from one jurisdiction to another. Per HMIS data, 60-70% of clients enrolled in Oakland-based interim housing programs were last permanently housed in Oakland12. If program participants are representative of the broader unhoused population, this means approximately 30-40% of unhoused Oaklanders were last permanently housed outside the City. However, this may be an overestimate of unhoused migration. Countywide PIT-count data show that 78% of Oakland’s unhoused population has lived in Alameda County13 for at least ten years, and 85% of Black unsheltered residents in Oakland have lived in Alameda County for at least ten years. Thus, PIT-count data imply that closer to 20% of unhoused Oaklanders are not originally from Oakland/Alameda County.

While the exact proportion of unhoused Oaklanders from elsewhere is uncertain, we know it to be a minority. Nevertheless, preventing the displacement of individuals and households from neighboring jurisdictions and into Oakland is a regional concern that should be addressed in concert with the implementation of targeted prevention

10 Alameda County HMIS Custom Report for All Oakland Programs FY22-23 11 2025 Changing Cities Research Lab at Stanford & Housing Initiative at Penn Keep People Housed: Oakland’s Targeted Homelessness Prevention Pilot
12 Alameda County HMIS System Report (2025) Demographic Dashboard City-funded programs FY23-25 13 Alameda County HMIS System Report (2025) Demographic Dashboard City-funded programs FY23-25

programs that prevent new homelessness. This recommendation is further described below in the Local, State, and Federal Advocacy Agenda section.

2. Access & Coordinate:

Under this point, the City will do two things: (1) coordinate employees, contractors, and partners already working with unhoused individuals. This will expand the reach of already-funded services. (2) The City will also aim to increase the number of outreach workers and service coordinators.

Access and coordination services ensure that people experiencing homelessness, particularly unsheltered homelessness, can connect quickly to the right mix of services and benefits, specifically through street outreach, housing navigation services, and case management. Both the City and the County deliver these services through outreach teams that provide basic needs like food and hygiene kits, offer medical attention, and help connect people to interim housing programs and waitlists.

The County teams also help people get assessed and matched through the Coordinated Entry System (CES), a countywide system that acts as a queue for people experiencing homelessness and connects them to housing and shelter. The County employs “housing program solving” as a first step in the CES assessment process.

Problem Solving conversations help people identify support and resources, create a personalized housing plan, explore housing options, complete applications for programs, receive financial assistance when appropriate, and connect to supportive services that address barriers to long-term stability. In addition to in-person connection with a Street Health team member, unsheltered individuals can also access Problem Solving and CES assessments via Housing Resource Centers and the 211 system.

Housing Resource Centers are in nine locations Countywide and five locations in Oakland.
14 The 211 system is a free 24/7 phone and online service that provides self- initiated access and referrals to CES and other social services. See Appendix D for a flow-chart of the Alameda County CES.

The City convened focus groups as part of the information gathering process for the Plan, described further in the Community Engagement & Feedback Sessions section.

Participants with lived experience shared frustration navigating the system, including difficulty getting help via 211, frequent turnover of case managers and outreach workers, loss of documents, and spotty communication from service providers.

This feedback is consistent with the experience of unhoused people throughout the Bay Area and California:
15 14 Alameda County HRC/Access Points Information - Updated 11.19.2025 15 Kushel, M., Moore, T., et al. (2023). California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness. University of California, San Francisco Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative.

• Two-thirds of unhoused people in California say that not having someone from an agency to help makes it harder to find housing.
• Among those who receive some help, three-quarters haven’t had any contact with their provider for at least a month.

Increasing street outreach and intensifying service coordination services will empower and guide unsheltered people to obtain the information and support they need, thereby reducing durations of unsheltered homelessness.16

3. Encampment Engagement and Neighborhood Health:

Under this part of the plan, the City will pursue seven policy and program improvements simultaneously, detailed below at Implementing Oakland’s Five Point Plan: Strategy 3.

Without unprecedented increases in local, state, and federal funding for Dedicated Affordable Housing (DAH), unsheltered homelessness will be here to stay. In 2025, an estimated 1,921 encampment locations were reported
17 across the City. This number
has continued to increase over time as more and more individuals and families fall into

16 National Health Care for the Homeless Council (NHCHC) National Homeless Mortality Overview 2020 17 Data extracted from Cityworks 311 Service Requests having, Homeless* , in the Description field and created from 01/01/2025 through 12/31/2025. 311 Service Requests include Open/Closed statuses and eliminated duplicate locations.

unsheltered homelessness. As a result, programming to address encampments is an immediate need and will likely continue to be necessary. To meet this need holistically, three objectives must be pursued simultaneously: 1) improve conditions for the people who are unsheltered immediately and in an ongoing manner; 2) mitigate any impacts on the neighborhoods where the encampments are located; and 3) improve connection to services and movement into programs. Encampment engagement, management, and abatement do not resolve homelessness, but are necessary activities if the system lacks sufficient interim or permanent housing for everyone living outside.

Core elements of the encampment strategy include deep cleanings, trash-runs, proper hygiene and sanitation, launching low-cost, low-barrier pilot programs such as co- managed communities or safe-sleeping locations, addressing vehicular homelessness, and attending to “high sensitivity” areas.

4. Interim housing:

Under this point, the City will (1) improve the performance and outcomes of city-funded interim housing and (2) raise and invest money for more interim programs, as elaborated below.

Interim housing is defined as temporary shelter or housing, coupled with supportive services, that ensures immediate safety and stability while households work toward permanent housing solutions. It gives people a place to land that begins to abate the trauma of living outdoors, while readying them for permanent solutions. Interim housing features non-congregate sleeping arrangements (i.e., individual rooms with doors that close) and offers a basic level of supportive services, individual privacy, security, and storage space to keep belongings. The most effective interim housing, as

described by All Home18, are dwellings created to provide a short-term home in which to stabilize and heal after living on the streets, on the way to a permanent home. Interim housing is not the end goal or the only necessary solution for people who are unhoused.

These programs operate under a variety of models, including Community Cabins, Shelters, Transitional Housing, and RV Safe Parking, and all emphasize both immediate safety and ongoing case management and supportive services. See Appendix O for the REIA, which contains a detailed summary of the City’s currently funded interim housing programs. Interim housing should proceed with a “whatever it takes” approach to transition people to permanent housing. Due to the short supply of DAH and permanent housing as solutions (described below), other permanent solutions such as moving in with family members, friends, or shared housing opportunities, must also be considered.

While interim housing is designed to improve the overall flow into permanent housing, the current system is not functioning as intended. Too many individuals become “stuck” in interim housing, cycling between beds or returning to unsheltered homelessness because the downstream housing pathways are very limited and processes to enter permanent housing are slow and/or difficult to access. This bottleneck means Oakland’s interim programs house people longer than they were designed to, which reduces turnover, decreases availability for new referrals, and contributes to ongoing encampment challenges across the city.

18 The Role of Interim Housing as a Homelessness Response https://www.allhomeca.org/2022/10/05/the-role-of-interim-housing-as-a- homelessness-response/

5. Permanent Housing:

Under this point, the City must dramatically increase investment in all types of permanent housing solutions – (a) though (d) below – particularly for people with minimal income and barriers to employment. To do so, the City will advocate for Oakland’s fair share of County, state and federal resources and plan for new local revenue measures. Below is a discussion of the existing permanent housing solutions.

With new resources, the City and County will create more housing and rental subsidies.

There is no silver-bullet program model, Oakland’s diverse unhoused are best served by a range of options.

There is a huge gap between market rents and the income of people experiencing homelessness (including both earned income and benefit programs like social security and disability insurance). Over half of the residents in Oakland’s interim housing programs have incomes below $500/month, and 85% have incomes below $1,500/month ($18,000 per year). Many are seniors and people with disabilities unable to work full-time.19 To substantially reduce homelessness, the City and County must create more deeply subsidized permanent housing options for people with minimal income/extremely low-income households.

Permanent housing, as defined by HUD, is generally divided between four models: DAH, Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), Short-term assistance (Rapid Rehousing being the most common), and Ongoing Rental Subsidies (such as Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers).

a. Dedicated Affordable Housing (DAH) is housing developed for households with extremely low incomes or no income that is dedicated to people exiting homelessness. DAH rents are either 30% of the tenant’s income or at a set amount that is affordable to households at or below 30% of Area Median Income. This level of affordability typically involves government subsidies to ensure long-term affordability and provides a modest level of service coordination for the residents. While DAH is a key strategy for addressing homelessness, it is not always appropriate for those exiting homelessness with complex supportive service needs.

b. Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) refers to DAH coupled with an array of supportive services that are designed to ensure ongoing stability and the achievement of outcomes (such as obtaining benefits, improved health outcomes, and employment) for those with behavioral health challenges and/or substance use issues. Examples of PSH are Homekey-funded or (Rapid Response Homeless Housing (R2H2) funded housing. R2H2 is the City’s program to fund quick-build permanent supportive housing, modeled after the State’s Homekey program.

19 FY24-25 City funded Interim Housing Programs Only – HMIS Annual Performance Report (APR)

PSH has a longstanding track record of excellent outcomes, such as 90% housing retention,20 income increases, and fewer visits to emergency rooms.

However, PSH is facing two interrelated challenges. First, the longer a person is homeless, the more acute their needs become. Second, shortages of services and housing mean that people are experiencing homelessness for longer and longer durations. Programmatic adjustments are needed to serve people with these high acuity needs, and these adjustments increase the cost of supportive services and property management.

Many PSH properties need enhanced staffing to stabilize severely mentally ill residents and people with overlapping health, mental health, and substance use challenges.

It should be noted that there is a population that PSH was not designed to help – those with severe and disruptive mental health disorders. Accordingly, the City and County must fund programs for these individuals; particularly new specialized treatment facilities and longer-term residential programs.

Accommodating high-acuity clients is a challenge across the homeless service system. In permanent supportive housing, interim housing, outreach, and encampment engagement, existing and future programs need City and County support to:

• Deploy clinical staff into the field and onsite at shelters and housing to best meet the needs of people with behavioral health challenges and substance use disorders.
• Maintain reasonable ratios of clinical staff to residents/clients in accordance with best practices.
• Ensure that staff are trained and well paid. Applying approaches that meet residents/clients “where they are at” and employing creativity and flexibility in service delivery.

Additionally, for those who fare well in PSH, “step-up” programs that create opportunities for people to move into non-PSH affordable housing are needed.

