2025-01454 Sacramento Homeless and Housing System Partnership Structure — Sacramento City Council, October 14, 2025

City of Sacramento
City Council - 2PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2025-01454 10/14/2025
Sacramento Homeless and Housing System Partnership Structure File ID: 2025-01454
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Review, comment, and provide direction on a new Sacramento Homeless and Housing System Partnership Structure.

Contact: Ya-yin Isle, City Housing Manager, (916) 808-1869, [email protected], City Manager’s Office of Innovation & Economic Development; Brian Pedro, Director, (916) 808-7816, [email protected], Department of Community Response Presenter: Ya-yin Isle, City Housing Manager, (916) 808-1869, [email protected], City Manager’s Office of Innovation & Economic Development
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Timeline of Key Homeless Policies and Initiatives
3-County Proposed Partnership Structure
4-Matrix of Responsibilities in County Proposed Structure 5A-Sacramento Continuum of Care Infographic and Roles and Responsibilities 5B-Continuum of Care, Collaborative Applicant and HMIS Lead Responsibilities
6-Final Consultant Report: Shared Governance Options for Consideration 7-Presentation
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: Regional coordination for homelessness and housing is a top priority for the City of Sacramento and its partner agencies. As the County of Sacramento and the cities within the County contemplate a new shared partnership structure, this report presents background on the current homelessness and housing structure, provides an update from partner jurisdictions on a proposed shared partnership model, and frames questions for the City Council on key elements for a new partnership structure.

Background

Page 1 of 7 ends

File ID: 2025-01454 10/14/2025
Continuum of Care
In 1987, Congress passed the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (later named the “McKinney- Vento Act”), which was the first major federal legislation to address homelessness. The U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) initiated the Continuum of Care (“CoC”) process in 1994 to encourage a coordinated, strategic approach to planning for programs that assist individuals and families who are homeless. The CoC approach fundamentally reorganized the mechanism by which McKinney-Vento Act funds were awarded. The CoC process was codified into law by Congress through the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (“HEARTH”) Act of 2009. Today, the CoC Program (24 CFR part 578) is designed to: promote community-wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness; provide funding for efforts to quickly rehouse homeless individuals (including youth and families) while minimizing the trauma and dislocation caused to homeless individuals, families and communities by homelessness; promote access to and effective utilization of mainstream programs by homeless individuals and families; and optimize self-sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness.

A Continuum of Care is established by representatives from relevant organizations in a geographic area and includes members such as the following: nonprofit homeless providers, victim service providers, faith-based organizations, governments, businesses, advocates, public housing agencies, school districts, social service providers, mental health agencies, hospitals, universities, affordable housing developers, law enforcement, and organizations that serve veterans and homeless and formerly homeless individuals. The CoC establishes a board to act on behalf of the CoC, which must be representative of the member organizations and of projects serving homeless subpopulations, and include at least one homeless or formerly homeless individual.

In addition, the CoC must designate a single Homeless Management Information System (“HMIS”) and HMIS Lead Agency; coordinate and implement a housing and service system encompassing outreach, shelter, housing, supportive services and prevention strategies; conduct at least biennially a point-in-time count; complete an annual gaps analysis of homeless needs and services; and other functions. The CoC must also operate a collaborative process for developing applications and approving submission of applications for the Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) published by HUD for the CoC Program and designate a Collaborative Applicant (that will submit the annual CoC Program Competition application and apply for planning funds).

From 1994 to 2011, the Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance (“DHA”) served as the Collaborative Applicant and HMIS Lead Agency for the Sacramento City and County CoC. However, due to a lack of necessary funding to adequately administer the CoC, in December 2010, the County Board of Supervisors and the Sacramento City Council passed resolutions (City Resolution No. 2010 -736) calling for the transition to a new organizational model to provide management direction and oversight to the efforts to end homelessness in Sacramento County. This included consideration of a new JPA to set policies and procedures for homelessness. However, in March 2011, the Board and

Page 2 of 7 ends

File ID: 2025-01454 10/14/2025
Council decided not to establish a new JPA and instead adopted resolutions (City HA Resolution No. 2011-003) designating Sacramento Steps Forward (“SSF”), a newly established non-profit, as the HUD designated Collaborative Applicant and HMIS Lead Agency for the Sacramento City and County CoC.

While the majority of CoC’s in California have their CoC membership and CoC Board as two distinct and separate entities, Sacramento is unique in that the CoC membership and CoC Board essentially function as one entity, the 32-member Sacramento CoC Board. SSF provides staff support to the CoC Board and its committees, coordinates planning and public meetings, manages data and reporting, and leads the annual funding application process on behalf of the Sacramento CoC. The Sacramento City and County CoC received nearly $40.5 million through the 2024 HUD NOFA application process, which sustains funding for over 4,000 units of permanent housing and also included funding for 81 units of new permanent supportive housing at two projects.

Housing Authority
In 1973, the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (“SHRA”) was formed to merge staff of the City’s Housing Authority and City’s Redevelopment Agency. This merger resulted in the creation of the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission, which is the governing body for SHRA. In 1982, SHRA became a joint powers authority (“JPA”) between the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento and included: the City Housing Authority, the County Housing Authority, the Redevelopment Agency of the County, and the Redevelopment Agency of the City. The primary purpose of the JPA was to enable the constituent entities to benefit from a common staff and to create an independent public agency for the purpose of providing staff services in carrying out the housing and redevelopment functions within the respective City and County jurisdictions.

While redevelopment agencies were dissolved in 2012, which resulted in the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agencies of the City and County of Sacramento, SHRA continues as the Housing Authorities of the City and County of Sacramento. In this capacity, SHRA provides affordable housing opportunities, public housing and resident services, and administers voucher programs, and several other federal, state and local funding programs on behalf of the City and County. SHRA is overseen by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission, an 11-member governing board that reviews and makes recommendations on SHRA items prior to approval by the governing bodies, the County Board of Supervisors as the Housing Authority of the County of Sacramento, and the City Council as the Housing Authority of the City of Sacramento. As the administrative entity of voucher programs and public housing, and in Sacramento the primary funder of affordable housing development receiving and administering federal entitlement funds and local housing trust funds, the housing authority is a critical partner to resolving homelessness.

Local Key Events
Since SSF was established in 2011, there have been many significant actions and activities in Sacramento regarding homelessness and housing, (a summary timeline is provided as Attachment 2)

Page 3 of 7 ends

File ID: 2025-01454 10/14/2025
including:
· 2015: Establishment of City Homeless Services Manager position. · 2019: First Grand Jury Report released calling for a process to identify an organizational model responsive to the needs of the homelessness crisis to be coordinated by the five primary organizations providing resources to the homelessness effort - County of Sacramento, City of Sacramento, CoC Governing Board, SSF, and SHRA. In the fall of 2019, the City of Sacramento established the City Housing Policy Manager position. Also in 2019, the State of California established the first round of Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (“HHAP”) funding.
· 2021: In response to the 2018-2019 Grand Jury report, the Sacramento Homeless Policy Council (“SHPC”) was established with the purpose of providing broad-based, collaborative, and strategic leadership on Sacramento’s response to the crisis of homelessness. Members included elected officials from jurisdictions in Sacramento County, the SSF Board Chair, and the CoC Board Chair.
· 2022: Voters approved Measure O, also known as “The Emergency Shelter and Enforcement Act of 2022,” and created a limited obligation on the City to expend resources to take specific actions to address the homelessness crisis, and required the establishment of a legally binding Partnership Agreement with the County. The City/County Partnership Agreement was executed in December 2022.
· 2023: A second Grand Jury Report is released finding “There is no cooperative, collaborative, and coordinated effort among all eight governments in the County to create comprehensive solutions to this shared problem.” In addition the report states “Sacramento Steps Forward does not have any elected leaders on its Board and lacks decision-making authority over the eight governmental jurisdictions in the County, making it powerless to implement needed changes.” The consultant team paid for by the County and SSF completed a Final Consultant Report on Shared Governance Options for Consideration. This report conducted a local landscape assessment, researched national governance models, and provided options for alternative organizational approaches to shared governance. The two options presented in the report are a Collective Impact Model and a Joint Powers Authority. Also in 2023, a regionally- coordinated homeless action plan was created between the City Council, County Board of Supervisors, and CoC Board and called the “Local Homeless Action Plan.” · 2024: Approval of an updated regional action plan, called “All In Sacramento’s Regionally Coordinated Framework and Action Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness” (“RCHAP”) by the City Council, County Board of Supervisors, and CoC Board. The 2024 RCHAP was built from the foundation of the 2023 Local Homeless Action Plan and serves as a guide for regional partners to build upon previous progress and momentum with an actionable plan that sets the course for creating a system that is responsive to the needs of Sacramento neighbors facing homelessness.
· 2025: The RCHAP was updated with a Year Two Action Plan in August 2025. In June 2025, draft language for Senate Bill 802 was publicized, which called for SHRA to be restructured, expanded, amended and renamed the Sacramento Area Housing and Homelessness Agency

Page 4 of 7 ends

File ID: 2025-01454 10/14/2025
(“SAHHA”), a JPA that would include the participation of the County of Sacramento and all cities in the County with populations over 50,000 people. As proposed in SB 802, SAHHA would serve as the HUD designated CoC and would also be the regional authority for housing preservation and development. SB 802 was put on hold until January 2026 to allow jurisdictions in the region to develop a formal governance structure to address housing and homelessness.

Other Jurisdictions Proposed Structure and Status Update In 2023, a series of local actions prompted the County, along with the City of Sacramento and SSF, to begin looking at potential re-structuring of oversight and administration of various homeless and housing functions. With strong interest locally to increase collaboration around housing and homelessness, as previously mentioned, an external consultant was engaged by the County and SSF to review the current structure of delivering homeless services and to make recommendations for changes or improvements and completed the Final Consultant Report on Shared Governance Options for Consideration. Out of that work, which included conversations with community partners, elected officials and staff working throughout the County on these issues, the consultant team developed a recommendation for improving collaboration, oversight, and public accountability around regional efforts to address housing and homeless needs.

On August 19, 2025, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors provided input and feedback to a proposed partnership structure that includes the following key changes (see Attachments 3 and 4 for a visual and matrix of responsibilities):
· Formalizes the membership of the CoC, separate and apart from the CoC Board. · Collapses the existing CoC Board functions with the existing SHPC, establishing the Sacramento Homeless and Housing Board (“SHHB”).
· Designates membership on the SHHB to include seats for elected officials from all local governments in the County and seats for person(s) with lived experience to lift up diverse voices and meet CoC governance requirements.
· Elevates the SHHB to be a public, Brown Act body, with a governance charter and dedicated staff support to ensure that the SHHB is action oriented and is making the connections back to work being done in each of the participating jurisdictions. · Designates a Leadership Group consisting of Department Head and higher staff from each jurisdiction, SSF, and SHRA. While City, County, and SSF staff currently meet on a regular basis, this formalizes such structure and establishes formal reporting back to the SHHB and to various department/agency staff to better align work on the ground. · Re-imagines existing CoC subcommittees and other working groups to elevate their work and connect them back to critical policy initiatives as designated by the SHHB.

Key to the creation of the SHHB is that it would serve both as the CoC Board and as a regional convener on key housing and homeless issues, providing leadership, vision and guidance to

Page 5 of 7 ends

File ID: 2025-01454 10/14/2025
jurisdictional and community partners and their staff working on these topics. As such, membership on the SHHB would be inclusive of elected officials from all the participating jurisdictions and those with lived expertise, with two options being proposed to include seats for leadership level staff from community organizations from the broader CoC membership, details of which continue to be discussed pending feedback from the jurisdictions.

While the recommended new SHHB is a smaller and more limited board consisting mostly of elected officials, this new model also elevates the work of subcommittees and ad-hoc committees, providing substantive ways for community members to participate in the work of the SHHB. As previously mentioned, the current CoC membership is limited to those 32 members of the CoC Board and all subcommittees are advisory only, limiting the opportunity to have a voice in CoC activities to being an elected member of the CoC Board. With term limits of no more than three 2-year terms, certain industries and even jurisdictions with limited staff have exhausted their participation on the CoC Board. This approach is not typical; most CoCs have a broader membership that maintains an active roster and has participation expectations and a separate CoC Board. Attachment 5 provides an overview of the functions of the CoC and their roles and responsibilities.

Under the County’s proposed partnership model, the SHHB would approve a new charter to include a subcommittee structure and membership requirements. It is recommended that subcommittees (and ad-hoc workgroups as necessary) be seated with active members from the broader CoC membership, ensuring a variety of voices and perspectives are included. Subcommittees would be topic focused and include those directly working in the field(s) as subject matter experts and always seek to include those with lived experiences. Each subcommittee will be expected to develop a formal workplan and provide a report on their efforts and deliverables at each meeting of the SHHB.