This will free up spaces for new individuals and households, facilitating greater system flow.

c. Ongoing Rental Subsidies can support people living in market-rate housing by providing vouchers from the Housing Authority or some other form of subsidy that enables households to afford the market rents. The Oakland Path Rehousing Initiative (OPRI), a partnership with the Oakland Housing Authority, is a

20 Alameda County HMIS System Performance Measure (SPM) 7b.2 for All Oakland Programs FY:19-20, 20-21, 21-22, 22-23

successful example of a homeless program that provides ongoing rental subsidies.

d. Short-Term Assistance programs are best targeted to individuals and households that have some capacity to pay rent (e.g., from earnings or benefits) and the capacity to increase their income in 6 months to 2 years. Short-term assistance provides a rental subsidy over a short period of time (often up to two years) while the households work toward increasing their income to a level where they can afford market rents or devise another strategy to transition to permanent housing. Short-term assistance programs and Rapid Rehousing programs can result in high returns to homelessness if they are not targeting individuals who possess the life-skills and job-readiness needed to increase income in a short timeframe. For information about the outcomes of Oakland’s Rapid Rehousing programs, see Appendix O, REIA: Section 8 “Returns to Homelessness from a Permanent Housing Situation”.

Permanent housing solutions also include moving in with family or identifying shared housing arrangements. Due to limited DAH and PSH inventory and scarcity of housing choice vouchers, employing creativity and flexibility in identifying permanent housing solutions is a mission-critical approach. At times, these unsubsidized permanent housing options can be suboptimal due to overcrowding, financial strain, or relationship challenges. However, given the scarcity of subsidized affordable units and vouchers, shared housing settings are a common and necessary means of exiting homelessness. See Appendix O, REIA: Section 7 “Exits From Homelessness to Permanent Housing” for information on the permanent housing circumstances that unhoused Oaklanders utilize.

The City also helps fund affordable housing for extremely low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Though these units are often out of reach for people exiting homelessness, they play a role in both stabilizing low-income households with affordable rents. Affordable units for low- and moderate-income households also help finance the inclusion of permanent supportive housing within mixed-income developments.

System Roles & Responsibilities
Homelessness is a complex regional challenge that must be addressed through collaboration between multiple City departments and Alameda County agencies, as well as our neighboring cities. The City’s homelessness response lives between departments, each with oversight of unique funding and strategies. The same cross-departmental framework exists in the County. As such, the system relies on a network of entities and stakeholders to meet the needs of individuals experiencing homelessness. This section describes how the City and Alameda County are organized to address homelessness, as well as how they seek to collaborate to support system flow.

City of Oakland
Primary governance on homelessness is led by the City Council and the Mayor’s Office, which sets overall policy direction. The City Administrator’s Office reports directly to city elected leadership, coordinating departments and managing encampment response. The primary department responsible for addressing homelessness in the Human Services Department is the Homelessness Services unit. The CHS unit works closely with the HCD Department, which leads on the development of affordable and permanent supportive housing and homelessness prevention. Additionally, peripheral departments such as Public Works, Police, and Fire contribute to specific aspects of encampment response.

In 2025, the office of Mayor Barbara Lee created the Office of Homelessness Solutions (OHS) in the City Administrator’s Office (CAO) to coordinate efforts between the various city agencies and set a comprehensive, unified strategy for addressing homelessness in Oakland. Figure 3 below summarizes the basic organizational structure within the City to address homelessness.

Table B. describes core City departments involved in the work to address homelessness.

City Council and the City Attorney’s Office, although not directly in the “chain of command” with the Mayor’s Office and CAO, are also critical contributors to legislation, budget, and policy.

Additionally, the City has a Commission on Homelessness, which is responsible for overseeing the administration of specific funding sources, including the 2018 Measure W1 and the 2020 Measure Q vacant property taxes. The commission advises the City Council on strategies to address homelessness, publishes an annual report, and monitors the

effectiveness of programs and services across the housing continuum. This includes reviewing reports on street outreach, shelter operations, interim housing solutions, and permanent supportive housing to assess how the City’s homelessness response system is functioning and evolving.

Alameda County
County H&H is the County’s primary administrative entity handling homelessness services and acts as the County’s point of contact on homelessness strategic planning and program development. Additional partner entities include Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department (ACHCD), Alameda County Health’s Behavioral Health Department (ACBHD), and Alameda County Social Services Agency (ACSSA).

The Alameda County Continuum of Care, known as EveryOne Home, serves as a local planning body and community governance board that supports the HUD Collaborative Applicant and lead entity (H&H), which administers the local HUD Continuum of Care application and funding process for housing and services to help people who are homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness.

A description of Alameda County departments' funding and supporting Oakland’s homelessness response system is provided in Table C, below.

City and County Funding Landscape and Outlook
Landscape Overview
Homelessness response funding derives from local, County, state, and federal sources. In the City of Oakland, these funds are primarily overseen by CHS division within the Human Services Department (HSD) and the HCD. Most sources are restricted to funding specific activities within limited timeframes and have little flexibility for redirection to new ideas.

CHS and HCD layer, leverage, and monitor the expenditure of each source in accordance with its requirements. Appendix F is a chart that lists the array of different sources utilized.

Funding related to encampment management, which requires cross-departmental staffing, flows through multiple departmental budgets, including the City Administrator’s Office, Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Public Works, and Department of Transportation. See Appendix G for more details on encampment expenditure.

Total City funding for homelessness programs in FY 24-25 is estimated at $131,200,000, per Table D below. These estimates exclude administrative staffing expenses and overhead. For the encampment expenditures, the amount for FY 24-25 is based on estimates from the City Auditor’s 2021 report on Encampment Management Interventions and Activities.21 22

21 Audit Report estimates $ 7,098,000 estimates $ 7,098,000 in costs incurred by OPW, OPD, HSD, OFD, OCA, CAO, DOT, OPR, and the Mayor’s Office. For FY 2019-20. In this year there were 20 Closures, 67 Re-Closures, and 74 Deep Cleanings. Using a simple inflation adjustment creates the present-day estimate of $13.7 million. This is a conservative estimate, since in 2025 there were 1212 Encampment Closures and Re-Closures, a more than 10-fold increase in activity. 22 City of Oakland currently lacks consistent tracking of the cross-departmental costs for Encampment Engagement and Neighborhood Health activities.

The County is a key funding and implementation partner. Although annual allocations vary, the County has historically invested approximately $51.7 million for homelessness response activities in Oakland. Figure 4 shows rough approximations of annual County funding per program area and annual City funding per program area using data available from two fiscal years.

Outlook
The outlook for funding for the homeless response system at all levels of government is facing extreme challenges, with few exceptions. The state government is facing a large budget shortfall, and the federal government is threatening to severely limit how HUD homeless funds can be used.

The City saw a rise in funding from 2019-2024, with a peak in FY 23-24. In FY 24-25, the City invested approximately $131.2 million in local, state, and federal resources for homelessness housing and services. However, many of the state and federal sources available for City allocation over the past five years were linked to COVID-19 response and no longer exist. In addition, the City is likely to see a continued decline in Homeless Housing and Assistance Program (HHAP) at the state level and Measure U at the local level, which have been important funding sources.

Figure 5.23Below reflects the funding outlook over time for CHS, the primary City funder of the homelessness response system. Funding coming to HCD and other City departments, as well as the County, follows a similar trajectory.

Without new funding sources, the City’s affordable housing and homelessness budget is expected to undergo substantial reductions. Fiscal Year (FY) 25-26 reductions resulted in cuts to interim housing programs, and future reductions will undermine progress toward ending homelessness. These trends highlight the urgency of identifying new revenue streams and advocating for sustained investment at the state and federal levels. See the City of Oakland Landscape Analysis for more information on funding trends.24 In addition to the known reductions in funding reflected in Figure 5, other uncertainties lie ahead.

The federal government is threatening to severely limit how HUD homeless funds can be used. Although federal funding only comprises about 10% of the funds that flow through the City budget for housing and homelessness, the County and local nonprofits also use federal dollars to sustain programs that are critical to Oakland’s homelessness response infrastructure.

State government is also facing a budget shortfall. State HHAP funds have represented a substantial funding source for the City’s homelessness response and were about 35% of the funding for interim housing with supportive services in FY 24-25. Since 2020, the City has received a total of $107,567,120 in HHAP Rounds.
25 However, future rounds of HHAP
funding are projected to decrease significantly, posing serious challenges for cities like Oakland that rely heavily on these funds to sustain homelessness programs.

23 LeSar Development Consultant (February 2025) City of Oakland Integrated Strategic Plan & Roadmap pg. 9. 24 LeSar Development Consultant (February 2025) City of Oakland Integrated Strategic Plan & Roadmap pg. 21-22 25 https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/HHAP-6-Presentation_Alameda-County-City-of-Oakland.pdf

Alameda County’s funding landscape is also shifting - new resources at the County level are a bright spot in the funding outlook for homelessness. County Measure W, a voter- approved general sales tax, has been accruing since July 2021. In July 2025, the Board of Supervisors approved staff recommendations to direct 80% of funds to homelessness housing and services. Although the Board has provided high-level guidance on allocations,2627 the details of how homelessness funding will be spent in terms of the programs, places, and timing will be decided by Alameda County Housing and Homelessness Services as well as the Board of Supervisors, and will follow guidance in the Home Together 2030 Plan. This County-level homelessness strategic plan is projected for completion in summer 2026. With potential reductions in state and federal funds, County Measure W resources may also be needed to backfill and sustain existing programs and services, thereby reducing Measure W funds available for improvements and expansion of programs. Nevertheless, Measure W will be a critical resource to support Oakland’s HSAP goals.

Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) funding administered by the County also offers opportunities for integrating behavioral health into housing stability efforts. California Proposition 1, passed in 2024, reformed the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), creating new requirements to prioritize unhoused and at-risk populations. Per Prop 1, the County must devote 30% of BHSA resources to housing solutions for people experiencing homelessness. Total BHSA funding to Alameda County for FY 25-26 is approximately $106 million.

Looking Ahead
While uncertainty regarding federal and state funding poses a threat to the City’s goal of reducing unsheltered homelessness by 50% in five years, the potential for County Measure W funding, BHSA funding, and strategically targeting City funds will be critical for the City to meet its five-year goal. As funding streams continue to take shape, the City must remain agile in aligning Oakland’s Plan with emerging County priorities, while also ensuring that Oakland is positioned to receive a fair share of the Countywide resources. Advocating for more state, federal, local, and philanthropic resources will also be critical.

Racial Equity Impact Analysis (REIA): Overview
To improve the homeless response system, the City is committed to building capacity and aligning investments for programs that achieve equitable outcomes for all people and communities. The REIA (Appendix O) serves as a guide for identifying systems change and policy or program design that achieve fair and just outcomes.

The City is committed to intentionally integrating the principle of being “fair and just” in all that it does in order to achieve equitable opportunities for all people and communities. The

26 July 27th, 2025 Recommendations from County Administrator to Board of Supervisors on Measure W Framework Including Guiding Principles, Fund Designation, Oversight Structures, and Related Allocations 27 July 30th Board of Supervisors Agenda

equity statements in this document are expressions of City values and policy ideals and do not reflect specific funding, contracting, hiring, or service decisions.

REIAs have the built-in advantage of driving concrete, data-driven, outcome-oriented problem-solving actions. It educates about racial disparities, informs about root causes, engages impacted communities, and ultimately provides a set of specific race and gender- neutral recommendations to work with and a framework to evaluate the impacts of decisions on equity while furthering consistency with Article 1, Section 31 of the California Constitution (Proposition 209) and the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution.

Development of this Plan followed the steps of the REIA process, which are provided in Appendix H. The first step in the REIA process is to create a desired outcome, to define the scope of the racial equity analysis, and the north star to guide solutions to close racial equity gaps. The desired outcome was vetted and refined through focus group conversations to be:

We envision an Oakland where homelessness, if it occurs, is a rare, brief, and one- time experience, including for those most impacted by racial disparities.

Additional steps include the collection and analysis of detailed data points, engagement with the community to obtain feedback and guidance, and the design of equity approaches, along with rigorous performance measures to track. The following section includes a selection of the REIA data findings.

Review of Disparity Data
Grounding Data
Gathering and analyzing disparity data is central to achieving racial equity in the City’s response to homelessness. Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) populations in Oakland are overrepresented in homelessness, poverty, and displacement due to policies that created barriers to resources like quality housing, education, and employment. Data consistently show that Black Oakland residents are disproportionately overrepresented among unhoused residents and inflow to homelessness in both new entries and returns to homelessness.

The following indicators are discussed in this section:

1. Homelessness in Oakland

2. Place of Last Permanent Residence

3. New Entries into Homelessness

4. Exits From Homelessness into Permanent Housing Situations 28 5. Returns to Homelessness from Interim Housing Programs

6. Returns to Homelessness from a Permanent Housing Situation

28 Exits from homelessness into Permanent Housing situations include situations that may not be truly permanent or sustainable, such as staying with friends or family and rental units without an ongoing subsidy.

7. Income and Rent Burden

1. Homelessness in Oakland
Figure 6. illustrates changes in the unhoused population in Oakland and Alameda County based on Point-in-Time counts from 2017 to 2024.

Forty-one percent (41%) of people experiencing homelessness Countywide identify as Black or African American, and of those, 74% live in Oakland.29,30 These numbers reflect long-standing racial and economic inequities that drive homelessness. Achieving lasting, equitable change will require the City, County, and regional partners to work together to align resources, share data, and address the systemic barriers that create and sustain racial disparities in housing. Please see Appendix O, REIA: Section 3A “Data on Racial Disparities and Impacts” for a more in-depth and detailed data analysis and discussion.

Reported encampment locations, captured through calls or reported online for service from the 311 non-emergency call line, have risen alongside unsheltered homelessness. While reported locations shift, the total number of reported encampment locations has not declined. Reported encampment locations continued to rise from 2024

29 2024 Point-in-Time Count Report for Alameda County pg. 26. 30 Alameda County 2024 PIT Count-Public Demographics Dashboard - Oakland

to 2025 despite the City’s efforts to contain unsheltered homelessness by increasing the pace of encampment closures, as illustrated in Figure 7. 31, 32, 33

34 31 “Reported Encampment Location” for 2021, 2022, 2023 according to the Life Enrichment Committee Encampment Management Policy Update Agenda Report April 2024
32 311 data from 11/16/2022 – 04/18/2023 not available due to the ransomware attack resulting in an undercount for “311 Encampment Service Request” and “Reported Encampment Locations” in 2022 & 2023 33 2025 data for Encampment Closure Operations available through 12/18/2025 34 2024 Point in Time Count City of Oakland

2. Place of Last Permanent Residence
Most of Oakland’s unhoused residents have deep roots in the community—60–70% were last permanently housed in Oakland35. Furthermore, available data indicate that 85% of the Black unsheltered residents in Oakland have lived in Alameda County for more than a decade.36 The trend of staying local holds for people living in vehicles; 82% of those living in vehicles (including cars, trucks, RVs) have resided in the County for over 10 years.

3. New Entries into Homelessness
More than 2,550 people become newly homeless in Oakland annually, and of those, a disproportionate number identify as Black/African American.37 This racial disproportionality mirrors both County and Bay Area trends, as shown in Figure 9.

4. Exits Destinations from Oakland-Funded Interim Homelessness Programs When people exit homelessness programs and interim housing funded by the City our County, their exit destination is documented. They may exit back into unsheltered homelessness, move to another temporary situation, or find a permanent home. 3,569 people were served in City-funded interim homeless programs in 2025, and almost 900 people (25%) exited from City-funded programs to permanent housing. 38 Data on Oakland’s programs in aggregate indicate equal program access for unhoused people regardless of race: the racial breakdown of program participants is similar to the Oakland PIT count (see Figure 8 above). Additionally, the rate of successful program exits is similar to the racial distribution of the overall PIT. Thus, on this important outcome

35 Alameda County HMIS System Report (2025) Demographic Dashboard City-funded programs FY23-25 36 Simtech Solutions Point-in-Time Count (2024) Unsheltered Insights Dashboard 37 Alameda County HMIS System Performance Measure (SPM) for All Oakland Programs FY19-23 38 All City-funded Interim Housing programs, RRH/OPRI programs, and supportive services - HMIS Annual Performance Report (APR) Reporting Period 1/1/2025-12/15/2025. Does not include encampment outreach, targeted prevention, or permanent supportive housing.

measure (permanent housing exits) Oakland-funded programs are equally successful in serving people regardless of racial/ethnic identity.39

From FY 2022-2024, 793 people returned to homelessness after participating in a City- funded interim housing program; 435 (55%) of people returning to homelessness identified as Black/African American.40 Black/African American people represent about half of the clients in Oakland’s city-funded homeless programs and have a proportional exit rate to homelessness across programs.

In examining exit destinations from City-funded interim housing programs, the results are highly variable. Some programs have more success in achieving permanent housing exits for their clients. Depending upon the program, as many as 66% of clients (for some Emergency Shelter programs) or as few as 9% of clients (for some longer-stay Transitional Housing Programs) exit back to unsheltered homelessness.41 High variability in the outcomes of Oakland programs will be discussed more in the Implementing Oakland’s Five Point Plan section. While program quality is a factor, it is not the only factor contributing to or detracting from the stabilization of clients.42 Additional factors include program model, service provider capacity, funding and staffing levels, type of clientele, location, referral source, and facility type.

5. Returns to Homelessness from a Permanent Housing Situation Data in this section are countywide - reliable racial demographics on returns to homelessness from permanent destinations are not available at the City level due to the structure of HMIS.

“Exits to Positive Destinations” or “Permanent Housing Exits” are synonymous terms defined by HUD and Alameda County. These permanent housing situations include an array of circumstances. For instance, a permanent housing exit may be to a deeply affordable government-supported option like permanent Supportive Housing, to a market- rate rental with time-limited support, or simply moving in with family or friends. Thus, some are more “permanent” or durable than others.

Among types of positive exit destinations, moving in with family and friends is significantly less stable than other situations. Thirty percent (30%) of those who exit homelessness into the home of family or friends will return to homelessness within 2 years. For exits that include some form of rental or financial support, returns to homelessness are 10% or less.

Put differently, about 90% of those who exit the homelessness system to a government-

39 Of interim housing participants reporting their race/ethnicity, 49% identify as Black/African American (Non-Hispanic), 8% as White (Non-Hispanic), 10% as Hispanic (Any Race), and 33% reported “Other Racial Group” or “Unknown”. For “Other Racial Group”, the numbers are too small to draw conclusions from a 2-year sample. 40 All City-funded Interim Housing programs: Community Cabins, RV Safe Parking Program, Emergency/Interim Shelters, and Transitional Housing - HMIS Annual Performance Report (APR) Q23. Reporting Period 7/1/2022-6/30/2024 41 FY24-25 City funded Interim Housing Programs Only – HMIS Annual Performance Report (APR) 42 For instance, programs offering low-barrier overnight emergency shelter in a congregate setting will naturally have more returns to homelessness than two-year transitional housing programs with individual rooms and supportive services.

supported program, including Dedicated Affordable Housing (DAH), Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV), Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), or a time-limited rental support program, will be stably housed for at least two years.43 See Appendix O, REIA: Section 8 “Returns to Homelessness from a Permanent Housing Situation” for more detail.

Of the 14,067 people who had any type of permanent housing exit between FY20/21 – FY23/24, 1,690 returned to homelessness.44,45
Figure 10. shows the racial breakdown among the 1,690 who returned to homelessness within two years of being permanently housed. This is inclusive of all types of positive destinations. The racial distribution shows a disproportionate rate of return to homelessness for Black/African American individuals. 41.3% of the unhoused individuals in Alameda County identify as Black/African American, whereas 60% of the returns to homelessness are Black/African American. Disproportionate returns to homelessness contribute to continued racial inequities in the homelessness system.

6. Income and Rent Burden
Over the past decade, rising housing costs have hit Oakland’s lowest-income residents the hardest. These households are often the first to be displaced or priced out of the city’s housing market. While average statistics can hide the most severe hardships, data show a clear pattern: income levels and rent burdens by race closely reflect who is most at risk of experiencing homelessness in Oakland, as shown in Table E below. Inability to afford rent is the overriding cause of homelessness.

43 Alameda County HMIS System Performance Measures (SPM) 2a & 2b Reporting Period 7/1/2024 - 6/30/2025 44 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Returns to Homelessness Pg. 2 45 Home Together 2026 — Year 3 Progress Update Returns to Homelessness Pg. 35

46 According to National Equity Atlas, 60% of Black renters in Oakland spend more than 30% of their income on housing—the highest rate among all racial groups, as shown in Table E, above. Many households face even greater financial strain: those who spend over half their income on rent are considered severely rent burdened, and they are overwhelmingly low- income and BIPOC. In 2020 alone, an estimated 17,530 extremely low-income renter households in Oakland were severely rent burdened, paying over half of their income for housing, highlighting the deep connection between income inequality, race, and housing instability.

The data detailed in this section clearly demonstrates that Black/African American people represent the majority of unhoused Oaklanders and continue to be disproportionately affected at every stage of housing insecurity and homelessness. The homeless response system must be structured to very intentionally reduce these disparities. While homeless programs alone cannot address all the root causes of poverty, housing insecurity, and homelessness, it is the City’s responsibility and obligation to invest in programs that will avoid perpetuating racial inequities. The City cannot effectively solve homelessness without also solving Black homelessness.