The SHHB may choose to delegate final approval for certain deliverables to a subcommittee or may have the subcommittee act in an advisory role to the full board. In this way, the SHHB is setting overall vision and goals, and the full membership of the CoC is providing expert advice and input into programs and policies to meet this vision.

Key Elements
As City staff coordinate with partner jurisdictions, it is important for staff to receive input and direction from the Council on key elements of a potential new partnership structure and governing body. Staff are asking Council to contemplate questions such as:
· What is currently not being addressed by the current organizations and structures in place? · What do you hope a new governance structure will achieve? · What do you see as the role of the City of Sacramento in the homeless response system? More specifically, key considerations in the areas of authority and governing body, accountability and transparency, funding and project approvals, and roles and responsibilities will be important for staff to know as a new regional structure is further explored, and as details on the implementation and

Page 6 of 7 ends

File ID: 2025-01454 10/14/2025
organization of a potential new partnership structure are developed.

Next Steps
City staff continue to meet with the County, CoC, and other cities’ staff to provide feedback and input received from the various governing boards to coordinate development of a final proposed shared partnership structure. Elected leaders in Sacramento will be convening in the fall to collaboratively discuss regional solutions to homelessness. City staff anticipate bringing back to Council an overview of an agreed upon structure for review and approval before the end of the year as staff continue to finalize details with participating jurisdictions. By February 2026, the Board of Supervisors and participating City Councils and CoC Board would potentially take actions to approve any Memorandum of Understands and/or partnership agreements necessary to implement a shared partnership structure and may begin the process to appoint members to a proposed new board. By spring/summer 2026, a potential new governing body would meet to begin taking actions to develop governing documents and other actions needed under a potential new partnership structure.

Policy Considerations: The consideration of a shared partnership structure overseeing housing and homelessness in Sacramento are consistent with the City’s Housing Element programH13.

Homeless Plan which states that the City shall work with the Continuum of Care, its members, service providers, and jurisdictions, on a coordinated response plan that is updated regularly.

Economic Impacts: Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): This report seeking input and direction on a proposed homeless and housing partnership structure is an administrative activity and is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).

Sustainability: Not applicable.

Commission/Committee Action: Not applicable.

Rationale for Recommendation: A coordinated and regional response to homelessness and housing has been contemplated many times in the past. Council input on the direction and key elements of a shared partnership structure will help guide City staff in working with partner jurisdictions on developing a proposed model.

Financial Considerations: None.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.

Page 7 of 7 ends

1987
1994
2001
2005
2006
2009
2011
2015
2016
2019
2021
2022
Attachment 2: Timeline of Key Homeless Policies and Initiatives McKinney Vento Act
Congress passes the McKinney-Vento Act, the first significant federal legislation in response to homelessness. The Act establishes the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), federal funding programs and defines homelessness in federal statute.

Continuum of Care (CoC)
The Continuum of Care (CoC) process is established by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)
Congress directs HUD to collect and analyze data, launching HMIS and establishing data standards.

Point in Time (PIT) Count
HUD establishes the bi-ennial PIT count to collect national data on homelessness to inform public policy. Sacramento submits its first PIT in 2007. 10 Year Plan
Sacramento publishes the 10 Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness, aligning with the national initiative launched by the USICH in 2000.

HEARTH Act
Congress passes the HEARTH Act, consolidating grant programs, updating the definition of homelessness, establishing performance measures and increasing focus on prevention activities.

Sacramento Steps Forward (SSF)
CoC Collaborative Applicant and HMIS Lead functions transferred from Sacramento County to SSF.

Dedicated City Homeless Staff
City of Sacramento creates a Homeless Services Manager position; this eventually grows into the Department of Community Response (DCR).

Dedicated County Homeless Staff
County creates a Director of Homeless Initiatives position in the Office of the County Executive.

State HHAP Funding
The CA Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council releases the first round of Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) program funding.

Sacramento Homeless Policy Council (SHPC)
The Sacramento Homeless Policy Council (SHPC) is formed, consisting of elected leaders from the County and all seven cities, focusing on shared policy issues around homelessness.

County Department Formed
Sacramento County creates the Department of Homeless Services and Housing (DHSH), consolidating the County’s work to develop new and innovative responses to homelessness in one department.

Partnership Agreement
The City of Sacramento and Sacramento County enter into a Homeless Partnership Agreement, formalizing how the City and County will work together to address unsheltered homelessness in the City.

Develops system performance goals,
establishes CoC funding priorities
Shares data & program outcomes,
advises on best practices and
program needs
Strategic Leadership Group (SLG)
Direct Programs &
Services
(including CBO and government
operated)
Supports alignment in implementation across regional partners, focusing on cross- agency/department strategic coherence. Lifts up new opportunities for funding, housing and homeless programs to SHHB for consideration.

Leadership
from County &
Cities
Collaborative
Applicant
Leadership
Dedicated, professional
staff support the
coordination of work,
tracking outcomes and
messaging impacts of
new model
Participating jurisdictions
appoint from own ranks
Recommends and advises on
programs and projects to align
with SHHB vision
Elected bodies set jurisdictional policies and budgets to align with SHHB goals and priorities and direct jurisdictional staff Sacramento Homeless & Housing Board (SHHB)
(also acting as the Continuum of Care Board)
Sets strategic vision, regional goals, targets, and funding priorities for preventing and ending homelessness, including housing development & rental assistance programs.

Housing
Authority
Leadership
Continuum of Care (CoC) – Board, Membership and Sub-Committees Sub-
committee
Sub-
committee
Sub-
committee
Sub-
committee
Sub-
committee
Sub-
committee
Appointed from broader CoC membership to
provide diverse voices & expertise to CoC work
Inclusive of CoC aligned committees (PIT, HMIS
data security, etc.) and community focused
(Encampment Work, Employment/Education, etc.)
County Proposed Partnership Structure
Populations Over 500,000
Board of
Supervisors
Sacramento
Council
Populations Over 50,000
Elk Grove
Council
Citrus Heights
Council
Rancho Cordova
Council
Folsom
Council
Populations Under 50,000
CoC Membership
Broad coalition of
community organizations
and individuals
collectively working to
prevent and end
homelessness.

Galt
Council
Isleton
Council
Attachment 3
Body Membership Meeting
Type/Frequency
Authority(ies) 1
Board of
Supervisors
and City
Councils
As per jurisdictional charter  Public, Brown Act
 Frequency as per
jurisdictional
charter
 All land use decisions within the
jurisdiction
 All budgetary decisions within the
jurisdiction, exclusive of CoC budget
 All policies within the jurisdiction (i.e.
street management, etc.)
Continuum of
Care (CoC)
Open to anyone in working or living
in Sacramento County, and
invested in preventing and ending
homelessness. Individuals and
organizations may hold
membership, which must be
annually re-certified by participation
in semi-annual CoC meetings and
participation on SHHB
subcommittees and ad hoc
workgroups
 Public
 2 times per year,
with ability to call
additional special
meetings as
needed
 Ratify the CoC Board charter annually
 Establish a Board to act on behalf of
the CoC, to include at least one
member with lived experience
 Adopt and follow a written process for
selection of Board Members and
review this process at least once every
five years;
 Ratify a full slate of Board members
annually;
 Participate on Subcommittees and Ad-
Hoc workgroups;
 Attend meetings of the CoC, at least
twice per year
 Inform and support the development of
regional plans and strategies.
1 Authorities listed for Board of Supervisors and City Councils only those related to homeless programs and housing policies Attachment 4 - Matrix of Responsibilities in County Proposed Structure Body Membership Meeting
Type/Frequency
Authority(ies) 1
Sacramento
Homeless and
Housing Board
(SHHB), also
the CoC Board
Option A: 11
Appointed
Seats:
 2 Board of
Supervisors
 2 Sac City
Council
 1 Citrus Heights
City Council
 1 Elk Grove City
Council
 1 Folsom City
Council
 1 Rancho
Cordova City
Council
 1 Gald City
Council
 1 Isleton City
Council
 1 person with
lived expertise
Option B: 15
Seats:

All seats noted
in Option A plus
four senior
leadership
positions from
sectors such as:
 Justice
 Health Care
 Education
 Service
Provider
 Housing
Development
 Faith
 Advocacy
Sectors can be
dedicated or
recommended
 Public, Brown Act
 Monthly meetings,
with ability to call
special meetings
as needed
 SHHB will annually
appoint a Chair,
Vice Chair and 2nd
Vice Chair to serve
as the Executive
Committee and run
the meetings of the
SHHB
 Select Board members per the Charter
 Establish community standards for
operations of homeless programs,
including CoC operations
 Adopt and monitor the Regionally
Coordinated Homeless Action Plan
(RCHAP)
 Use data to inform planning processes,
make decisions and set system and
program level performance goals
 Produce an annual report on
homelessness in the region
 Establish funding priorities for CoC
funding, to inform annual NOFO review
and rank process
 Annually update the charter, as needed
 Designate the CoC Lead Agency to act
as Collaborative Applicant, HMIS lead
and operator of CAS
 Set expectations for Collaborative
Applicant & HMIS Lead Agency
SHHB
Executive
Committee
Chair, Vice Chair and 2nd Vice Chair
of the SHHB
Closed, only
meeting as needed
when convening full
SHHB is prohibitive
 Set agenda for SHHB and run
meetings
 Take urgent actions on behalf of SHHB
when needed
Attachment 4 - Matrix of Responsibilities in County Proposed Structure Body Membership Meeting
Type/Frequency
Authority(ies) 1
Subcommittees
and Ad Hoc
Workgroups
Varies based on need, all members
of the CoC in good standing eligible
to serve on subcommittees and
workgroups. SHHB approves all
members
Closed, frequency
varies depending on
topic
(charter may
establish standing
committees with
more established
meeting cadence)
 If delegated authority by SHHB, can be
decision making
 Most authority will be recommendation
to the SHHB
System
Leadership
Group (SLG)
Executive/Management Staff:
 Sac County DHSH
 Sac County DHS
 All cities in County
 SHRA
 Lead Agency (SSF)
City Management and County
Executive Staff may participate in
SLG as needed
Closed, meeting at
least two times a
month
 Oversee implementation of policies set
by SHHB
 Supports alignments of programs
operating under various partners with
SHHB priorities and objectives
 Directs staff administering programs
Support Staff
for SHHB
TBD N/A  Provide staffing and admin support for
SHHB
 Support and admin for subcommittees
 Responsible for tracking and reporting
outcomes and work directed by SHHB
CoC
Collaborative
Applicant and
HMIS Lead
Agency
N/A N/A Administers, under direction of the
SHHB:
 Annual CoC NOFO process
 Bi-ennial PIT
 Administration of HMIS &
development of community data
reporting
 Coordinated Entry
 Monitoring of CoC grants
Attachment 4 - Matrix of Responsibilities in County Proposed Structure Who comprises the Sacramento CoC?
Where is the Sacramento CoC situated in the community?
The Sacramento City and County Continuum of Care (Sacramento CoC) has a 30-member board which includes representation from local government, homeless services providers, people with lived experience, and the broader community of businesses, advocates, and faith-based groups.

CoC
What is a Continuum of Care?
A Continuum of Care (CoC) is a regional or local planning body that coordinates housing and services to meet the specific needs of people experiencing homelessness as they move to *In Sacramento, the CoC has designated SSF as the CoC Lead Agency serving as the Collaborative Funding Applicant, Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) Lead LOCAL

GOVERNMENT

SACRAMENTO
STEPS
FORWARD (SSF)*

HEALTHCARE
SYSTEM

HOMELESS

SERVICES

PROVIDERS

BROADER COMMUNITY

OF ADVOCATES,

BUSINESSES, AND

FAITH-BASED GROUPS

PEOPLE WITH LIVED

EXPERIENCE OF

HOMELESSNESS
The Sacramento CoC is situated at a nexus for homelessness related efforts and is both informed by and helps to inform the work of our community partners.

Attachment 5A
What committees comprise the Sacramento CoC?
The Sacramento CoC committees each focused on supporting and implementing CoC work.

What does the Sacramento CoC do?
The work of the Sacramento CoC is organized into 4 main components:
11 22 33 44
Designating
HMIS Lead &
Operating HMIS
Preparing
Application
for Funds
CoC
Planning
Operating
the CoC
Operating the CoC
includes board
and committee
management,
project and system
performance review, and
Local planning efforts to
assess and understand
our community’s needs
and direct resources
accordingly.