Community Engagement & Feedback Sessions
A core element of creating this plan included obtaining feedback from the community. In July and August 2025, the City conducted 10 community feedback sessions and 18 individual interviews that gathered perspectives from people who work in the homelessness response system and People with Lived Experience (PWLE). Community feedback sessions included virtual group discussions with service provider leadership, frontline staff, housing developers, researchers, and policymakers. In addition to hosting virtual focus groups, two in-person focus groups were held in West Oakland and East Oakland libraries for people with lived experience. Individual interviews and community feedback sessions were built upon knowledge gathered from other recent research efforts and initiatives, particularly the Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design report.

See Appendix O, REIA: Section 10 “Engaging Impacted Community Members” for a complete list of community engagement that informed the Plan.

46 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) - City of Oakland

The purpose of the Plan community feedback sessions was to deepen the City’s understanding of systemic problems and solutions, and to identify system gaps that perpetuate racial disparities, as shown in Table F below.

47 47 Internal brief memo on Oakland RV and vehicular homelessness 2025

Guiding Principles
The remaining sections of the Plan outline the proposed funding framework and implementation steps needed to meet the goal of reducing unsheltered homelessness by 50% over the next five years for all people and communities, including those most impacted by racial inequities. These guiding principles, formed through the community engagement process, provide a foundation for positive evolution of Oakland’s approach to addressing homelessness. New questions and circumstances will arise over the next 5 years, both on topics discussed in the Plan and topics unknown. These principles, as shown in Figure 11, below—will guide future decision-making so that policies, programs, and investments are aligned with the City’s commitment to racial equity, data-driven decision-making, strategic partnerships, and lasting systems change.

Assess all decisions and processes for their ability to advance equity goals and priorities
All strategies will be measured against their impact on racial equity, especially given the disproportionate representation of Black Oaklanders among the unhoused. Programs and policies must work to undo structural barriers, not just provide short-term relief. Policies must ensure that people with lived experience are included in decision-making. The City will use the most flexible funds on the highest equity targets (e.g., prevention, diversion, and services that close racial gaps).

Root our funding allocations and decision-making in data Investments will be guided by outcomes (housing placements, retention, returns to homelessness, cost-effectiveness). Disaggregated results by race, geography, and household type will be used to identify inequities.

Determine roles and responsibilities based on core competencies and availability of resources
Oakland should lead where it has demonstrated capacity. Clear role delineation avoids duplication, builds accountability, and ensures resources are used where most effective.

Act with urgency
Invest now in the City’s strengths. Each day of continued and new homelessness jeopardizes the health and safety of thousands of Oaklanders. Building systems for better programs and policies can co-occur with immediate action.

Pursue all opportunities to leverage funding sources
City resources alone are not enough; funds will align with County, state (HHAP , Prop 1, HCD), federal (HUD), Housing Authority, and philanthropy. Strong advocacy is needed to secure Oakland’s fair share of regional resources, especially Measure W and behavioral health funding.

Advocate for systems change
Key reform areas needed are CES equity and efficiency, the expansion of behavioral health and reentry services, and increased funding from state/federal sources. The City must act both as a direct funder and a policy advocate.

Innovate to reduce costs and improve outcomes
Pilot models will stretch resources and improve client outcomes while applying new models for service. Evaluation and scalability will be prioritized so pilots don’t remain one- offs.

Explore opportunities to expand partnerships & resources Ongoing collaboration with Alameda County, Oakland Housing Authority, service providers, healthcare systems, schools, workforce partners, and the criminal justice system will deepen efficacy. Partnerships can add resources, reduce duplication, address root causes, and expand reach. By adding philanthropy and community-based organizations, we can bring innovation and flexible funding.

Iterate and evaluate over time
Regular evaluation of program outcomes, racial disparity data, and community feedback should drive adjustments.

Investment Framework & Funding Model
Oakland’s Five Point Plan (Figure 1) outlines key areas for investment and system improvement needed to:

Reduce unsheltered homelessness by 50% in five years

This goal sets Oakland on the path toward our established vision, or ultimate outcome:

An Oakland where homelessness, if it occurs, is a rare, brief and one time experience, including for those most impacted by racial disparities

The investment framework and funding model will guide resource allocation and program development over the next five years. The framework speaks to both existing and desired policies and programs, including those that may not currently exist, and seeks to answer the following question:

With the limited dollars available, how should funding be prioritized to have the maximum impact, including for those most impacted by racial disparities?

Each component of the Five Point Plan has been described in the Introduction and Background section. As noted in the Introduction and Background section, the most efficient and effective homelessness strategy will concurrently invest in prevention and permanent housing, along with expanding interim housing to expedite exits to housing (and foster housing stability thereafter) and reduce the traumas associated with living unsheltered. As such, each of the interventions in the Five Point Plan need to be funded simultaneously. Balanced investment, rather than exclusive focus on one part of the system, will reduce new homelessness, increase exits from homelessness, and address the individual and community harms of unsheltered homelessness.

At the inflow end of the system spectrum (new homelessness), targeted prevention programs are cost-effective and have been shown not to perpetuate racial disparities. They cost between $6,000-$10,000 per household, compared to $60,000-$100,000 to stabilize and house someone once they become unhoused.
48 As an evidence-based, best practice
model, the City needs to scale this intervention tenfold, including increasing funding of existing programs.

At the outflow end of the spectrum, permanent housing with supportive services (tailored to the needs of the residents), while expensive, is consistently the most effective at ending homelessness for individuals and households. The cost to create new permanent housing includes the capital cost of land and construction, as well as ongoing operating costs to pay for the management of the properties and to provide supportive services to residents.

For access and coordinate, encampment engagement, and interim housing strategies, investments need to be recalibrated to create a more efficient and equitable response. An

48 Keep Oakland Housed Annual Report 2023 pg. 3

improved system will focus on pairing interim housing with clear, achievable exit pathways—ensuring that people do not simply stabilize temporarily but also move into permanent housing that matches their needs and abilities. Improving outreach, case management, and accountability will support faster transitions. Additionally, ensuring adequate funding for encampment deep cleaning will improve conditions for those waiting to move to interim or permanent housing. Providing basic sanitation and debris removal, along with outreach and service connections, can mitigate the harmful physical and mental health impacts of unsheltered living.

Calculating Investments to Meet the Plan Goals
The All Home System Modeling conducted for the City provides the total additional investment needed for Oakland to reduce homelessness by 50% within five years in the areas of prevention, interim housing, and permanent housing. City staff translated the five- year targets into annualized amounts to create a clear, year-over-year funding requirement aligned with City and County budget cycles.

All Home modeling did not estimate the cost to fund the access and coordinate and encampment engagement and neighborhood health components of the Five Point Plan such that the City can meet its five-year goal.

While budget data elucidate the amount spent on access and coordinate in FY 24-25, the City and County lack data on the total number of people that are unserved, underserved, and in-need of outreach and service coordination services. Thus, as a proxy for the full funding gap under access and coordinate the Plan estimates the funding necessary to serve an additional 1,000 unsheltered Oaklanders annually.

In terms of encampment engagement and neighborhood health, City departments do not separately track staff time and expenses for encampment-related work. These costs are borne across departments, including the Police Department, Fire Department, Public Works Department, CHS Division, and the Encampment Management Team. To develop an estimate of current spending for the Plan, City staff calculated present-day inflation- adjusted costs for encampment operations using data from the 2021 Performance Audit of the Homeless Encampment Management Interventions.
49 However, without a more
accurate accounting of FY 25-26 city spending for encampment work, it is not possible to estimate future funding needs. Instead, the Plan recommends modest additional investment for a known $5 million funding gap for trash clean-up in and near encampments.

In alignment with the 2021 Performance Audit, the City must implement budget tracking of encampment work. Once current costs are known, the City can estimate additional funding needs.

49 Performance Audit of the City of Oakland’s Homeless Encampment Management Interventions & Activities Fiscal Years 2018-19 and 2019-20, April 14, 2021

Table G outlines the cost to fund each element of the Five Point Plan in year one of the Plan, as recommended by the All Home System modeling and internal estimations. The table breaks down the annual funding needed to meet the Plan goal for each of the Five Point Plan components, estimated City and County resources available, and the resulting gap. City Funding Available Annually reflects the FY 25-26 program funding (does not include staffing) allocated in the Biennial City Budget for both CHS Division and the Housing & Community Development Department. County Funding Available reflects funding estimated to have been expended in FY 23-24. Based on the differing funding timeframes and estimates, the gap analysis displayed in Table G is an “order of magnitude” analysis for driving allocation policy decisions, not exact dollar figures.

The gap of $284.3 million for one year is significant, and challenges in filling it will diminish the City’s ability to meet the Plan goal. As such, the Plan recommends a four-pronged strategy for funding the Plan’s goal:

1. Maintenance of Effort: Ensure that both City and County funding levels remain the same or higher than the prior year to maintain the existing level of effort. The County will likely utilize Measure W funding to some degree toward “maintenance of effort” funding because of reductions in state and federal funding available to the County.

The City also needs to expand local funding to compensate for erratic state and federal resources and ensure maintenance of the City’s existing successful programs.

2. Access Measure W Funding: Alameda County is expected to allocate $1.4 billion from Measure W over 8 years to fund the homelessness response system throughout the County. Oakland accounts for approximately 58% of the County’s total homeless population and 74% of Countywide Black/African American homelessness. Oakland must remain both a collaborative partner with the County and a strong advocate for equitable investment in services and housing for people in Oakland.

Over five years, the gap identified in Table G50could be filled in part by Measure W.

While there is not enough Measure W funding during the first five years to cover 100% of the City’s five-year funding gap, an equitable investment in Oakland based on its share of homelessness in general, and Black homelessness in particular, will help to substantially reduce the gap.

50 The City Funding Available Annually is the combined total of the HCD and CHS FY 25-26 biennial budget.

For example,51,52:
• 74% of available Measure W funds added to the available City and County funding (not including the City funds used for encampment engagement) would cover 61% of the total cost needed to meet the Plan goal. • 65% of available Measure W funds added to the available City and County funding (not including the City funds used for encampment engagement) would cover 57% of the total cost needed to meet the Plan goal. • 60% of available Measure W funds added to the available City and County funding (not including the City funds used for encampment engagement) would cover 55% of the total cost needed to meet the Plan goal.

If the City had to rely on its existing funding sources, including what the County has typically allocated in Oakland, the City would only be able to cover 28% of the estimated cost to meet the goal of reducing unsheltered homelessness by 50% over five years.

Without a Measure W allocation that addresses both the high concentration of homelessness and the extra cost of meeting the housing needs of Oakland’s disproportionate level of durable Black poverty, Oakland will face persistent

51 These estimates assume that MW will be spent over an 8-year period as indicated by the County. Years six through eight of Measure W allocation are not counted toward HSAP five-year goals.
52 Estimates do not account for County staffing and overhead, which will consume an unknown share of Measure W.

structural funding gaps that prevent the City from scaling prevention, outreach, service coordination, interim housing, and permanent housing.

3. State and Federal Funding Advocacy: Unstable funding at the state and federal government poses a threat to reaching the Plan goal. Two sources that have been pivotal to the City’s ability to fund a robust response system are the state’s HHAP and HUD’s Continuum of Care program. As noted above, with a reduction in available funding from the state and federal levels, Measure W dollars and local sources like Measure Q may need to support existing programs, rather than funding expansions. It is therefore important that the City maintain a commitment to a strong and visible advocacy agenda regarding state and federal sources of funding for the City’s homelessness response system.

4. Local Investment and Public/Private Partnerships: The City must expand local resources to meet the 50% reduction goal. A top priority is replacing Measure U funding with an additional bond measure for capital investment in homeless housing – both permanent and interim units. Additionally, the City must increase engagement with philanthropy for investment into innovative solutions and program pilots, such as rapid diversion programs and workforce development.

Implementing Oakland’s Five Point Plan
Implementing Oakland’s Five Point Plan to reduce unsheltered homelessness by 50% over a five-year period will not only require substantial resources but also a strong partnership with Alameda County and short-term goals with ambitious timelines. The following section outlines the key activities, roles, and responsibilities necessary to advance each of the strategies in the Five Point Plan. The Roles and Responsibilities subsections within each of the Implementing Oakland’s Five Point Plan sections propose actions for both the City and the County, and will require proactive discussion and collaboration at both levels of government to determine realistic implementation steps. This section also describes the funding outlook based on the investment framework described in the prior section. Upon adoption of the Plan, a detailed workplan with tasks and timelines will be needed. The OHS will play a central role in drafting the workplan, leading collaboration with the County, and overseeing implementation of the Five Point Plan.

Strategy #1 – Prevention: Prevent inflow by stemming new homelessness Five-Year Objectives
To cut unsheltered homelessness by 50% within five years, the City and County must significantly expand homelessness prevention efforts for housing-insecure Oaklanders.

Targeted homelessness prevention is a successful model currently implemented in Oakland.53 With an additional annual investment of $21.2 million—for a total of $24.8 million per year—the City and County could provide prevention services to 3,400

53 Keep People Housed: Oakland’s Targeted Homelessness Prevention Pilot February 2025

households annually, compared to 850 households served in FY 24-25. This expanded investment will significantly reduce entries into homelessness.54 Key Activities
a. Scale-up targeted homeless prevention services: As Oakland works with Alameda County to scale up targeted prevention in Oakland, the City and County must continue to accurately target those truly on the brink of homelessness to receive scarce program resources.
b. Work with Bay Area leaders to prevent displacement: Bay Area leaders should work together to prevent the displacement—or “push”—of unhoused residents from one city to another. Displacement from neighboring cities prolongs episodes of homelessness, undermines stability, does not solve homelessness, and places a strain on local homeless response systems. A unified regional strategy is essential to address root causes, share resources equitably, and ensure that neighboring community resources are not strained or disproportionately impacted. See the Local, State, and Federal Advocacy Agenda
section.

Roles and Responsibilities
Table H sets forth the roles of the City and County.

54 Using a conservative estimate of who, among those receiving services, would have become literally homeless, this expansion of prevention services will mean at least 500 households that would have become homeless will instead remain stably housed, or 2,500 instances of homelessness will be prevented over the 5-year HSAP timeline.

Funding Outlook
In FY 25-26, the City funds targeted homelessness prevention services through the Keep Oakland Housed program with $2-3 million per year and serves approximately 850 people annually.55 Oakland needs to expand the system and invest more to decrease inflow into homelessness, or entries will continue to outpace exits, and the homeless population will continue to grow. In the current FY 25-26, the County doesn’t fund targeted homelessness prevention in Oakland, although the County funds related services such as legal assistance for people facing eviction. In accordance with Table G, the City should seek Measure W funding from the County to fill as much of the $21.2 million annual gap as possible.

Strategy #2 – Access and Coordination: Strengthen Outreach and Service Coordination
Five Year Objectives
Effective outreach and service coordination connect unhoused people to pathways out of homelessness. Although the City, County, and community-based organizations deploy staff to support those living outdoors, the inadequate number of staff positions, lack of training, low wages, high turnover, and poor coordination all lead to erratic relationship- building and support. Inconsistent service coordination prolongs episodes of homelessness and inhibits the City’s ability to substantially reduce unsheltered homelessness.

The City and County must increase the number of unsheltered residents who receive consistent and knowledgeable navigation support by adding skilled staff and contractors.

Enhanced coordination, training, and support for existing outreach workers and case managers is also critical.

While the system lacks data to know the precise number of people in-need, very rough estimates indicate about 2,000 unsheltered individuals in Oakland lack sufficient support.56 The five-year goal is to provide holistic case management to an additional 1,000 individuals annually and to ensure all unsheltered Oaklanders have recently completed a CES shelter and housing needs assessment.

Key Activities
a. Improve access to the Coordinated Entry System: The CES housing assessment and/or “crisis cue” assessment for shelter is the first step to qualify for interim or permanent housing funded by the County. Yet too many

55 Agenda Report SUPPLEMENTAL – Homelessness Prevention Program Extension 4/22/2025 56 Per discussion with County leadership, 11/6/2025, approximately 900 people countywide receive Housing Navigation services and 2000 people are served by Street Health Teams. These are two types of outreach and navigation services funded by the County. Smaller numbers of people receive Behavioral Health case management or Enhanced Case Management. There is overlap between services, Thus some people receive multiple services and others receive none. Roughly estimating 3,000 people countywide receive at least one of the four outreach and navigation services, and if 60% of these individuals are in Oakland, then approximately 2,000 unsheltered Oaklanders would be unserved.

unsheltered Oaklanders go without an assessment due to the small pool of qualified assessors at Housing Resource Centers, 211 call lines, and outreach programs. Relying primarily on Housing Resource Centers is also a barrier for those who have limited transportation, disabilities, or fear of leaving their belongings behind in an encampment. The pool of providers that conduct CES assessments must be broadened, and ongoing training provided.

b. Foster collaboration across agencies: The City will expand Oakland’s OHS’s role in coordinating and cross-training housing navigation and case management across City, County, and community partners. Multiple outreach workers often engage with the same unsheltered resident, creating confusion and duplicating efforts. To address this, Oakland’s OHS should work with the County to convene and coordinate providers. For instance, in case conferencing calls, outreach workers, case managers, and service providers could review active cases, assign a primary point of contact for each resident, and develop a coordinated service plan. This approach ensures residents have a clear and consistent pathway to support, reduces duplication, and deploys resources strategically and efficiently.

c. Improve training and support for outreach workers: Existing City staff and contractors can be supported and trained to work with unsheltered people who have trauma, mental health challenges, and other disabilities. Behavioral health issues, including substance use disorders, often make connections, trust, and follow-through difficult.

In FY 25-26, the City employs four case managers within the CHS division. The Fire Department’s MACRO team includes 17 Community Intervention Specialists and nine Emergency Medical Technicians. Additionally, the City funds five outreach workers through nonprofit partners. All these individuals are on the front line of the homelessness crisis, and they need to be better supported, trained, and coordinated to reduce burnout and strengthen the effectiveness of their efforts. Stronger clinical oversight and training, case-conferencing across teams, clarified roles, operating procedures, and expectations will improve Oakland’s street outreach.

d. Strengthen Housing Navigation and Holistic Case Management: Best practice is integrated, holistic case management that includes benefits enrollment (Medi-Cal, CalFresh, SSI/SSDI), employment support, mental health connections, and family reunification when appropriate. In FY 25-26, some housing navigators provide more holistic case management, while others focus only on housing. Where specialization occurs, such as one provider helping with employment and another helping with benefits for the same individual, case conferencing and coordination is even more important. Strengthening staff and partner skills and supporting communication among providers will facilitate faster exits out of homelessness.

e. Identify providers who can operate rapid homelessness diversion programs to expedite stabilization for those who are newly homeless and/or lower acuity.

Look at developing a pilot based on best practice research.

Roles & Responsibilities
Table I sets forth the roles of the City and County.

Funding Outlook
In FY 24-25, the City spent about $1.9 million annually on contracts with nonprofit partners who provide access and coordination services to unsheltered people. These contracts serve about 360 people annually.57 City staff in the Fire Department’s MACRO team and CHS’s case management team also provide light-touch engagement and referral services.

The County provides approximately $8 million in funding for Access and Coordination services in Oakland and serves about 2,000 Oaklanders annually, as a very rough estimate.

Oakland needs to expand these programs to increase exits from homelessness and focus some of this effort on rapid diversion, as described in the Spotlight on Diversion in the Introduction and Background section. In accordance with Table G, the City should seek Measure W funding from the County to fill as much of the $6.1 million annual gap as possible.

57 Alameda County HMIS Annual Performance Report (APR) Reporting Period 7/1/2024-6/30/2025

Strategy #3 – Encampment Engagement and Neighborhood Health: Improve Living Conditions for Unsheltered Households and Surrounding Communities.

Five-Year Objectives
Despite a substantially increased pace of encampment closures in 2025, reported encampments still rose. See Appendix O, REIA: Section 10 “Engaging Impacted Community Member” for data trends on reported encampments.

The City lacks shelter and housing to meet the needs of unhoused individuals58 and without an indoor place to move, most individuals simply self-relocate to another Oakland location during encampment closures. Until the City can increase shelter flow, unsheltered homelessness and encampments will continue to be prevalent in Oakland’s streets.59 To reduce the impact of encampments on both unhoused residents and the neighboring community, the City can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of encampment engagement and neighborhood health activities. These activities serve three separate purposes:

• Minimize impacts of unsheltered homelessness on businesses, infrastructure, and neighbors,
• Improve health and safety for those living outdoors, and • Connect with unsheltered individuals to facilitate transitions into programs and housing

While encampment closures are necessary to maintain usability of Oakland’s parks, schools, businesses, and critical infrastructure, forced relocation has negative and racially disproportionate impacts on unsheltered people. The 2024 PIT County found that forty- eight (48%) of unsheltered Oaklanders are Black/African American. Numerous research efforts find that encampment closures can have detrimental impacts on health and delay progress toward stable housing. When encampments are closed without sufficient outreach or offers of shelter/housing appropriate to individual needs, then the closures:

• Force residents into more dangerous locations
• Reduce access to healthcare and social services, such as by losing paperwork or contact with case managers
• Result in loss of mobility aids and loss of medications • Increase risk of overdose death.
60 To mitigate these potential negative impacts, and as highlighted in the Access and Coordination subsection, the City will coordinate and intensify unsheltered outreach to

58 See REIA, Section 10 “Engaging Impacted Community Members” for data on encampment trends. Pg. 59 City of Oakland Homeless Census & Survey 2024 Executive Summary 60 National Association of County and City Health Officials, Public Health Impacts of Encampment “Sweeps” , July 2025: chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.naccho.org/uploads/downloadable-resources/FINAL-ES-Brief-Combined-

7.28.2025.pdf

ensure that each person at an identified encampment and sanitation station is: (1) engaged in a trusting relationship with a case manager or outreach worker, (2) accurately assessed for service and housing needs, and (3) offered services and supports that meet their immediate needs, even if interim or permanent housing are not available. All efforts and responses will be documented.