Designating the local
Lead Agency for the
on-going operation of
HMIS, the community-
wide database that
collects information on
people experiencing
Preparing applications
for funds to secure
on-going funding for
HUD and State funded
housing and services
> Coordinated
Entry System
Committee
> HMIS & Data Committee
1 2 3 4
Operating the CoC
Designating HMIS Lead
& Operating HMIS
Preparing
Application
CoC Planning
> Youth
Action Board
> Systems Performance Committee
> Point-In-Time Count Committee
> Governance Committee > Executive Committee
> Project Review Committee
Attachment 5B: Continuum of Care, Collaborative Applicant and HMIS Lead Responsibilities
Continuum of Care (CoC) functions, per federal statute, include responsibilities of the CoC as a whole (typically through the CoC Board), of the designated Collaborative Applicant, and of the HMIS Lead. Currently, Sacramento Steps Forward (SSF) is both the Collaborative Applicant and the HMIS Lead and provides administrative support for the CoC Board. While SSF performs other roles in the community as a non-profit and as a recipient of State Homeless, Housing Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) funding, the specific CoC functions SSF provides and/or supports are detailed below.

Responsibilities of the Continuum of Care (CoC)
Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), §578.7 details the four responsibilities of the Continuum of Care, and the specific tasks under each of these responsibilities. While these duties lie with the Continuum of Care (CoC) as a whole, most of these functions are typically carried out by the CoC Board, who is appointed by the CoC to act on their behalf or by the Lead Agency, as designated by the CoC Board.

Most of these responsibilities are carried out by the CoC Board and its subcommittees, with administrative support from SSF. Some of the activities, such as supporting Consolidated Planning and Development of Community Standards, are collaboratively overseen by SSF with other partners, including the County, cities and SHRA. 1) Operate the Continuum of Care
 Hold meetings of the full CoC membership at least semi-annually  Publicly invite new membership to the CoC at least annually  Adopt written process to establish a CoC Board to act on behalf of the CoC
 Appoint subcommittees as needed, to carry out tasks on behalf of the CoC  Develop and follow a governance charter, and a code of conduct and recusal process for CoC Board members
 Establish performance targets, monitor performance and evaluate outcomes
 Evaluate outcomes of projects funded under the ESG and CoC programs  Establish and operate a Coordinated Access System (CAS), including considering needs of persons fleeing violence
 Establish community standards for transitional housing, rapid re-housing and permanent supportive housing programs
2) Designating and Operating a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)
 Designate a single HMIS for the geographic area
 Designate an HMIS lead
Attachment D: Continuum of Care, Collaborative Applicant and HMIS Lead Responsibilities
Review, revise and approve a privacy plan, security plan & data quality plan
Ensure consistent participation in HMIS
Ensure HMIS is administered in compliance with federal requirements 3) Continuum of Care Planning
Coordinate implementation of a housing and service system to meet needs of homeless individuals and families
Planning for and conducting a bi-ennial point in time count of unsheltered homeless populations
Conducting annual gaps analysis
Providing information required to complete the Consolidated Plan(s) within the CoC
Consulting with Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) recipients on planning for ESG program funds and evaluation performance
4) VAWA Emergency Transfer Plan
Develop the emergency transfer plan for the CoC in compliance with the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
Responsibilities of the Collaborative Applicant
The CoC designates the Collaborative Applicant to coordinate and oversee the CoC planning activities, including submitting the annual funding application. The CoC can assign Collaborative Applicants additional responsibilities through the Governance Charter. In Sacramento, SSF is the designated Collaborative Applicant, with responsibilities to inform best practices for system planning. In addition to this system role, administrative functions that SSF has as the lead agency include:
Provide meeting support to the Sacramento CoC, Sacramento CoC Board, and CoC Committees. This includes scheduling meetings, developing agendas, issuing meeting materials, and posting all materials on the CoC website. Act as the Collaborative Applicant for the application to HUD for HUD CoC Program and CoC planning funding. The Collaborative Applicant is responsible for collecting and compiling the required application information from all CoC funded projects within the geographic area and for required coordination. The final application is submitted to the Sacramento CoC Board for approval prior to HUD submission.
Ensure quality performance and impact for CoC funded projects, including adherence to written standards, performance monitoring, provider training and technical assistance.
Produce HUD-required planning materials and ensure HUD-required products and reports are completed and submitted on time, when required. This includes Attachment D: Continuum of Care, Collaborative Applicant and HMIS Lead Responsibilities
the PIT Count, annual gaps analysis, Housing Inventory Count, and performance reporting.
Implement, or oversee implementation, and evaluation of the coordinated entry system.

Responsibilities of the HMIS Lead
The CoC designates the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) lead to maintain the HMIS in compliance with standards of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In Sacramento, SSF is the designated HMIS lead with responsibilities that include:
Review, revise and approve, privacy, security, data quality plans Ensure HMIS is operated in compliance with HUD
Report to HUD and community on system and project performance outcomes Final Consultant Report:

Shared Governance
Options for Consideration
Sacramento City/County
December 2023

PREPARED BY
Michelle Valdez Consulting, LLC
Kira Zylstra Consulting, LLC
Jen Best Consulting, LLC

REPRESENTATIVE
Michelle Valdez
[email protected]
719.290.5531
Attachment 6
Executive Summary
Many communities across the country are working to adopt a shared governance structure that will appropriately address the needs and challenges they are facing as a community/region to make progress toward reducing and ending homelessness in a way that is equitable and meets the needs of all local jurisdictions. In alignment with the current efforts to update the regional plan for the Homeless Housing and Prevention (HHAP) funding, the partners in the County of Sacramento (City, County, and the Continuum of Care) are working to develop a new shared governance structure for the Sacramento region that is informed by local input and national best practices. To determine the best local option, the partners have engaged in a process to develop options that will be considered as a possible new approach for equitably responding to and ending homelessness within Sacramento.

Sacramento Steps Forward, in alignment with the City and County of Sacramento, partnered with a Consulting Team to engage local partners and research national governance models to develop a report that includes local and national landscape assessments and provides options for alternative organizational approaches to shared governance. The information in this report was prepared by the Consulting Team and can be used by local leaders to determine the best path forward for a more formalized, shared governance model.

Local Landscape Assessment
Local partner interviews reﬂected a high
level of commitment to ﬁnding solutions
and a collective interest in better
coordination and partnership. When
considering a shared governance model,
there is broad agreement within the
community on some of the most pressing
needs for coordinating an effective response to homelessness in the region. Most notably, people expressed confusion and uncertainty around roles and responsibilities , resulting in ﬁnger-pointing and a lack of ownership and leadership in moving solutions forward.

National Research
National research consisted of a review of public materials including existing agreements, reports, and informational materials as well as interviews with experts in some of the highlighted communities. The research includes a review of the
structure and governance in 7
communities , each operating a 1
regional approach to their homeless
response system.

The CoC is required to have a
Board, representative of relevant
stakeholders and diverse
populations, designated with
oversight and governance
1 These communities were selected based on requests from local partners, the consultants range of national work, and a need for diversity of governance models.
1 responsibilities. However, there is no federal mandate for how a community must operationalize its governance, therefore even within one type of structure, there is local nuance in implementation. While there is evidence of the beneﬁts of meaningful partnerships, the Consulting Team is not aware of any national research or evaluation to understand the direct impacts of governance models on the prevalence of homelessness in a given region. Even the best governance structure will not be effective if resources are too scarce to act on identiﬁed solutions; regardless of how they are structured.

The Options
Any homeless response system governance structure should be designed in a manner that includes all key local partners to develop, adopt, and implement a coordinated strategy tailored to their community in order to end homelessness. A successful regional approach brings together the resources and insights of all public and private partners (including state, county, or city governments, elected and appointed leaders, and their staff) under a shared vision, aligning goals, data, and strategy. Many governance variations could be explored and the following options are elevated as possible ways to meet the community’s vision of a regional approach. When leaders decide to move towards a speciﬁc model, there must be a local process to determine the speciﬁcs of local implementation.
* JPA is used as a placeholder for any formalized legal structure allowable under state law - other options may include an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) or an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) Conclusion
The options presented in this report were prepared by the Consulting Team and must be evaluated by local leadership and assessed for local practicality, capacity, and impact. Each jurisdiction will need an internal assessment of the options and in addition, it is recommended that local leaders form an exploratory committee inclusive of regional partners to guide the process of determining which option will increase regional planning, policies, and program coordination on homelessness and allow all jurisdictions to meet their goals. The next steps in determining the best path to a shared regional governance model should include expanded community engagement, a review, and assessment of options speciﬁc to each jurisdiction, and a ﬁscal impact assessment.
2 Table of Contents
Introduction & Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Local Landscape ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Overview of the Current Governance Model - Sacramento City and County Continuum of Care (CA-503) ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Local Vision for a Shared Governance Structure .............................................................................................................. 7 Local Comments on Governance Considerations .............................................................................................................. 8 Promising Practices and Opportunities ................................................................................................................................. 9 National Research ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Summary of Research ................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Legal Agreements ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Joint Powers of Authority (JPA) ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Solano County, CA ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Los Angeles County, CA .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Interlocal Agreement (ILA) ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Seattle/King County, WA ........................................................................................................................................... 14 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) ........................................................................................................................... 16 Portland/Multnomah County, OR .......................................................................................................................... 16 Formal Structure: Memorandum of Understandings / Partnership Agreements .............................................. 18 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) ..................................................................................................................... 18 Minneapolis/Hennepin County, MN ..................................................................................................................... 18 Collective Impact Structure: Backbone Organizations ................................................................................................ 20 Denver, CO ...................................................................................................................................................................... 20 San Diego, CA ................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Proposed Options for a Shared Governance Structure ................................................................................................ 23 Option 1 - Expand the Current Structure to Create a Collective Impact Model that Leverages and Builds Upon an Expanded City/County Partnership Agreement ........................................................................................... 23 Overview of Structure ........................................................................................................................................................ 23 Suggested Roles and Make-up of Each Body ............................................................................................................. 26 Next Steps to Operationalize ........................................................................................................................................... 28 Option 2 - Develop a new legal structure through a Joint Powers of Authority ................................................ 28 2A. Independent Joint Powers Authority ................................................................................................................... 30 2B. Joint Powers Authority within the Existing Structure of a JPA Member Entity .................................. 32 Next Steps to Operationalize: ......................................................................................................................................... 34 Conclusion and Recommended Next Steps ...................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix 1: Local Landscape Interviews and Materials .............................................................................................. 36 Appendix 2: Options Comparison Chart ........................................................................................................................... 37 3 Introduction & Background
Sacramento Steps Forward, as the lead agency for the Sacramento City and County Continuum of Care (CoC), Sacramento City, and the County of Sacramento desire to develop shared governance options that are informed by data and best practices that will be considered as a possible new approach for equitably responding to and ending homelessness within Sacramento.

Michelle Valdez Consulting and Team were contracted to engage local partners and research governance models to develop a report that includes local and national landscape assessments and provides options for alternative organizational approaches to shared governance, including but not limited to, forming a JPA (Joint Powers Authority). This was done through a collaborative process over six weeks, including regular meetings and individual interviews with identiﬁed staff and leadership from the County, CoC, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, and surrounding cities within Sacramento.

The information in this report can be used by local leaders to determine the best path forward for a more formalized, shared governance model.

Scope of the Consulting Team
The Consulting Team was tasked with the following project goals: Conducting a collaborative process for the development of potential options for a shared governance model, developing a report on potential shared governance approaches, and providing recommendations on the next steps necessary to pursue an updated shared governance approach, including proposed work plan on this effort as part of the state-required Regional Homeless Action Plan. The Consulting Team has not been charged with making a formal recommendation on which governance model to pursue, but rather, has been asked to provide options based on knowledge of the region and interests of local partners for local leaders to use in making an informed decision on which model to pursue. Key deliverables included:

1. Provide a current Sacramento landscape assessment

2. Conduct and deliver a landscape assessment/national research of similar communities’ successful models of governance

3. Prepare a draft set of Sacramento-oriented options with rationale

4. Deliver a ﬁnal draft of options for review and consideration, including a work plan on a proposed approach to guide the RegionalHomeless Plan and HHAP-5 Application development 2 2 Part of Deliverable 4 (work plan on the proposed approach) is not a part of this report. 4 Local Landscape
Introduction
The Local Landscape Assessment provides an overview of the current structure of governance for homeless system response across the geography of the Sacramento County and City Continuum of Care, including the status of existing decision-making structures, partnerships, and opportunities for improvement towards a shared governance model. The assessment was informed by existing agreements, reports, and informational materials, as well as interviews with key partners. Interviews included:
● Sacramento Steps Forward Board Members and the Continuum of Care Board Chair ● Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento 3 ● County of Sacramento
● Sacramento Steps Forward Executive Director and Executive Leadership Team ● Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA)
Appendix 1 includes the full list of individuals interviewed and materials reviewed as part of the landscape assessment.