Key Activities
The City’s encampment management approach is dictated by two documents: The Encampment Management Policy adopted in 2020, and the Miralle Settlement. In addition, the Performance Audit of the City of Oakland’s Homeless Encampment Management Interventions and Activities for Fiscal Years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 has relevant recommendations that have not yet been fully implemented. Plan key activities are thus consistent with the Encampment Management Policy, the Miralle Settlement, and audit recommendations, although each document serves a distinct purpose.

In the simplest terms, the City historically responds to encampments with:

• Outreach to the individuals to offer temporary shelter and services, when available
• Notification of closure date
• Clearance of the area, including storing belongings (bag and tag policy), towing vehicles and trailers, and trash disposal

To improve encampment management and neighborhood health outcomes, a more expansive approach is recommended, as follows:

a. Increase trash removal and deep cleaning operations, as well as reinforce good neighbor expectations in encamped areas: While illegal dumping is not the result of homelessness, trash is often dumped in the locations where unhoused people are staying. Public Works needs increased funding and capacity to address trash in and near encampments.

Unhoused residents will also be engaged to maintain the public space in and near encampments. Collaboratively and proactively engaging the unhoused community will contain trash and biowaste and preserve American Disabilities Act (ADA) sidewalk and street requirements. Establishing good neighbor expectations, such as those in San Jose61 and communicating these standards to unhoused neighbors will also reduce friction between businesses, unhoused Oaklanders, and housed neighbors. Engagement on good neighbor expectations would occur in conjunction with key activities in Access & Coordinate.

b. Make efficient use of existing sanitation contracts: The City contracts for basic sanitation services to protect public and individual health where there

61 City of San Jose Good Neighbor Guidelines

are concentrations of unhoused people. The City and County also fund outreach, engagement, healthcare, benefits advocacy, and CES enrollment for unsheltered individuals, as discussed in the Access and Coordination subsection. Improved coordination between outreach staff and sanitation contractors will improve sanitation and reduce neighborhood impacts. Key elements of this activity are:

i. Maintain porta-potties and hand washing stations (Sanitation Stations) throughout the City and evaluate the need for more. Up to 40 Sanitation Station locations are funded in FY 25-26. Community engagement with both housed and unhoused is crucial to maintaining stable and clean Sanitation Station locations.
ii. Prevent unmanaged growth of encampments and co-occurring challenges. Sanitation Stations will receive consistent attention from outreach workers and case managers. Public Works, the Fire Department’s MACRO team, and Police will prioritize 911 and 311 calls to ensure timely response to crime, conflict, and health emergencies.

c. Increase engagement prior to encampment closures: Successful and enduring encampment closures require planning-ahead for early engagement, taking a public health approach. Before the City’s encampment closure team arrives at a site, outreach workers will have worked closely with residents so that they are well prepared for the move. In addition, as recommended by UCSF, USICH, and employed with success around the county, Oakland will bolster encampment outreach with clinical and behavioral health expertise. See Key Activities in the Access and Coordination subsection. This early planning and engagement will ensure that the City’s resources are not wasted when teams cannot complete their work as scheduled.

d. Develop Priority No-Camping Zones in High Sensitivity Areas: With over 90% of Oakland categorized as “High Sensitivity” in 2025, limited staff who conduct encampment operations, and limited shelter space available, priorities for encampment closure and re-closure must be clarified.

Appendix K provides the map with High Sensitivity and Low Sensitivity designations.

The selection of encampments for closure must be informed by community needs and safety. Sporadic and unsystematic closures are an inefficient use of limited resources and can cause harm to those who are displaced.

This HSAP proposes new priority no-camping zones within the High Sensitivity areas to establish a data-informed framework for assessing and responding to encampments. These priority areas should be mapped, formally adopted, clearly posted with permanent signs, and maintained. The

desired outcome of this prioritization is to ensure that the City’s core infrastructure for transportation, safety, and commerce is unimpeded.

Priority no-camping zones will be developed based on existing guidance in the Encampment Management Policy, the Countywide Encampment Prioritization Matrix, and in collaboration with relevant departments and agencies. Collaboration across departments will ensure that the spaces deemed priority no-camping zones receive signage as well as activation, beautification, and fortification activities to deter re-encampment.

e. Explore innovative programs and fundraise to pilot them in Oakland:

There are several promising practices neighboring jurisdictions have implemented that Oakland should consider with a philanthropic partner. As an example, the G.L.I.T.T.E.R program in Portland has been successful at employing unhoused individuals to pick up trash and has shown positive permanent housing outcomes for those engaged in the program. 62 Additionally, the National Health Care for the Homeless Council identified San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Rosa, Richmond, and Portland as models of “Temporary Supported Communities” . These models receive public or philanthropic support but also rely on residents and volunteers to support the community at low cost.

f. Explore solutions targeting vehicular homelessness: With 58% of Oakland’s unsheltered homeless residing in a car or RV , 63 a vehicular homelessness approach should include the following features:

i. Conduct outreach to people living in cars and RVs to get more of these community members engaged in services.
ii. Explore vehicle repair and registration support so unhoused people with limited resources can meet legal standards.
iii. Create designated areas where people living in RVs and cars can safely park.
iv. Fundraise and partner to pilot an RV buy-back program. Such programs have been successful in other cities when paired with high- quality interim housing.
v. Prevent a continued rise in vehicles used as dwellings. Such disincentives must not push people into even worse conditions, such as tent-homelessness, but should include clear rules and restrictions for lived-in cars and RVs to minimize neighborhood impacts.

g. Fully implement audit recommendations: A number of audit recommendations remain partially implemented. By developing standard operating procedures, data tracking systems, work plans, and staffing plans,

62 https://www.groundscoreassociation.org/glitter
63 2024 City of Oakland Point in Time Count Executive Summary

the OHS will fully implement the Audit Recommendations listed in Appendix N.

Roles & Responsibilities
Table J sets forth the roles of the City and County.

Funding Outlook
a. The plan recommends that the budget in FY 26-27 for Public Works increase activity focused on health, cleanliness, and sanitation in and near encamped places.

In 2025, the Public Works Department spent approximately $12 million and employed 58 FTEs to address all illegal dumping across the City. With this level of investment, the team is unable to keep pace with the needs and garbage runs to encampments have been halted. With an additional $5 million annually, OPW could have a dedicated team for addressing waste and debris in and around encampments, including 11 staff members and necessary equipment. With this dedicated resource, the places where unsheltered people in Oakland sleep for lack of an alternative will be clean, tidy, and sanitary.

b. The Plan recommends launching at least one 3-year pilot with a built-in outcome evaluation methodology. The following programs are promising models recommended for an initial investment of $1-3 million in philanthropic or government funds:

• OAK-glitter
• Co-managed encampment pilot
• Rapid diversion program (flexible financial support with case management)
• Vehicular homelessness solutions such as:
o RV buy-back and overnight parking programs
o Registration, repair, and parking permit programs

Staff will prepare fundraising materials and work with the Mayor’s Office to investigate potential funders to advance the city’s efforts to obtain new resources for innovative, evidence-based, best practice programming.

c. Beyond these investments in innovation, debris removal, and basic sanitation, the City will initiate expense and time tracking for all departments involved in encampment operations. Once the currently devoted resources are tracked, the city should quantify remaining gaps in service across departments and funding needs.

Strategy #4 – Interim housing: Increase Access to Dignified Interim Housing Five Year Objectives
In FY25-26, the City funded 1,262 interim housing beds and units; however, this inventory is inadequate for the homeless response system flow.64 There are too few emergency or transitional placements for people who are unsheltered, forcing them to remain in encampments. There is also a need to bolster the supportive services component of interim housing to ensure that residents can quickly move into permanent housing solutions, thereby freeing up space for new unsheltered people.

Subject to funding, the City should add 215 new units per year over four years of the Plan, representing a 15% annual increase. By the fifth year, the City will have created 860 new interim housing units while maintaining the existing 1,262 units. Altogether, with City and County investments aligned, Oakland should sustain approximately 2,300 interim housing units for the next 10 years, with a target of 75% of exits leading to permanent housing.

Actual annual exit rates may vary until the system reaches full capacity in 2031.

Case management and supportive services in interim housing must recognize that many people become addicted to substances while unhoused and ensure that substance use does not become a barrier to successfully transitioning to permanent housing. There are a variety of substance treatment models, but a shortage of such programs in Alameda County. Additionally, it is important to maintain a range of models, as addressing substance use disorders is not a “one size fits all” situation.

Recalibrating investments and strengthening case management in interim housing programs can help interrupt this cycle and create a more efficient and equitable homeless response. A rebalanced system would focus on pairing interim housing with clear, achievable exit pathways—ensuring that people do not simply stabilize temporarily but actually move into permanent housing that matches their needs and abilities. Improving case management ratios, clarifying performance expectations, and collaborating with providers to enact ongoing program improvement will foster faster transitions and reduce the return-to-homelessness rate.

Key Activities
While increasing the quantity of interim housing units is of paramount importance, the City must also improve the quality of currently funded programs:
a. Identify the features of successful interim housing models and their associated costs and use this data to inform investments in existing and new interim housing. i. Complete an assessment of each City-funded program to gauge the depth of support required to maintain successful operations.

64 FY 25-26 Community Homelessness Services (CHS) Program Directory – City-funded interim housing programs as of 1/1/2026 – See pg. 15 of the HSAP REIA for a breakdown of inventory by interim housing intervention type. Note: The total number of units excludes 137 beds, as The Henry transitional housing program closed as of 11/30/2025.

ii. Track outcome-based metrics focused on permanent housing placements, health, income, service utilization, and housing retention after program exits.
iii. Work closely with providers to build their capacity to employ best practices and increase permanent housing exits
iv. Ensure that funding of interim housing programs is sized to deliver the desired outcomes.
v. Set clear expectations, accountability, and foster true partnership with providers.
vi. Consolidate City investments into the highest impact programs, at funding levels that support improved performance outcomes and maintain proactive grant management.

b. Address vehicular homelessness with interventions that center the needs of persons who reside in vehicles or RVs: Ending vehicular homelessness requires a specialized approach that incorporates trauma-informed outreach tailored to the needs of residents living within their vehicles. This includes meeting immediate needs, as well as offering clear and stable pathways towards permanent housing.

The city will research and pursue best practices such as registration support, safe parking models, and RV buy-back programs to determine effective program models for Oakland.