Overview of the Current Governance Model - Sacramento City and County Continuum of Care (CA-503)
In Sacramento County, general oversight and coordination of homeless and safety net services is not fully centralized. Sacramento Steps Forward (SSF), a 501c3, was established in 2009 to function as the lead agency for the Continuum of Care (CoC), providing stafﬁng to support the federally required operations of the CoC, including centralized system functions such as data collection and reporting and coordinated entry and assessment.

As a 501c3, SSF has a Board of Directors, focused on the health and management of the organization itself. SSF also staffs and supports a CoC Board (distinct from the SSF Board). The CoC Board, outlined in the 2023 CoC Governance Charter , is an unincorporated association established by the Sacramento CoC, functioning as the lead decision-making body responsible for Sacramento CoC activities in accordance with HUD requirements . As the lead agency for the CoC, SSF’s core functions are to secure and oversee federal funding, capture, maintain, analyze, and share data, build partner capacity and knowledge, lead planning and engagement, improve system response, and coordinate access to shelter, housing, and services. SSF does not manage all homeless response system funding.

SSF administers Federal (CoC) and State (CESH, HHAP) funding and as a 501c3 can privately fundraise, which was a priority for the community when establishing this current structure.

The City and County of Sacramento separately manage and administer local- and state-funded homeless and safety net services, including emergency shelter, mental health services, substance abuse services, clinical outreach and case management, housing, and homelessness prevention services. The use and allocation of these funds are directed by each jurisdiction’s elected body.

The smaller cities in the County, outside of the City of Sacramento, have varied access to resources 3 Galt and Isleton were invited to participate in interviews and did not respond to the request. 5 and services to meet the needs of people in their jurisdictions who are experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness. In these jurisdictions, the Cities’ resources available to support people experiencing homelessness are most commonly allocated to outreach and engagement and meeting people’s basic needs. Additionally, it is quite common for City Departments not dedicated to human services (such as Law Enforcement and Parks and Recreation) to ﬁll the gap in responding to homelessness.

Description of the
Region
including population size
and most recent PIT
numbers
1 County; 7 Municipalities (Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, Isleton, Rancho Cordova, Sacramento)
Population Size : 1,584,169 (Sacramento County)
2020 Point in Time Count : 5,511 people (71% unsheltered) 4 2022 Point in Time Count: 9,278 people (72% unsheltered) 2023 Point in Time Count : 9,281 people (72% unsheltered) Workstreams Roles
and Functions
The Sacramento CoC Board is the lead decision-making body responsible for carrying out CoC activities across the entire geographic area of the CoC (matches the boundaries of Sacramento County).

The Sacramento City Council and Sacramento County Board of Supervisors are the respective decision-makers for the use of resources dedicated to preventing and ending homelessness in each jurisdiction. Sacramento County and City have recently entered into a Partnership Agreement to align resources and services to better meet the needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their jurisdictions and both the City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento and SSF have adopted the Local Homeless Action Plan (LHAP) as the regional strategic plan to guide policy and resource allocation across the County.

The Continuum of Care is responsible for managing community planning, coordination, and evaluation including the strategic allocation of CoC funds and coordination with other relevant resources. As the lead agency for the CoC, SSF serves as the collaborative applicant to HUD, administers the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) and coordinated entry system, and conducts the annual Point in Time count. SSF provides data and data analysis to inform the use of state, local, and private resources not managed by the CoC.

According to the 2023 Governance Charter , the CoC Board shall have a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 32 seats, striving for an equitable representation of stakeholders including
● Government
● Service Providers
● Person(s) who are currently or formerly homeless
● Representation of diverse homeless subpopulations
● Representation of a variety of homeless/housing service providers Current membership includes a County representative and representatives 4 Point in Time Count data throughout this report are found on the HUD Exchange and compiled in the 2023 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) published in December 2023. 6 from 4 of the 7 Cities as well as Housing Authority Management.

Additionally, the CoC has designated one seat for the Youth Action Board, one seat for Wilton Rancheria, and two seats for People with Lived Expertise (PWLEC). CoC Board Membership does not include elected ofﬁcials, which has been identiﬁed as a gap in connecting the governmental jurisdictions with the work of the CoC.

Additionally, there are nine standing Committees in the CoC with varied representation from the County, Cities, and Housing Authority as well as community advocates and other community members interested in homelessness whose primary occupation may not be situated within the homeless response system.

Local Vision for a Shared Governance Structure
While there is no consensus on the exact pathway to a more effective governance structure, there is agreement on the current needs and gaps. There is also recognition of the improvements that have been made, including improvements in the quality and availability of data, increased coordination of service delivery (such as the partnerships created during the early stages of covid response), increased focus on racial equity, and more frequent collaboration amongst local partners. Local partner interviews reﬂected a high level of commitment to ﬁnding solutions and a collective interest in better coordination and partnership. Each partner is willing to take ownership of what they can, yet there isn’t a shared understanding of how each partner’s role should be deﬁned to create an effective regional response.

When considering a shared governance model, there is broad agreement within the community on some of the most pressing needs for coordinating an effective response to homelessness in the region. Most notably, people expressed confusion and uncertainty around roles and responsibilities , resulting in ﬁnger-pointing and a lack of ownership and leadership in moving solutions forward. While there was optimism for the recent collaboration around strategic planning through the development of the LHAP, many noted that there is little accountability to stay the course with a collective strategy. 7 With a clear understanding of the challenges, local partners have a vision for the goals and desired impacts of a more effective governance structure, including:
● Improved outcomes and experience for people with lived experience of homelessness and housing instability. The community is in agreement that the focus of any improvement in governance should be the ability to more effectively support people experiencing homelessness connected to the housing and services they need.
● Commitment to a shared vision, alignment, and coordination . There is agreement on the need to bring all community partners together around a collectively developed set of goals, strategies, and desired outcomes. Partners also shared that it was critical for each partner to commit to immediate and sustained actions supporting a shared vision as well as a collective understanding of each partner’s roles and responsibilities in carrying the vision forward. ● Increased community buy-in. Many partners noted that they were committed to their role in addressing homelessness, but can’t do it alone. There is a shared appreciation for the many partners involved and an identiﬁed need for a whole community approach fostered by improved messaging and communication to support a more informed community. ● Improved access to data and increased data sharing. Many people shared concerns about not having access to data or the availability of accurate and comprehensive data that can be used to inform decision-making and to support community awareness and education strategies. There is a need for strong metrics to understand where and how progress is being made, which in turn, can also aid in increased community support.

In their 2022-20223 report, The Sacramento County Grand Jury recommends that the County and the 5 seven incorporated cities implement a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to address homelessness. From the research and interviews conducted as part of this Local Landscape Assessment, no partner has identiﬁed a speciﬁc pathway for shared governance and there is no consensus among local partners on the formation of a JPA or any other legal governance
structure. In lieu of
recommendations, community
partners raised many critical
considerations and key
characteristics of any chosen
governance model.

Local Comments on Governance
Considerations
The following are statements of one or more local partners. The statements have not been validated, weighted, or prioritized, and do not reﬂect the opinions or perspective of the Consulting Team ● Partners voiced a need for a backbone/centralized organization with the authority to enact regional-level policy not based on politics.
● The majority of people interviewed noted the need for clearly outlined roles, responsibilities, and authorities of each partner - a clearly deﬁned system of checks and balances. ● Some noted there are beneﬁts to having a non-governmental partner in the centralized leadership role to promote ﬂexibility and nimbleness. Additionally, many noted that SSF has a lot of value and expertise as a thought leader and system developer, but they hold little authority to direct or implement solutions. Some voiced an interest in revisiting and prioritizing the original vision for SSF to raise private funds as a 501c3 to support the homeless system response. 5 The JPA examples referenced in the Grand Jury report include housing trust funds or land trust organizations, with the exception of Solano County which is included in the national research section of this report. 8 ● Smaller jurisdictions often feel overlooked in strategy development or left out of regional discussions, including the planning of initiatives/programs that are being developed within their jurisdiction.
● It was noted that it is important to recognize the unique needs/features of each jurisdiction, highlighting that there are signiﬁcant gaps in services, particularly emergency services and mental health supports in some rural parts of the County.
● Because some jurisdictions have no formal budget for homeless services, some expressed a need to partner with law enforcement with an aim to ensure homelessness response is service-focused, not enforcement-focused; however, they also noted a need to reduce the strain on City budgets in departments outside of human services.
● Most partners feel there should be a stronger role for elected ofﬁcials, with varied opinions on exactly how that might be structured.
● Many partners voiced that any governance model must match the urgency of the issue and ensure there is room for innovation and continuous improvement.

Promising Practices and Opportunities
Local partners have noted progress and coordination in establishing a shared vision through recent strategic planning processes. This coordination was noted in reﬂections on the Local Homeless Action Plan (LHAP) developed by Sacramento Steps Forward, the Sacramento City and County CoC, Sacramento County, the City of Sacramento, and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. While the LHAP was noted by many as a good example of effective partnership, many of the smaller cities in the county voiced a need for increased coordination, early and ongoing, with each city in the region throughout the planning process. Partners also voiced optimism about furthering this collaboration in the process of developing the Regionally Coordinated Homelessness Action Plan (RCHAP) to be completed in 2024. The Plan should be inclusive of all local jurisdictions and partners, including elected ofﬁcials, throughout the CoC to ensure a comprehensive plan and a truly regional and uniﬁed approach to addressing homelessness.

The Partnership Agreement between the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento has been highlighted by the City and County, as well as other partners, as a step in the right direction to better align the efforts of these jurisdictions to more effectively meet the needs of people experiencing homelessness.

The City/County Partnership Agreement formalizes City and County coordination and outlines the role of each partner to invest in and coordinate strategies and programs to prevent and end homelessness. It was noted by many that the scope of the Partnership Agreement is limited (the primary focus is behavioral health and emergency services) and would be a more effective coordination tool if the scope were expanded to include all roles and responsibilities of the City and County in preventing and addressing homelessness. The Partnership Agreement leaves space for potential amendments or related agreements and both parties have indicated an openness to exploring what that might look like.

The recent regional coordination effort to develop the Sacramento Homeless Policy Council was highlighted by many as a possible foundation for an improved governance structure . The Policy Council provides broad-based, collaborative, and strategic leadership on Sacramento’s response to the crisis of homelessness, led by elected ofﬁcials of all local jurisdictions and the CoC and SSF Board Chairs. There is wide agreement that the Policy Council has been a critical tool for improving communication across jurisdictions and promoting alignment of coordinated system policies , integrated approaches, and shared commitment among decision-makers . However, the limitation continuously pointed to is the lack of decision-making authority of the council itself. Many partners highlighted the Policy Council as a possible foundation for advancements towards shared regional governance that is inclusive of elected ofﬁcials directly accountable to their constituents.
9 National Research
Introduction
The national research was conducted primarily through a review of public materials including existing agreements, reports, and informational materials. Interviews were conducted with representatives of 5 communities (Metro Denver, San Diego, Seattle/King County, Solano County, and Hennepin County) to gather information not available publicly. The research includes a review of the structure and governance in 7 communities , each operating a regional approach to their homeless response system. These communities 6 operate under a variety of structures all with different levels of involvement from elected ofﬁcials.

This report explores the following models that were most often cited: Legal models of governance, such as Joint Powers of Authority (JPA), Interlocal Agreements (ILA), and Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA); formal structures, such as Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) or other types of agreements; and collective impact models, such as 501c3 backbone entities.

It should be noted that in many communities, the governance structure stems from the federal mandate to operate a local CoC. A CoC is deﬁned as a regional or local planning body that coordinates housing and service funding for people experiencing homelessness. The CoC is required to have a Board, representative of relevant stakeholders and diverse populations, designated with oversight and governance responsibilities. However, there is no federal mandate for how a community must operationalize its governance, therefore even within one type of structure, there is local nuance in implementation.

In a recent In Focus message , Jemine Bryon, HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary, Ofﬁce of Special Needs, states, “Communities that successfully reduce homelessness have close partnerships between their CoCs and Local Governments.” She goes on to encourage partners to, “…identify the needs and priorities of their local jurisdiction(s) to align efforts and build stronger partnerships to effect meaningful change. “ HUD has not endorsed or required any speciﬁc form of regional governance structure, outside of the requirements for operating a CoC .

While there is evidence of the beneﬁts of meaningful partnerships, the Consulting Team is not aware of any national research or evaluation to understand the direct impacts of governance models on the prevalence of homelessness in a given region. There are a variety of factors that may affect the number of people experiencing homelessness, including housing affordability and vacancy rates, climate, availability of critical care such as behavioral health and treatment services, and more. According to the 2023 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) , experiences of homelessness increased nationwide across all household types.

Between 2022 and 2023, the number of people experiencing homelessness increased by 12 percent, or roughly 70,650 more people . Even the best governance structure will not be effective if resources are too scarce to act on identiﬁed solutions.

Summary of Research
Themes leading to successful collaboration between entities, regardless of structure:
● A shared mission/vision that local leaders believe in and champion. ● Clarity in roles, responsibilities, and authorities of each advisory, decision-making, and implementation group (boards, committees, councils, backbone agencies, etc). ● Transparency in data with mechanisms to publicly view progress on predetermined metrics. 6 These communities were selected based on requests from local partners, the consultants range of national work, and a need for diversity of governance models.
10 ● Trust and buy-in from all entities with deﬁned communication strategies when new challenges arise. ● A deﬁned lead entity that is responsible for the day-to-day work of the system and for carrying out the strategy deﬁned by committees, councils, advisory boards, and other collective advisory or decision-making groups.
● Collective agreement on decision-making processes and procedures to effectively and equitably address conﬂicting opinions or perspectives.

Legal Agreements
Legal Agreements can set legally binding terms for partnerships in a regional approach to end homelessness between two or more public agencies. This can include the development of a new entity that is tasked with leading the strategic and day-to-day work necessary to prevent and end homelessness. The agreement may include all jurisdictions within the speciﬁed region, or may only include a portion of jurisdictions in the region (often based on population size and/or resources and services dedicated to addressing homelessness). The examples below show that even among communities with formalized legal structures, there have been varied experiences in the effectiveness of the structures in shared accountability and improved outcomes.

Below are three examples of different legal structures. There is not a one-size-ﬁts-all approach to developing a legal structure and the speciﬁcs of local government contracting are governed by the laws of each state . The process of designing this model and negotiating the details of the underlying agreement, including identiﬁcation of the options based on California State law, would include decisions about which public agencies would be party to the agreement, authorities, parameters of pooled funding approaches (if any), evaluation criteria, oversight powers, and more.

Joint Powers of Authority (JPA)
A Joint Powers of Authority (JPA) is a legally created entity that allows two or more public agencies to jointly exercise common powers. California Government Code 6500 governs JPAs and authorizes two kinds of arrangements:

1. Allowing two or more public agencies to contract to jointly exercise common powers

2. Allowing two or more public agencies to form a separate entity Solano County, CA
In Solano County, CA the Community Action Partnership of Solano JPA ( CAP Solano JPA ) provides oversight and coordination of homeless and safety net services to all residents in the County and seven cities. The original JPA was formed in 1999 in the absence of a qualiﬁed private non-proﬁt that could be designated as a Community Action Agency. The JPA has been revised and reinstated since 1999 including:
● 2013 - adding the City of Vacaville
● 2022 - adding the City of Dixon and revising the seats on the JPA board to require elected ofﬁcials to participate in the work of the board, previously staff from the ofﬁces of elected ofﬁcials were assigned to board seats.

CAP Solano JPA has authority over all legal and funding decisions (see duties below). However, the JPA does not function to respond to the day-to-day needs of the homelessness response system.

Housing First Solano acts as the Continuum of Care (CA-518) for the region and is the coordinating body for all efforts to address homelessness. All jurisdictions have a voting seat on the CoC Board.

Identiﬁed Governance Challenges:
● There is minimal staff supporting the CAP Solano JPA and Housing First Solano - one staff 11 member is the liaison between the Boards and is funded in partnership between the jurisdictions and housed at the County of Solano ofﬁces. At the time of this report, they are completing a stafﬁng study, which is expected to increase staff capacity on the system level. ● With elected ofﬁcials now sitting on the JPA board, decisions are made more quickly but jurisdiction staff and city managers are not always included in those decisions, causing some friction between decision and implementation
Description of
Region
including
population size
and most recent
PIT numbers
1 County; 7 city municipalities (Benicia, Dixon, Fairﬁeld, Rio Vista, Suisun City, Vacaville, and Vallejo)
Population Size :448,747
2020 Point in Time Count: 1,162 people (80% unsheltered) 2022 Point in Time Count : 1,179 people (78% unsheltered) 2023 Point in Time Count : 1,200 people (77% unsheltered) Workstreams,
Roles, and
Functions
● CAP Solano JPA holds authority over all legal decisions and all state and federal funding decisions where the CoC is the eligible applicant, including CoC, HHAP, Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), California Emergency Solutions and Housing (CESH), Community Development Block Grant (CDGB), and Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP). ● Housing First Solano is responsible for the day-to-day work of the system, including operating committees.
○ Standing committees include Governance, Coordinated Entry, HMIS, and Lived Experience and membership is open to the general CoC ○ JPA members have been active in standing and ad-hoc committees, especially with topics related to Performance and Evaluation, Coordinated Entry, and the Point in Time Count planning.
● For CoC responsibilities, there is a documented Delegation of Authority Visual representation of Solano County Governance:
12 Los Angeles County, CA
The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) was developed as an independent Joint Powers Authority (JPA ) by the City and County of Los Angeles in 1993. LAHSA is governed by an appointed, 10-member Commission with 5 members conﬁrmed by the LA County Board of Supervisors and 5 conﬁrmed by the LA City Council. Commission members are not required to have any speciﬁc qualiﬁcations or to be elected ofﬁcials. The LAHSA Commission has the authority to make budgetary, funding, planning, and program policy decisions.

The purpose of the JPA is to have a separate entity, apart from the City and County, that is capable of exercising independent powers. LAHSA is an independent, fully staffed entity (see organizational chart ).
○ The City and County each contribute to the administrative overhead costs associated with operating LASHA ($1,166,570 from the City and $912,000 from the County) ○ All ESG funds are administered by LAHSA
○ City and County may provide additional funds for LASHA to administer ○ City funds may only be used for City functions
LAHSA aligns functions delegated from both the JPA and the Los Angeles City and County Continuum of Care (CA-600). However, the Los Angeles City and County Joint Powers Agreement has not been updated since 2001 and does not include references to the CoC Board or its functions.

Identiﬁed Governance Challenges:

In a 2021 report on LAHSA governance, the following recommendations were made:
● Operations improvements around contract and communication to improve community trust and support
● Establishing role clarity amongst the multiple governing bodies ● Support for system administration including additional political support for LAHSA to carry out its role
● Development of regional goals, metrics, and a common vision Description of
Region
including
population size
and most recent
PIT numbers
LAHSA is the Lead Agency for the Los Angeles City and County CoC, which is the regional planning body for LA County, except for Glendale, Long Beach, and Pasadena.

Population Size : 9,721,138 (LA County)
2020 Point in Time Count : 63,706 people (72% unsheltered) 2022 Point in Time Count : 65,111 people (70% unsheltered) 2023 Point in Time Count : 71,320 people (73% unsheltered) Workstreams
Roles and
Functions
● LAHSA staff are responsible for the day-to-day work of the system, including grant administration, operating committees, and carrying out CoC functions such as HMIS, Coordinated Entry, and the Point in Time Count ● LAHSA Commission
○ Governs LAHSA, including the authority to make budgetary, funding, planning, and program policies, and hires the LAHSA Executive Director ○ 10 members; 5 appointed by members of the LA County Board of Supervisors and 5 appointed by LA City Councilmembers; not required to be elected ofﬁcials
● CoC Board
13 ○ Advisory to the LAHSA Commission
○ Acts on behalf of the full Continuum with decision-making authority over issues speciﬁc to operating the CoC
○ 17 members, including representatives from each of the 8 Service Planning Areas (SPAs) in LA County
● CES Policy Council, other standing committees, and ad-hoc groups LAHSA Funding Visualization:

Interlocal Agreement (ILA)
An Interlocal Agreement (ILA) enables cooperation among two or more public agencies to perform governmental activities and deliver public services. This can reduce duplication and align the work of state and other governmental agencies. The Washington State Interlocal Cooperation Act, chapter 39.34 RCW , authorizes interlocal agreements and allows the creation of nonproﬁt corporations to carry out the work (if there is interest in exploring an ILA, applicable California State law should be reviewed).

Seattle/King County, WA
In 2019, King County and the City of Seattle entered into an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) which established the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA). The ILA intended to resolve fragmentation across the leading funders - the City, County, and All Home (the former CoC lead agency). There are 39 cities located in King County and while several cities participated in the planning efforts establishing the ILA between the City of Seattle and the County and the resulting KCRHA, the initial legislation only covered the 2 largest public agencies (Seattle and King County).

Per the ILA, KCRHA is a governmental administrative agency leading homeless system response and planning in King County; additionally, they are the lead organization for the CoC. KCRHA acts as a uniﬁed decision-making body to strengthen the regional coordination and use of data and lived experiences to inform strategy. KCRHA streamlines external and internal communication with a uniﬁed vision.
14 The ILA formalized the commitments of the City of Seattle and King County while also establishing the KCRHA. The City and County each hold a Master Services Agreement with KCRHA for the funding committed by each jurisdiction to the operations of the organization. The City and County each contribute to the administrative overhead costs associated with operating KCRHA and direct local resources dedicated to homeless crisis response (prevention and diversion, outreach, emergency shelter, rapid rehousing, coordinated entry, services associated with permanent supportive housing, and strategic planning, system admin, and data and performance measurement) to KCRHA through each jurisdictions annual budget process. City and County Housing and Planning Departments continue to directly manage and administer affordable housing development, including the development of permanent supportive housing.

In 2022, four North King County cities (Bothell, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, and Shoreline) entered into a contract with KCRHA; contributing the ﬁrst resources from suburban cities since the formation of KCRHA.

Identiﬁed Governance Challenges:
● Since implementation, there have been challenges in the execution of KCRHA operations and in deﬁning accountability to King County and the City of Seattle. ● There has not been consistent policy alignment between the City and the County which resulted in disagreement on strategies related to encampments, law enforcement, and criminalization.
● Multiple 2023 audits found ﬁnancial management and internal control issues at KCRHA resulting in delayed payments to service providers.

Description of
Region
including
population size and
most recent PIT
numbers
1 County; 39 incorporated cities; many unincorporated communities.

Population Size : 2,266,789 (King County)
2020 Point in Time Count : 11,751 people (47% unsheltered) 2022 Point in Time Count :13,368 people (57% unsheltered) 2023 Point in Time Count :14,149 people (54% unsheltered) Workstreams
Roles and
Functions
The ILA approved in 2019 outlines the governance structure of KCRHA:
● Governing Committee
○ Governs KCRHA and hires CEO
○ Includes 12 members, including elected ofﬁcials, Sound City Associations, and people with lived experience
○ CEO provides information and performance reports to Governing Committee
● Implementation Board
○ Reports to the Governing Committee KCRHA’s plans, budgets and operations, and is responsible for implementation.
○ Includes 13 members, with a variety of experience, including government reps, funders, and providers.
○ CEO reports to the Implementation Board
● Advisory Board
○ Performs the functions of the federal CoC Board
○ Advises the Implementation Board
● KCRHA is responsible for the day-to-day work of operating the system, including the administration of programs and services targeted to prevent and end homelessness
15 ● There has been intense focus on raising the voices of people with lived experience in the governance model which was initiated during the formation of the ILA and lead by KCRHA
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is a contract between two or more governmental entities that is legally enforceable. Governments use IGAs for cooperative planning, resource sharing, joint planning commissions, and more.

Portland/Multnomah County, OR
In 2016, Multnomah County and the City of Portland entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to formalize their shared commitment to responding to and ending homelessness in the region.

Through the IGA, the Joint Ofﬁce of Homeless Services (JOHS) was established to oversee the delivery of services to people experiencing homelessness in the Portland, Gresham/Multnomah County CoC (OR-501).

The JOHS is governed by the CoC Board, which includes representatives from governmental jurisdictions. The board does not currently have any elected ofﬁcials on its roster.

The JOHS oversees federal CoC and ESG funds targeted towards homeless services. Additionally, in 2020 voters passed Metro’s Supportive Housing Services measure, which introduced 2 new taxes that raise about $250 million annually to fund solutions to homelessness and JOHS administers these funds.

Identiﬁed Governance Challenges:
● The 2023 Multnomah County Audit named several deﬁciencies in the JOHS with many 16 stemming from a lack of accountability and responsiveness to elected representatives in both the county and the city. Additional areas of concern included: working in silos, delayed payments to providers, conﬂicts of interest, revising performance indicators when providers were unable to meet them, a lack of a shared strategic vision, and not incorporating provider equity plans.
● After a review of the system, Health Management Associates recently presented action items that include governance revisions and improvements that are needed in the JOHS structure and leadership. Some action items include:
○ Updating the outdated IGA
○ Deﬁning more clarity around the structure including roles, responsibilities, and JOHS responsiveness to the County and the City
○ Lack of clarity around how to use information from multiple committees ○ Lack of alignment among elected leaders, county leaders, and providers Description of
Region
including
population size
and most recent
PIT numbers
1 County; 6 city municipalities (Fairview, Gresham, Maywood Park, Portland, Troutdale, and Wood Village).