Roles and responsibilities
Table K sets forth the roles of the City and County.

Funding Outlook
In accordance with Table G, the City should seek Measure W funding from the County to fill as much of the $83 million annual gap as possible. As this is a significant funding gap, the City must also take responsibility for funding increases and look to state, federal, and philanthropic sources that have contributed to this strategy in the past.

Strategy #5 – Permanent Housing: Create More Dedicated Permanent Affordable Housing
Five-Year Objectives
The City has a longstanding track record of building affordable housing, as demonstrated by FY 25-26 investments. However, to effectively reduce unsheltered homelessness by 50%, the City needs to create an additional 730 permanent housing exits, including new units, renovated properties, and permanent vouchers, each year. Many of these housing opportunities need to be subsidized sufficiently for households without much income since the majority of unhoused people earn less than 15% the Annual Median Income (AMI) in total wages and benefits. See Appendix O, REIA: Section 5, “Income, Rent Burden, and Poverty” for more information on the incomes of unhoused Oaklanders. Additionally, the City and County need to invest in more short-term assistance and maintain the existing permanent housing, rapid rehousing, and voucher programs. Investing in the creation of new DAH and PSH is crucial for the City to achieve its goal of reducing unsheltered homelessness, in concert with investing in “non-development” permanent housing solutions like rental support with case management.

Key Activities
a. Identify a funding source to replace Measure U and provide capital for new DAH and PSH.
b. Ensure that shelter providers and housing navigators are aware of DAH and PSH vacancies and are knowledgeable about how their clients can get on waiting lists and/or gain access to these vacant units.
c. Enhance asset management of existing PSH, including new Homekey sites, to ensure long-term building viability and to identify future funding needed for rehab and ongoing operation of these buildings.
d. Promote mixed population buildings (25% PSH). Prioritize affordable housing developments that include a set-aside for people experiencing homelessness. e. Continue to increase the number of units that serve people exiting homelessness with no income or minimal income. To do so, develop funding models and financing sources to cover the ongoing cost of operating DAH and PSH. This includes coordinating with the Oakland Housing Authority, creating new operating subsidy programs, and seeking new sources to pay for these costs. f. Work closely with developers to ensure that funding and partnerships are available to provide the level of supportive services needed to meet the evolving needs of people exiting homelessness, including those with high acuity levels.

Roles and Responsibilities
Table L sets forth the roles of the City and County.

Funding Outlook
Without sufficient permanent housing options to transition into, interim programs become backlogged, and individuals remain unhoused longer. Therefore, the largest proportion of total investment in homelessness, including both County and City sources, should be devoted to permanent housing solutions. As Table G indicates, to implement the permanent housing component of the Five Point totals $217.4 million. This covers both capital and operating costs. Table G reflects a modest amount of City and County funding available, leaving a $168.7 million gap. This gap will widen as Measure U funds are fully committed and expended. Since the passage of Measure U, which was approved by the voters in November 2022, HCD has funded nearly 2,100 units of affordable housing (930 for the homeless) to date, and $96M dollars of Measure U remain uncommitted. Once Measure U is fully spent in 2027, the City will see a sharp decline in available resources for homeless housing. The City will need to identify new sources of funding, such as new local bonds, advocate for funding from Measure W, and maximize state and federal sources to get close to meeting its goal for permanent housing solutions.

Local, State, and Federal Advocacy Agenda
The homeless crisis in Oakland has been building for many years. Its causes are varied and complex. Solutions span multiple levels of government, and as such, the City must advocate at these different levels to ensure that the City has the tools and resources it needs as the “front line” responder. The City itself has been proactive in creating local resources like Measure U and Measure Q, as well as deploying staff, implementing best practices, and creating policies to address homelessness. But it cannot fully resolve this crisis without partnerships at all levels of government, philanthropy, people with lived experience, other subject matter expert thought partners, and the community.

The key categories for advocacy are: funding, systems change, and innovation. The following is an advocacy agenda broken out between these three categories and across government, philanthropy, and other partners. Tables M-P discuss the sources outside the City.

Conclusion and Next Steps
The humanitarian crisis that is homelessness in Oakland has many root causes that include deeply entrenched, systemic racial inequities, public and private disinvestment in communities, and inadequate resourcing of evidence-based solutions. Further, addressing homelessness is impeded by a flawed response system that exacerbates the inflow of people into an unhoused status, and then inhibits their transition back into being housed (outflow). However, the City possesses many of the elements needed to make a material impact on homelessness:

• Strong partnerships with Alameda County and the state of California, • Best practice models to learn from and expand,
• Internal know-how in the Human Services, Housing, and Race and Equity departments can guide and target efforts that have the most impact, • An understanding that continuous improvement and innovation are keys to success, and
• Political will to meaningfully prioritize the response to homelessness.

The role of the Plan is to create a strategic framework for harnessing these elements and taking bold action steps to reduce unsheltered homelessness by 50% over the next five years. As noted in the Implementing Oakland’s Five Point Plan section of this document, a detailed Implementation Work Plan will be devised upon adoption of the Plan. This Work Plan will lay out action steps, roles and responsibilities, funding goals, outcome metrics, and monitoring and evaluation protocols.

Cross-Cutting Implementation Tasks: Years 1-5
These tasks will be ongoing, with specific goals embedded into each year of the Work Plan.

1. Data Collection and Analysis: Staff will collect data on homeless program performance that disaggregates for race on an ongoing basis and measure outcomes over time. Analyses will be conducted that inform needed program changes, policies, and/or funding.

2. Public-Private Partnerships that Support Innovative Programming: While many existing programs reflect positive outcomes and should be continued and/or expanded, there are notable innovations taking place around the County, the state, and the country that could be replicated in Oakland. Joining with private partners with an interest in innovation can propel new initiatives that accelerate the pace of success in Oakland. Staff will establish an agenda for identifying promising new practices and seek partnerships to help fund their implementation, including an evaluation component.

3. County Collaboration: Alameda County will be a critical partner in the City’s quest to meet the Plan’s ambitious goals and objectives. The current relationship with the

County has been very productive; however, the following areas of focus will heighten the value of this collaboration.
a. Roles and responsibilities should be better delineated and reinforce the strengths and areas of expertise that each entity possesses. b. Increased commitment to outreach and case management is needed to ensure that individuals experiencing homelessness are supported in a more expeditious and targeted manner.
c. Increased commitment to program quality is needed, along with an approach that fosters long-term sustainability of the homelessness response ecosystem. The provider organizations that deliver services and housing solutions are the linchpin to a successful system. If they are overextended, unprepared, or ill-equipped, the people the system is designed to serve will suffer.

4. Fundraising: The Plan’s analysis of the cost to achieve the goal of reducing homelessness by 50% in five years is challenging to imagine achieving, but the cost is realistic. The City must double down on its efforts to raise funds from new sources. This will require an “all-hands” approach coupled with clarity on what funds are needed for and what the anticipated outcomes will be.

5. Building Capacity Within Oakland’s Programs and Providers (existing and new):

As noted above in the County Collaboration subsection, a focus on provider organizations is pivotal to success. The City will work to build the capacity of these groups, including funding talent, training, and infrastructure, and establishing accountability standards to measure progress. In addition, new homeless provider groups from around the Bay Area will be invited to participate in Requests for Proposals/Qualifications and engage with Oakland’s Five Point Plan implementation.

Implementation Tasks for Year One
These implementation tasks will be further described and refined in the Work Plan.

1. Draft the 5-year workplan including action steps with timing and responsible parties. Address Audit Recommendations in Appendix N within workplan.

2. Targeted Prevention
a. Increase City investment in Prevention in mid-cycle budget update b. Continue fundraising efforts with philanthropic partners c. Advocate for the rapid deployment of County Measure W to the existing Oakland Targeted Prevention program

3. Access & Coordination
a. Create Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the key City Outreach providers: Operation Dignity, CHS Case Managers, and MACRO b. Ensure tracking of activities and client interactions in software like ESRI and/or HMIS

c. Get access to the CES evaluation and HMIS data for all city outreach providers d. Support increased County investment in street outreach, housing navigation, and related services

4. Encampment
a. Create revised SOPs for encampment operations in alignment with the Plan b. Increase the duration and intensity of outreach and case management that occurs before and during operations and increase. This will require increased time and new clinical hires from the City and/or contractors. c. Establish Sanitation stations, trash runs, and outreach to encampments in low- sensitivity areas.
d. Initiate fund/budget tracking and activity tracking across all Departments involved in encampment outreach, management, operations, and tow actions of inhabited vehicles
e. Track outreach efforts and results associated with encampment operations in ESRI.
a. Collect race data for future disaggregation
f. Establish priority no-camping zones and additional low-sensitivity areas based on objective data and Departmental input.

5. Interim Housing
a. Create SOPs for performance management of City-funded interim housing programs, including how to address poorly performing programs and program closures
b. Issue RFQ for service providers to do interim housing and services c. Recruit high-capacity interim housing providers and service providers to apply for Oakland’s RFQ
d. Fill key vacancies in CHS and OHS
e. Identify locations, nonprofit partners, costs, and working models for overnight parking and co-managed communities.

6. Permanent Housing
a. Expedite deployment of local resources, such as Measure U, for commitments to properties that can maximize state and County funding sources. b. Continue to advocate at the County, state, and federal levels for more resources to programs in Oakland.

Conclusion
Oakland’s continued strong commitment to social justice, health, and safety will be critical to the success of the Plan. It will also take perseverance and focus while multiple strategies are being pursued simultaneously. While there are many factors outside of the City’s control, taking the reins to advance those areas where the City can influence funding, policies, and practices, as well as targeting resources in a strategic manner, can make a difference.

Appendices
Appendix A: Glossary Terms
• Assessment: A structured evaluation tool used in the Coordinated Entry System to determine a household’s housing and service needs and to prioritize for resources.
• Case Management: A professional-led service that helps individuals develop a plan that coordinates services to obtain housing, employment, and healthcare options. • Coordinated Entry System (CES): A centralized process designed to ensure that all people experiencing a housing crisis have fair and equal access to homeless resources. It serves as the "front door" .
• Deeply Affordable Housing: Affordable housing for households with very low incomes, typically earning at or below 30 % of Area Median Income (AMI). • Encampment: A location where one or more individuals sleep or live in an unsheltered, outdoor area, typically featuring temporary structures (tents, tarps, lean-tos) and personal belongings.
• Homeless Management Information System (HMIS): A HUD-mandated secure database application used to collect client-level data on people experiencing homelessness and the services they receive; used for planning, reporting, and evaluating homelessness programs.
• Housing Navigation: Assistance provided to help individuals locate, secure, and maintain permanent housing (e.g., document prep, unit search, landlord engagement).
• Housing Problem Solving (HPS): Strategies that help households address immediate barriers to housing and identify housing solutions without defaulting to shelter (e.g., mediation, temporary supports).
• Permanent Housing: Long-term housing without a designated length of stay.