Almost all of the City of Portland is located in Multnomah County with small portions of Portland in Clackamas and Washington Counties.

Population Size : 795,083 people (Multnomah County)
2020 Point in Time Count: 4,173 people (49% unsheltered) 2022 Point in Time Count : 5,228 people (58% unsheltered) 2023 Point in Time Count : 6,297 people (63% unsheltered) Workstreams
Roles and
Functions
● JOHS is responsible for the day-to-day work of operating the system. ○ Establish metrics to evaluate performance
○ Reports to the community on a regular basis with public data dashboards and reports
○ Administration of homeless programs and services
● CoC Board is responsible for oversight of CoC responsibilities ○ 11-20 members, including 3 ex-ofﬁcio members comprised of leadership staff from the City of Portland Housing Bureau, City of Gresham Housing Services, and Home Forward (local public housing authority) as well as 7-17 at-large members representing key community partners
● Jurisdictional Committee
○ Comprised of the 3 ex-ofﬁcio members on the CoC Board as well as the Co-chairs of the CoC board
○ Responsible to the CoC Board
● Community Budget Advisory Committee (CBAC)
○ Reviews and makes recommendations on Multnomah County departmental budget (1 of 10 CBAC’s in the County)
● Supportive Housing Services (SHS) Advisory Committee ○ Advises and provides accountability to the Metro Supportive Housing Services (SHS) Measure and the Local Implementation Plan ○ Metro requires regional coordination and regular reporting of outcomes ● Other Workgroups and Committees are staffed by JOHS
View of the Policy Landscape in Multnomah County (not an ofﬁcial governance visual) :
17 Formal Structure: Memorandum of Understandings / Partnership Agreements In addition to the legal agreement pathways, there are other mechanisms to establish collaborative and regional responses to homelessness. The Homeless Services Partnership Agreement, signed by Sacramento County and the City of Sacramento, is an example of a collaborative agreement outlining roles and responsibilities. Another option is a Memorandum of Understanding.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is an agreement between two or more parties; often used to deﬁne the expectations and responsibilities of each participating party. MOUs, by deﬁnition, are not legally binding.

Minneapolis/Hennepin County, MN
In 2020, Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU ) outlining the responsibilities for managing and supporting the collaborative Ofﬁce to End Homelessness (OEH). OEH operations and staff are housed within Hennepin County and meet the federal requirements for the Continuum of Care. The City of Minneapolis pays Hennepin County $50,000 annually to cover a portion of the salary and beneﬁts of OEH staff.

The MOU outlines the roles of the City and County and authorizes the Heading Home Hennepin Executive Committee, which serves as the CoC Executive Board. Membership on the Executive Committee was formed through an evaluation of who interacts with people experiencing homelessness and includes:
● Mayor of Minneapolis + 2 City Councilmembers
● 2 Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
● 2 people with lived expertise
● Representation from City and County Housing Development Departments ● 1 staff from Hennepin County Human Services
● Local Community Leaders
18 The Executive Committee has decision-making authority on most federal funds, including ESG and CoC. The State is a major funder of homeless services in the area and most of these dollars go directly to nonproﬁt service providers, with no input or oversight from the Executive Committee.

Identiﬁed Governance Challenges:
● The authority of the Heading Home Hennepin Executive Committee is limited. They receive updates on other funding streams but are only responsible for making strategic decisions about federal funding, mainly CoC funding, while CoC funding is not the largest funding source dedicated to homelessness
● The Executive Committee is not included in the details of the work and is often asked to make decisions based on a single presentation from OEH staff Description of
Region
including
population size
and most recent
PIT numbers
1 County; 45 city municipalities - the majority of unsheltered homelessness is centralized in the City of Minneapolis.

Population Size : 1,260,121 (Hennepin County)
2020 Point in Time Count: 3,049 people (21% unsheltered) 2022 Point in Time Count : 2678 people (18% unsheltered) 2023 Point in Time Count : 3,312 people (14% unsheltered) Workstreams
Roles and
Functions
● County OEH staff is responsible for the day-to-day work of operating the system including operating HMIS, CES, and conducting the Point in Time Count. ○ The OEH Director represents the City and County on matters related to homelessness in the community
● Heading Home Hennepin Executive Committee
○ Act as champions for efforts to prevent and end homelessness, as evidenced through public advocacy, funding, and external communications. ○ Provide a forum for broad-based, collaborative, and strategic leadership on homelessness in Hennepin County.
○ Approves CoC priorities for funding projects and the collaborative application for CoC funding.
● CoC Operations Board
○ Serves as the intermediary between the high-level strategic leadership of the CoC Executive Board and the OEH staff.
○ Responsible for key decisions such as determining project performance targets, approving policies and procedures, reviewing committee work, and providing information to the Executive Committee.
● Other standing committees are staffed by OEH and report to the CoC Operations Board.

Governance Visual:
19 Collective Impact Structure: Backbone Organizations
Many communities structure a regional homeless response system without legal agreements outlining roles and responsibilities. These collective impact structures are often centered around a 501c3 nonproﬁt organization that is empowered to lead system-level work as a backbone agency. There are many approaches to this model, all with varying degrees of buy-in and participation from elected ofﬁcials.

Denver, CO
The Metro Denver Homeless Initiative (MDHI) is a regional leadership body coordinating resources and services, identifying needs, and disseminating evidence-based practices to end homelessness in the region. MDHI is a 501c3 entity and the lead agency for the Metropolitan Denver CoC (CO-503).

They are seen as the go-to entity when it comes to homelessness in the region.

In 2020, a lead agency needed to step into and develop a regional approach to the homeless response and MDHI ﬁlled that gap. Their role is one of inﬂuence, not authority, and they acknowledge that while every region is working towards the same goal, strategies look different between urban and rural geographies. MDHI coordinates the overall strategy to end homelessness, while each jurisdiction maintains responsibility to the people experiencing homelessness in their geography; there is no pooled funding in the region. While there has been a high level of agreement from elected ofﬁcials to participate in the coordination, there are no formal commitments between MDHI and the regions. However, they have jointly recognized HMIS as the way they track data, allowing for regional analysis and transparency. Housing and service contracts are not centralized and are managed by MDHI and the 7 counties and jurisdictions across the region.

Identiﬁed Governance Challenges:
● The regional strategy is focused primarily on ending Veteran homelessness and has worked because Veteran resources are mainly allocated regionally. ● There is uncertainty if the regional model will be as effective when they move to prioritize other populations (youth, chronically homeless, unsheltered) due to how funding is allocated. ● Jurisdictions have expressed willingness to support the needs of people in their geography, but not in pooling money into a regional funding structure.

Description of
Region
including
population size and
most recent PIT
numbers
Metro Denver includes 7 counties and 40 municipalities. They have organized the region into 9 distinct subregions.

Population Size : 3,262,239 people
2020 Point in Time Count: 6,104 people (26% unsheltered) 2022 Point in Time Count : 6,884 people (30% unsheltered) 2023 Point in Time Count : 10,054 people (27% unsheltered) Workstreams
Roles and
Functions
● MDHI is responsible for the key centralized functions of the system, including CoC operations, HMIS, and Coordinated Entry. Theyhey are the data leaders, responsible for establishing performance metrics, monitoring system performance, and providing transparent data via reports and dashboards. ● Board of Directors
○ 23 members, including representatives from each government entity and people with lived experience of homelessness
○ Primary decision makers with extensive council/committee structure ● Councils and Committees are staffed by MDHI and report up to the CoC Board 20 MDHI Committee Structure:

San Diego, CA
The Regional Task Force on Homelessness (RTFH) is the 501c3 CoC Lead entity that administers many of the core requirements of the San Diego City and County CoC (CA-601) such as serving as the collaborative applicant to HUD, administering the HMIS, conducting an annual Point in Time Count, and also serving as a funder, regional convener, promoter of best practices, and policy leader in San Diego’s collective efforts to end homelessness. RTFH is the backbone agency for homelessness in the region and is looked to for best practices and overall strategy.

There are no legal governance documents that formally deﬁne roles between RTFH, the City, and the County, but RTFH leadership meets often with County and City elected ofﬁcials and City Managers to ensure work is aligned. RTFH does not administer any direct services to the community. They believe this helps them maintain a position where partners see them as supporters who provide technical assistance and guidance to those doing work in the ﬁeld.

Homeless initiatives are not all centered at RTFH but RTFH does embed itself in work happening at the City and the County. For example, in 2019, the City of San Diego developed a Community Action Plan on Homelessness in the City. This plan is still active and RTFH leadership sits on the leadership council, bringing expertise in regional coordination, best practices, and alignment with federal funds.

RTFH underwent a signiﬁcant structure change in 2020, moving from a singular board to two boards to best serve the needs, expectations, and requirements of a 501c3 nonproﬁt while also meeting the HEARTH Act requirements of a CoC. The resulting structure outlined in the 2023 Continuum of Care Governance Charter includes a Board of Directors for RTFH, focused on the organizational health of the 501c3, and the Regional Continuum of Care Council (RCCC), acting as the CoC Board of Directors.

Identiﬁed Governance Challenges:
● The CoC and elected ofﬁcials are not always aligned on policy initiatives. ● The relationships between RTFH leadership and elected ofﬁcials is vulnerable, based on who is in those roles and how they want to partner.
21 Description of
Region
including
population size
and most recent
PIT numbers
1 County; 18 city municipalities
Population Size : 3,276,208 (San Diego County)
2020 Point in Time Count: 7,638 people (52% unsheltered) 2022 Point in Time Count : 8,427 people (49% unsheltered) 2023 Point in Time Count : 10,264 people (50% unsheltered) Workstreams
Roles and
Functions
● CoC Board:
○ Operates as an unincorporated association, while the RTFH supports the CoC Board as a separate legal entity, serving as the HUD Collaborative Applicant, and the Administrative Entity for all funding related to the HEARTH Act.
○ Includes seats for the County Board of Supervisors and a San Diego City Council member - their roles are to align work between their respective jurisdictions and the broader work of the CoC.
● RTFH is responsible for the day-to-day work of operating the system and the functions of a CoC, including HMIS, coordinated access and assessment, the Point in Time Count, and applying for CoC funding.
○ Responsible for collecting, tracking, and reporting out on a signiﬁcant amount of data as it pertains to homelessness in the region.
● Standing and Ad Hoc Committees report to the CoC Board. 22 Proposed Options for a Shared Governance Structure
Any homeless response system governance structure needs to be designed to include all key local partners, including cities, counties, and elected ofﬁcials to develop, adopt, and implement a coordinated strategy that is tailored to their community. No single entity or sector can or should be tasked with solving homelessness alone. A coordinated and uniﬁed response requires a shared vision and desired outcomes, as well as clearly deﬁned roles and responsibilities. A successful regional approach brings together and coordinates the resources and insights of all public and private partners (including state, county, or city governments, elected and appointed leaders, and their staff), aligning goals, data, and strategy.

Based on the input from local partners and learnings from other communities across the country, it is clear that regardless of which governance structure is chosen, the following components are critical:
● Shared commitment to a collective vision, including accountability to each partner's role and actions ● Clearly deﬁned roles, responsibilities, and delegation of authority ● Meaningful engagement of people with lived experience of homelessness or housing instability ● Buy-in from elected ofﬁcials and collective support of other government ofﬁcials ● Those in decision-making roles must have the right expertise to make informed decisions that beneﬁt the whole region, including people with lived expertise ● Deﬁned collaboration/coordination strategies in the areas of regional planning, training and sharing information, outreach, services, shelter and housing, funding, accountability, internal and external communication, and community engagement
● Deﬁned success metrics that are tracked and shared transparently Because there is already an existing Partnership Agreement between Sacramento County and the City of Sacramento, this report does not include an option for a less formal arrangement like that in the examples from Metro Denver and San Diego (see pages 20-22). Based on the collective input from local partner interviews more clarity and deﬁnition of roles/responsibilities are expected to yield the desired results.

A comparison chart of all three options, in contrast to the current structure, is provided in Appendix 2 .

Option 1 - Expand the Current Structure to Create a Collective Impact Model that Leverages and Builds Upon an Expanded City/County Partnership Agreement Overview of Structure
This model adopts and formalizes a Collective Impact Framework - which emphasizes collaboration across sectors and data-driven, evidence-based approaches - in which system and elected leaders would establish a shared vision/aim for an equitable and sustained end to homelessness and operationalize a commitment to agreed upon strategic priorities through joint standards and processes. This would be accomplished by establishing a broad and diverse group of leaders and interest holders/partners under a revised and expanded Partnership Agreement . The new Partnership Agreement must represent the various sectors and jurisdictions, as well as those most impacted by homelessness, and would redeﬁne roles and restructure (or replace) existing boards.
23 With a new Partnership Agreement, this option establishes a regional governance/leadership structure creating a roadmap for aligned action across the Sacramento region. In this model, each jurisdiction retains autonomy (and funding) within its respective area of authority (city, county, CoC, etc.), but there is agreement/commitment to adopting and implementing the community-approved plan and strategies, as guided by the Regionally Coordinated Homeless Action Plan (RCHAP) which at the time of this report is currently under development. This would be accomplished by repurposing an existing body, the Sacramento Homeless Policy Council (restructured with additional members and informed by a revised Partnership Agreement ), and a newly formed Homelessness Advisory Committee (HAC) which would also operate as the Continuum of Care Board, supported by a Backbone Entity (Sacramento Steps Forward).