Permanent housing solutions for people exiting homelessness are alternately called permanent housing situations, circumstances, types, exits, or destinations. • Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH): Permanent housing with long-term rental assistance and supportive services designed to help people with disabilities and other barriers to housing stability live independently. • Point-in-Time Count (PITC): A biennial count of both sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night to provide an estimate of homelessness in their area.
• Rapid Re-Housing (RRH): A Permanent Housing intervention that provides housing relocation and stabilization services and short-to-medium term rental assistance as needed to help people quickly exit homelessness and remain stably housed. • Service Coordination: Organizing and integrating services for clients across multiple systems (health, benefits, housing supports) so that a household’s needs are met holistically.

• Shelter (Emergency Shelter): A facility whose primary purpose is to provide temporary shelter for the homeless and which does not require occupants to sign leases or occupancy agreements.
• Sheltered Homelessness: Individuals and families living in a supervised, publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements, such as emergency or transitional shelters or Safe Haven facilities. • Street Outreach: Projects that engage unsheltered homeless individuals where they are living, to build relationships, provide resources, and link them to shelter, housing, and services.
• Supportive Services: A range of activities that help participants obtain and maintain housing (e.g., outreach, case management, life skills training, employment, substance use services).
• Transitional Housing: A temporary, supportive residence designed for individuals or families experiencing homelessness to transition into Permanent Housing, typically lasting up to 24 months.
• Unhoused/Homeless/Person experiencing homelessness (*These terms are used interchangeably throughout the Plan): A person who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, including those living in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or places not meant for human habitation. • Unsheltered Homelessness: Individuals and families sleeping in a place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation (e.g., abandoned buildings, train stations, or camping grounds).

Appendix B: Acronym Terms
• AC BHCS – Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services • AC HCD – Alameda County Housing and Community Development • AC H&H – Alameda County Housing and Homelessness Services • AC SSA – Alameda County Social Services Agency
• BHHI – Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative
• BIPOC - Black, Indigenous, or People of Color
• CalAIM - California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal • CalFresh - California state food stamps program that provides assistance for low- income individuals
• CAO – City Administrator’s Office
• CASPEH – California Study of People Experiencing Homelessness • CDBG – Community Development Block Grant
• CES – Coordinated Entry System
• CHS – Community Homelessness Services
• CIS – Community Intervention Specialist
• CoC – Continuum of Care
• DAH – Dedicated Affordable Housing
• EMT – Encampment Management Team
• ES – Emergency Shelter

• ESG – Emergency Solutions Grant
• FY – Fiscal Year
• HCD – Housing and Community Development
• HMIS – Homeless Management Information System
• HOPWA – Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS
• HRC – Housing Resource Center
• HSAP – Homelessness Strategic Action Plan
• HUD – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • IH – Interim Housing
• IS – Interim Shelter
• MACRO – Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland • Medi-Cal - Medical Assistance Program - California
• MHSA – Mental Health Services Act
• MW – Measure W (Alameda County)
• OFD – Oakland Fire Department
• OHS – Office of Homelessness Solutions
• OPD – Oakland Police Department
• OPRI – Oakland Path Rehousing Initiative
• OPW – Oakland Public Works
• OPRYC – Oakland Parks, Recreation & Youth Development • PIT – Point-in-Time (Homelessness Count)
• PLHA – Permanent Local Housing Allocation
• PSH – Permanent Supportive Housing
• PBD – Planning & Building Department
• PWLE – People With Lived Experience
• REIA – Racial Equity Impact Analysis
• RRH – Rapid Rehousing
• RV – Recreational Vehicle
• SSI – Supplemental Security Income
• SSDI – Social Security Disability Insurance
• TAY – Transitional Aged youth
• TH – Transitional Housing
• UCSF – University of California, San Francisco
• USICH – U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness

Appendix C: High level system flow of Housing Continuum, 2024

Appendix D: Alameda County Coordinated Entry System, 2024

Appendix E: City Of Oakland System Flow Chart, 2024

Appendix F: Most Sources of City Funding for Homelessness

Appendix G: City Encampment Resources by Department Expended in FY 19-20.

Appendix H: REIA Process

Appendix I: Priorities for Coordinated Entry System Reform The City will collaborate with the county to discuss, refine, and advance the below proposed priorities for improvement of the Coordinated Entry System (CES). • Align Local Priorities with Locally Funded Beds and Units: Locally funded housing and shelter units should reflect the priorities of the jurisdictions that support them. This means ensuring that city-funded investments are accessible to unhoused Oaklanders, while still coordinating within the broader countywide system. • Refer a Balanced Mix of Acuities into permanent housing: While federal guidance has historically emphasized prioritizing the highest-need individuals for permanent supportive housing, evidence suggests that a “highest-needs -only” model can bottleneck the system and increase returns to homelessness. CES should adopt an approach to housing referrals that includes both high-acuity individuals who need intensive support and low-to-moderate acuity individuals who can succeed with lighter- touch interventions like rapid rehousing. Diversifying placements into permanent housing ensures units are filled more quickly, prevents people from deteriorating into higher acuity levels of need while waiting to be housed, and helps maintain long-term system flow. In general, housing that serves people with a range of acuity levels will be more financially sustainable and offer a more stable living environment for residents. • Simplify and Accelerate Referral and Placement Processes: Current referral and placement processes are often disconnected, duplicative, and slow. Streamlining CES requires reducing paperwork burdens, eliminating unnecessary approval layers, and adopting technology that supports real-time bed/unit availability and faster matching.

Additionally, lessening the certification requirements of organizations and individuals who can provide CES assessments will make the process more accessible for community members experiencing homelessness.
• Increase Accountability and Transparency of Racial Equity Analysis. Black residents and other communities of color are disproportionately represented among the unhoused population yet often face barriers in accessing housing resources. Evidence- based practices call for embedding racial equity at every step of CES—from assessment tools to local prioritization criteria—to prevent unintentional bias and disparities in referrals. A reformed CES might include annual equity audits of the homeless response system with transparent data reporting at the City-level and on specific program-types.

Appendix J: Alameda County Mayors’ Conference

Appendix K: Implementation Guidance for Encampment Prioritization Matrix

Appendix L: Technical Appendix to All Home’s Solutions Modeling Tool

Appendix M: 2020 Encampment Management Policy

Appendix N: Audit Recommendations for Implementation
Report: 2021_02 The City of Oakland's Homeless Encampment Management Interventions and Activities for Fiscal Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 • Recommendation 4: Establish written criteria for determining which encampments should receive garbage services, portable toilets, and other hygiene services, and document which encampments are to receive these services based on these criteria.

• Recommendation 16: Develop a strategic plan that includes written strategies for achieving its encampment management goals and objectives and establish formal systems for assessing the City's progress in implementing these strategies. • Recommendation 17: Develop annual work plans identifying goals and deadlines for the next year and the strategies for achieving them. • Recommendation 18: Develop a formal comprehensive budget for encampment management activities including all direct and indirect costs. • Recommendation 19: Establish funding/project codes to track expenditures for encampment-related activities across City departments.
• Recommendation 20: Perform a staffing analysis to assess the City's staffing requirements for encampment management activities. The staffing analysis should not only address the number of staff needed to carry out encampment management activities but should also address the appropriate mix and composition of staff needed to effectively administer the new encampment policy. This staffing analysis, at minimum, should assess the need for:
- Police officers providing the current level of security at encampment interventions.
- Staff resources needed to monitor and enforce the encampment policy. - Administrative staff needed to improve recordkeeping. • Recommendation 22: Develop and implement written policies and procedures for carrying out all HSAP encampment management activities. These policies and procedures should include the following:
- Establish a definition, including criteria, for the term "encampment" and thresholds for responding to and providing services to the various encampments.
- How the City will monitor encampments to ensure compliance with the new encampment management policy.
- How the City will enforce the new encampment policy when encampments are not complying with the new encampment management policy. - How the City will conduct a racial equity analysis and the semi-annual review to ensure the desired outcomes are achieved.
• Recommendation 23: Develop data collection systems that include the following:
- Information needed to measure the City's progress in achieving its encampment management goals and objectives.
- Activity reports that provide information to management such as the number of interventions conducted by types, the number of encampments provided various hygiene services, the number of trash pickups, the amount of garbage removed from homeless encampments, the number of inspections conducted of encampments, condition reports on encampments, the number of complaints received from residents and businesses, the number of fire and

medical emergencies at encampments, crime statistics, emergency response times to encampments, and the number of enforcement actions conducted. - Demographic information on encampments to facilitate the racial equity review and the semi-annual review to ensure the desired equity outcomes are achieved.

Report: 2022_01 The City of Oakland's Homelessness Services: Better Strategy and Data are Needed for More Effective and Accountable Service Delivery and Positive Outcomes for Oakland's Homeless Residents
• Recommendation 21: In coordination with the Commission on Homelessness, develop a strategic plan that includes written strategies for achieving the City's homelessness services goals and objectives, and establish formal systems for assessing the City's progress in implementing these strategies. • Recommendation 22: Develop annual workplans to accomplish the strategic plan by identifying goals and deadlines for the next year and the strategies for achieving them.
• Recommendation 23: Report annually on activities, progress, and results of the strategic plan.
• Recommendation 24: Consult with the City Council and the Commission on Homelessness to develop comprehensive financial reports on homelessness services funding that include funder, program type, and service provider. We recommend these financial reports be both retrospective and prospective and cover multiple years.
• Recommendation 26: Perform a staffing analysis to assess the City's staffing requirements for homelessness services. The staffing analysis should not only address the number of staff needed to carry out homelessness service activities, but it should also address the appropriate mix and composition of staff needed to effectively manage homelessness services and address the audit findings. • Recommendation 27: Clearly define and document roles, responsibilities, and authority of all staff working on homelessness services, including the Homelessness Administrator's staff.
• Recommendation 29: We recommend the City Council adopt the Oakland homelessness response strategic plan once completed.
• Recommendation 30: We recommend the Commission on
Homelessness determine and request the additional resources needed to develop and monitor the strategic plan for homelessness services.

Report: 2023_03 Measure Q - Budget Transparency, Performance Management, and Stronger Oversight Needed to Ensure Oaklanders Benefit from the 2020 Parks and Recreation Preservation, Litter Reduction, and Homelessness Support Act

• Recommendation 10: We recommend the Human Services Department, in conjunction with the City Administrator's Homelessness Division, develop performance measures, with an emphasis on reducing the number of people experiencing homelessness in or adjacent to City parks, and report on those measures to the Commission on Homelessness.

Appendix O: Homelessness Strategic Action Plan, Racial Equity Impact Analysis (REIA)