As visualized below:
● The reconstituted Sacramento Homeless Policy Council (SHPC) sets shared goals and prioritizes strategies, aligned with the Regional Homeless Action Plan, and holds accountability for setting and reaching established outcomes.
● The newly formed Homelessness Advisory Committee (HAC), functions as the CoC Board, acting as the champion of the shared goals and ensuring alignment of the strategic priorities that are carried out across their respective jurisdictions.
● There is transparency, open communication, and cooperation between the SHPC and the HAC (supported and staffed by the Backbone Entity)
The structure is supported by a designated backbone organization (Sacramento Steps Forward) that fulﬁlls the role of regional convener, promoter of best practices and strategy, and leader of the collective efforts to end homelessness. In addition, this entity continues to administer the core requirements of the Continuum of Care, such as serving as the collaborative applicant to HUD, administering the HMIS and coordinated entry system, and conducting the annual Point in Time count. They are deeply involved in each aspect of the governance, participating in and supporting the SHPC and HAC, allowing them to work in close partnership with the County and Cities, on all strategies to end homelessness. This model also empowers the backbone entity as the regional leader, coordinating resources and services, identifying needs, and disseminating evidence-based practices following the Regionally Coordinated Homeless Action Plan. 24 How is Option 1 different from the current state?
This option establishes a revised and expanded Partnership Agreement that will:
● Create a shared aim that everyone is working towards and can align behind through the adoption of the Regionally Coordinated Homeless Action Plan
● Formalize collective commitment to a shared set of measurable goals, strategies, and outcomes and plan for tracking progress towards reducing and ending homelessness ● Promote a culture of/commitment to immediate and sustained actions around a shared vision and goal
● Establish clearly deﬁned roles, responsibilities, and authorities to which all regional partners are accountable
This option allows the CoC and jurisdictions within the region to build off an already existing agreement, utilizing the work that was previously done to deﬁne and formalize partnerships between the City and County. This option would require a revised Partnership Agreement with an expanded scope and additional partners to more comprehensively address the roles and responsibilities across the homeless response system. Additionally, this option would include and deﬁne the role of SSF as the community’s Backbone Organization which would be responsible for the day-to-day work of the system and for carrying out the strategy deﬁned by the SHPC and HAC. This option allows for meaningful inclusion of the other partner cities within the County as the Partnership Agreement should be expanded to include additional jurisdictions.

How will funding ﬂow in this option?
In this model, each jurisdiction retains autonomy (and funding) within its respective area of authority (city, county, CoC, etc.), but there is a commitment to adopting and implementing the community-approved plan and strategies, all moving in the same direction towards a shared aim formalized through the revised Partnership Agreement.

If mutually agreed upon, this could shift, and the backbone organization could administer additional funding on behalf of the County and Cities.

What will the structure and roles look like in this option? The Sacramento Homeless Policy Council (SHPC) would be redeﬁned and formalized as the governing body of the regional homelessness response through the revised Partnership Agreement. The redeﬁned SHPC should include elected ofﬁcials from the participating jurisdictions, the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Authority (SHRA) , philanthropic organizations, the HAC chair/co-chairs, and selected civic leaders.

The Homelessness Advisory Committee (HAC), functioning as advisory to the SHPC and operating as the CoC board, should include representatives from government agencies (city/county staff), providers and partners from social service agencies, philanthropic and business leaders, and people with lived experience of homelessness (PWLE). As the CoC board, the HAC must adhere to HUD requirements for operating a CoC.

The HAC makes recommendations to the SHPC based on their experience, deliberations and input from other committees. The SHPC then makes decisions on an overall aim and strategies to prioritize what jurisdictions can align their resources and services around to address homelessness. Ideally, the elected ofﬁcials on the SHPC (or their staff on the HAC) take the recommendations back to their respective jurisdictions and support alignment and implementation. 25 Suggested Roles and Make-up of Each Body
These are recommendations based on experience and insight from other communities. However, it is recommended that the community go through a facilitated process to identify who should be on each council/committee and the responsibilities.

What do they do
(roles + responsibilities):

Who is included
(what is the make-up of each body):

Sacramento Homeless Policy Council
● Adopt a shared aim and set strategic priorities that all implementers will align with (informed by
regional partners)
● Endorse a regional plan (RCHAP)
● Align funding and programs around the shared aim
and the RCHAP and HHAP application
● Unlike the current SHPC, the redeﬁned SHPC
would function as the body setting the goals and
strategies for the overall homeless system response
Appointed community leaders, such as:
● Elected ofﬁcials from the County, Cities
● Jurisdictional representation
● HAC Chair/Co-Chair(s)
● SHRA
● Behavioral Health Rep
● PWLEC Rep(s)
Homelessness Advisory Committee
● Unite the region around a shared aim and plan
● Align around strategic priorities set by SHPC
● Inform and advise the SHPC
● Implement adopted strategies within their
respective jurisdictions/agencies
● Align policy & funding with adopted strategies
● Regularly review progress towards milestones;
Measure and track results / outcomes
● Communicate and champion the regional vision
● Hold each other mutually accountable
● Collectively identify problems and solutions; Clear
the path for barriers and challenges elevated by
those implementing the work
● Responsible for key decisions such as determining
project performance targets, reviewing committee
work, and providing information to the SHPC
Membership should, at a minimum, meet the
requirements of a CoC and include
representatives from the following sectors:
● Regional leadership (Cities, County)
● PWLEC
● Homeless Services and Housing Providers
● Cross-System Partners
○ Hospitals
○ Behavioral Health
○ Local Homeless Education Liaisons
○ Universities
○ Child Welfare
● Affordable Housing Developers
● Representation from subpopulation
speciﬁc providers - Victim Services,
Veterans, Families, Youth, etc.
● Philanthropic/business leaders
Backbone Entity (SSF)
● Responsible for the day-to-day work of operating the system and the functions of a CoC, including HMIS, coordinated access and assessment, Point in Time Count, and applying for CoC funding ● In conjunction with the HAC, responsible for establishing metrics and collecting, tracking, and reporting on data as it pertains to homelessness in the region ● Staff and support the administrative functions of the HAC ● Lead collective effort to end homelessness in the region and execution of the RCHAP, including community engagement and public will-building
● Support the Implementers to achieve the goals set by the SHPC and HAC ● Regional convener; promoter of best practices and strategy; provide direction to implementers ● Build partner capacity and coordinate communication amongst partners in the system ● Fund development (fundraising to sustain the functions of SSF) ● Organizing and advocacy for systems change
26 What are some of the beneﬁts of this option?
While on the surface, it may appear that this option is not signiﬁcantly different from the current structure, implementing this model would add a deﬁned structure, clear lines of authority, and clarity on roles and lanes of responsibility for partners and jurisdictions. Additionally, adopting this model would address many of the concerns raised by local partners and incorporate suggestions made during the local interviews, including the following:
● Planning and aligning strategies regionally opens up important opportunities to create policies and programs to address inter-connected and cross-jurisdictional issues. Such efforts can reduce inefﬁciencies, reduce disparities, and lead to better services and outcomes for those experiencing homelessness in the region, which was a clear priority during the local interviews ( improved outcomes and experience for people with lived experience of homelessness and housing instability ). ● The model would be quicker to implement than a JPA (see option 2) as it does not require standing up or creating a new legal entity. By redeﬁning and improving upon structures that are already in place, you would not be starting from the ground up. ● There are examples of this structure of governance (from other community charters, agreements, MOUs) that could be used as a model.
● Positions a backbone organization that is connected with the governing bodies and is empowered to support and implement solutions across the region in alignment with the prioritized and agreed-upon strategies.
● Positions the Backbone entity, SSF, to utilize their expertise as a thought leader and system developer.
● Creates a platform to build a cohesive strategy amongst partners and jurisdictions while developing trusted partnerships.
● Builds the will and vision as a region to coordinate services, housing, and resources with an aligned vision and clear goals around reducing and ending homelessness in Sacramento, as well as a commitment to immediate and sustained actions supporting that shared vision. ● Sets a strategy for a region-wide approach for coordinated and intentional messaging and communication .

What are some of the challenges associated with this option? While this option proposes changes to the current state, it builds upon much of the existing structure and initially, may not feel like a signiﬁcant change in governance. There must be a clear plan and commitment across jurisdictions, and champions from each, to promote forward movement, instead of reverting to the norm. As you consider adopting this type of structure, there are some challenges to consider during design and implementation:
● Governing structures that coordinate across jurisdictions at a regional level require investment, politically and ﬁscally, and can take considerable time to structure effectively. ● If not all surrounding jurisdictions choose to participate in the Partnership Agreement or SHPC/HAC, there is the opportunity for individual jurisdictions to act alone on speciﬁc initiatives or strategies that may not align with the community-wide plan. ● Without centralizing funds with the backbone agency, the County, Cities, and SSF may allocate resources in conﬂicting ways, creating a disjointed strategic funding allocation strategy. ● The Partnership Agreement is only effective when each partner is steadfast in their ﬁdelity to the implementation of the commitments outlined in the Agreement. 27 Next Steps to Operationalize
Governance discussions must occur transparently and include those who have experienced homelessness or housing insecurity. These discussions should build on existing coordinating discussions and plans, such as the RCHAP and other local efforts happening at the City, County, and SSF.

Recommended initial steps include the following:
● Establish an entity or working group that is responsible for the planning and execution. ● Engage in a planning process to map out the steps and timeline to execute, outlining the decisions that need to be made and who is authorized to make decisions, including determining the level of interest and participation from other jurisdictions (outside of the County and City of Sacramento). ● Identify a core group of leaders to create a new/expanded Partnership Agreement that would address the following elements:
○ Determine the scope and authority of each governing body (SHPC and HAC). ○ Develop a framework for governance that outlines the roles/responsibilities, and make-up for both SHPC and HAC.
○ Identify what representatives will be on each governing body and how they will be selected or appointed (number of members and what jurisdictions/sectors they will represent). ● Once the Partnership Agreement is adopted, seat the new SHPC and HAC and create a charter for each governing body that outlines the working agreements, meeting schedule, etc. for the Sacramento Homelessness Council (SHPC) and Homelessness Advisory Committee (HAC). ● Deﬁne the roles and authority of the Backbone Entity.

Option 2 - Develop a new legal structure through a Joint Powers of Authority 7 In this model, Sacramento County, and City or Cities would redeﬁne the governance structure into a centralized approach by designating a distinct entity responsible for acting as a single representative for ending homelessness in the region. A Joint Powers Agreement/Authority provides a legal structure that is designed to stay steady through the transition of elected ofﬁcials. This provides a signiﬁcant opportunity for alignment between all jurisdictions on strategies and policies that impact the entire region.

Outlined below are two options for how a JPA can be set up. ● 2A creates an external, independent entity as the Joint Powers Authority
● 2B places the Joint Powers Authority within the existing structure of one of the member agencies participating in the Joint Powers Agreement
In both options, the participating jurisdictions will need to negotiate the details of a Joint Powers Agreement. The options provided in this report offer two scenarios outlining how a Joint Powers Authority could be structured, but decisions made during negotiations will impact the ﬁnal structure.

National examples have shown that forming a JPA takes time and resources from each jurisdiction. At a minimum, each participating agency will need to decide if/how they will participate in the process. 7 JPA is used as the legal arrangement in this option - this should be vetted with the public agencies’ legal departments to ensure a JPA is the appropriate legal structure or to explore other options allowable under California State law, such as an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) or an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) 28 When that is decided, the details of the Joint Powers Agreement can be negotiated, including ● intentions of each jurisdiction,
● parameters of the agreement,
● powers that are shared,
● expectations of each party,
● governance strategies for oversight of the Joint Powers Authority, and ● any other mutually acceptable conditions
Jurisdictions choosing not to formally join in the Joint Powers Agreement may still be engaged in aspects of the
development, particularly as it relates to deﬁning the role of the Joint Powers Authority to ensure a regional approach is adopted.

The scope and timeline to develop this report did not allow for a deep review of the estimates on time or ﬁnancial commitments that are needed to successfully launch a JPA. However, all jurisdictions should be prepared for the following if deciding to move forward with a JPA:
● Developing a JPA will take a signiﬁcant level of effort from each jurisdiction, including legal representation and political will.
● The process of developing a Joint Powers Agreement is highly dependent on the current elected ofﬁcials and government relationships.
● Jurisdictional leaders have to be willing to negotiate during the process of coming to a Joint Powers Agreement. It will require compromise and likely the willingness to give up some authority on behalf of the regional approach.
● There will be a ﬁnancial cost to operate a Joint Powers Authority (including salaries, technology, overhead, and more). Participating jurisdictions will likely take on some portion of the responsibility for these expenses.
● Members of the JPA must agree to be ongoing active partners in the work, participating in strategy work and maintaining oversight of the Joint Powers Authority. 29 2A. Independent Joint Powers Authority
Overview of Structure:

Developing an independent entity as the Joint Powers Authority provides the opportunity to do something completely new. While negotiations to determine authorities would need to happen, the Joint Powers Authority could have full strategic authority to allocate resources, deﬁne policy, and implement new initiatives. Based on the local landscape, the authority of the JPA could be assigned to Sacramento Steps Forward, the existing CoC Back-Bone Entity, or a new entity could be developed as the JPA.

In the visualization of this scenario below, it is assumed that all jurisdictions are participating members. This scenario does not map existing councils and committees, as each of these bodies would need to be reexamined to determine if/where they ﬁt.

How is option 2A different from the current state?
There are decisions to be made and options to consider that would impact the degree to which this model differs from the current state:
● If SSF were identiﬁed as the Joint Powers Authority, it would be an expansion of their existing role in the community. Based on decisions made during the development process, SSF would absorb more work, hire additional staff, and adjust its current model. ● If a new entity is identiﬁed, there will need to be time to form that new entity, hire staff, and get the process moving. Much of the work currently done by SSF would shift to the new entity, including the Continuum of Care requirements, as deﬁned in 24 CFR 578.7 of the Continuum of Care Program Interim Rule . That would mean that SSF would no longer have a role in the system and unless repurposed, would cease to operate.

In either scenario, those participating in the Joint Powers Agreement negotiations would have to determine if current councils, committees, and boards are reconstituted to operate in the new structure, 8 or are replaced with new governance and implementation bodies. 8 According to HUD requirements , the CoC retains authority over decisions impacting who operates on behalf of the CoC (i.e the CoC Board).
30 How will funding ﬂow in this option?
This would need to be determined during the negotiation phase of the Joint Powers Agreement process.

Based on the current landscape and local priorities identiﬁed in this report, there would likely be a regional funding approach. At ﬁrst, this could look similar to the current state with the Joint Powers Authority, the County, and the Cities all issuing contracts to service partners. However, with the Joint Powers Authority as an independent entity, jurisdictions may be interested in a broader pooled funding approach with more funds being administered by the Joint Powers Authority.

Pooling funding does not have to be all-or-nothing. It is recommended that the Joint Powers Agreement outline a phased approach to centralizing funds behind the Joint Powers Authority. This could include the County and Cities transferring administration tasks (budgeting, contracting, evaluating, etc.) of speciﬁc programs/funding and evaluating the practice before increasing the resources in the pool to full scale. This would help ensure that the Joint Powers Authority has the right foundational elements to be successful in their new role.

What will the structure and roles look like in this option? If deciding to move forward with a JPA, all existing councils, committees, and boards and their roles 9 would be evaluated to determine how/if they ﬁt in the JPA structure.

What are some of the beneﬁts of this option?
A successful Joint Powers Authority shares resources, coordinates efforts, eliminates the duplication between entities, and can operationalize efﬁcient and effective systems. With an Independent Joint Powers Authority:
● They are tasked with hearing priorities from all jurisdictions and strategically developing a system response that maximizes resources and addresses gaps.
● There is a layer of “neutrality” by housing the Joint Powers Authority outside of a government agency.
● There is an opportunity to deﬁne the governance structure in a way that includes representation from elected ofﬁcials, ensuring that all jurisdictions remain active and involved in the work of the Joint Powers Authority.
● The Joint Powers Authority is answerable to the member entities, giving each participating jurisdiction a voice. Exactly how this would be operationalized would be determined through the Joint Powers Agreement.

Additionally, the legal structure of a JPA can provide stability in governance. Once the Joint Powers Agreement is executed, it may not be as susceptible to change based on the transition of elected ofﬁcials.

What are some of the challenges associated with this option? The introduction to this section outlines what the community should prepare for if deciding to move forward with a JPA. It will be a lengthy process, dependent on the time and resources in each jurisdiction.

Additional challenges to consider:
● It may be challenging to get all jurisdictions to agree to the terms of a Joint Powers Agreement and this could result in some of the smaller cities opting out of the process. 9 The CoC retains authority over decisions impacting who operates on behalf of the CoC (i.e the CoC Board) per HUD requirements.
31 ● Pooled funding is a beneﬁt of the structure, making systems more efﬁcient and moving money to action in a streamlined process. If the jurisdictions are not open to transferring some of their authorities, the outcome of the Joint Powers Authority may look similar to the current state. ● The Joint Powers Agreement will not solve all of the disagreements between jurisdictions.

Collaboration will still need to happen, outside of the legal arrangement, especially on policy and best practice decisions, such as the criminalization of homelessness. ● This structure could enable local leaders to ‘wash their hands of the responsibility’ by giving the issue to a newly authorized entity.
● Without the appropriate level of planning and capacity to support the new entity’s operational needs, the new Authority may experience signiﬁcant ﬁnancial and programmatic challenges, as seen in Los Angeles and Seattle/King County.
● If Sacramento Steps Forward is not selected to be the Joint Powers of Authority and a new entity is created, the process of closing SSF and transferring its responsibilities to a new entity should be considered.
2B. Joint Powers Authority within the Existing Structure of a JPA Member Entity Overview of Structure:

Based on the local landscape, Sacramento County is best positioned to house a JPA within its existing 10 structure. The County currently has a responsibility to provide services to the full geography of the County, also the geographic boundary for the Continuum of Care, and is positioned to see the system from a macro level. While the County would need to decide how to effectively do this within its structure, they could develop an Ofﬁce to End Homelessness, which would become the local, centralized, authority on the issue.

The Ofﬁce to End Homelessness would act on behalf of the shared commitment across all participating jurisdictions, as outlined in the Joint Powers Agreement.

Consistent with option 2A, the visualization of this scenario below assumes that all jurisdictions are participating member entities. This scenario does not map existing councils and committees, as each of these bodies would need to be reexamined to determine if/where they ﬁt. The difference from option 2A is that the central Joint Powers of Authority entity is within a member entity instead of an independent entity. 10 The entity does not have to be the County but given the geographic boundaries, the County is used in the scenario. 32 How does this compare to option 2A and how is it different from the current state? Option 2A and 2B are very similar. The difference is in where the Joint Powers Authority is located - option 2B houses operations of the Joint Powers Authority within one of the participating jurisdictions (i.e. the County).

How is option 2B different from the current state?
Many of the roles currently performed by SSF would move to the JPA at the County. The County would be identiﬁed as the leader on the issue of homelessness and be responsible for system-level planning and implementation across all participating jurisdictions. While the details of what would be expected of the County would be determined during the negotiations of the Joint Powers Agreement, the County would likely absorb the Continuum of Care requirements, as deﬁned in 24 CFR 578.7 of the Continuum of Care Program Interim Rule . This includes establishing a Continuum of Care and CoC Board to operate the CoC, designating and operating HMIS and coordinated access and assessment, leading CoC planning, and implementing a Violence Against Women Act emergency transfer plan . That would likely mean that 11 SSF would no longer have a role in the system, and unless repurposed, would cease to operate.

How will funding ﬂow in this structure?
This would need to be determined during the negotiation phase of the Joint Powers of Agreement process. Based on the current landscape and local priorities identiﬁed in this report, there would likely be a regional funding approach. The Ofﬁce to End Homelessness would maintain authority over county funding and likely the funds currently administered by SSF (COC, CESH, HHAP). The Cities would decide if they wanted to pool funding into the Ofﬁce to End Homelessness or continue to administer their own funds in coordination with the regional funding approach and deﬁned priorities. As noted in 2A, pooling funding does not have to be all-or-nothing. The Joint Powers Agreement could outline a phased approach starting with speciﬁc funding streams and evaluating for success before growing the pot of pooled funds.

What would the structure and roles look like?
If deciding to move forward with a JPA, all existing councils, committees, and boards and their roles 12 would be evaluated to determine how/if they ﬁt in the JPA structure.

What are some of the beneﬁts of this option?
Consistent with Option 2A, a successful Joint Powers Authority shares resources, coordinates efforts, eliminates duplication between entities, and can operationalize efﬁcient and effective systems. With a Joint Powers Authority within the County system:
● It could increase the alignment of all parts of the system because the County already has the responsibility to provide services to the full geographical region. ● There could be more intentional connections between the homeless services system and other county systems such as behavioral health, thus increasing access to these services for people experiencing homelessness.
12 The CoC retains authority over decisions impacting who operates on behalf of the CoC (i.e the CoC Board) per HUD requirements.
11 As the current CoC lead agency, SSF has these elements in place and the current structure could be reviewed, revised, and transferred to the JPA.
33 What are some of the challenges associated with this option? The introduction to Option 2 outlines what the community should prepare for if deciding to move forward with a JPA and Option 2A provides challenges that also apply to 2B. ● This option eliminates the need for an external backbone organization and the process of closing Sacramento Steps Forward and transferring their responsibilities to the new ofﬁce should be considered.
● Developing the oversight of a potential County-based Joint Powers Authority could be difﬁcult, especially if hoping to incorporate elected ofﬁcials from the Cities. There may be occasions when the interests of the County government conﬂict with the interests of the regional planning efforts, which may be challenging to resolve if the Joint Powers Authority is housed within a government.

Next Steps to Operationalize:

There must be political will to move forward with a JPA. There should be an initial assessment done to determine which jurisdictions are ready to take this next step with either option 2A or 2B.

If there is continued interest in pursuing a JPA, it is recommended to form a cross-jurisdictional task force that will:
● Meet with legal representation of each interested jurisdiction to discuss and deﬁne the required steps of the process with consideration of legal options within the State of California. ● Outline the speciﬁcs of what resources are needed to begin the JPA process, including who will lead and be involved in the work to launch and develop the Joint Powers Agreement. ● Develop a project management structure, outlining timelines, milestones, and key activities. ● Complete a stafﬁng analysis and cost study to determine an operating budget for the future Joint Powers Authority.
34 Conclusion and Recommended Next Steps
This report looks at the current landscape of governance in Sacramento’s response to end homelessness, against governance models in other communities. The Consulting Team was not asked to make a recommendation for one particular option, as the decision must be held locally. The options presented in this report were prepared by the Consulting Team based on the local landscape assessment and national research. Each option must be evaluated and assessed by local leadership to determine the model that will meet the regional vision. The County Executive and City Managers will be meeting in January for collective reﬂection, discussion, and to determine the next steps. Changes to a governance structure, especially in systems as big as Sacramento, take time to develop and even more time to assess for success. Regardless of which option the Community decides to pursue, the Consulting Team recommends:
● Formation of an exploratory committee, inclusive of regional partners and PWLEC, to guide the process of determining which option will increase regional planning, policies, and program coordination on homelessness and further the collective efforts to address and end homelessness and develop a framework for implementing the chosen structure. ● Develop an expanded community engagement process to review and assess the options against the priorities and goals of each jurisdiction.
● Consider shared governance options, and/or speciﬁc characteristics of these options, when deﬁning roles and responsibilities formalized within the Regionally Coordinated Homeless Action Plan to be adopted in March.
● Once a local decision on a shared governance structure has been made, local leaders will need to form an implementation committee to guide the process speciﬁc to the chosen model, including a thorough ﬁscal impact assessment - looking at both the planning and ongoing implementation costs. 35 Appendix 1: Local Landscape Interviews and Materials Local Landscape Assessment Interviews (listed in chronological order) Interview Group Participants
CoC Board Chair (and SSF Board Member) Angela Upshaw
City of Elk Grove Jason Behrmann Sarah Bontrager City of Folsom Elaine Anderson Stephanie Henry Christine Brainerd
City of Citrus Heights Lt. Wes Herman Nicole Piva City of Rancho Cordova Russ Ducharme David Kwong Stefan Heisler Micah Runner
SSF Board Members (interviewed separately) Ashley Brand (Chair) Erin Johansen Cassandra Jennings
County of Sacramento Ann Edwards Chevon Kothari Emily Halcon
City of Sacramento Ya-Yin Isle Mario Lara Michael Jasso
SSF Executive Director Lisa Bates
SHRA La Shelle Dozier Christine Weichert Sarah O’Daniel
SSF Executive Team Peter Bell Amanda Ohman Rachel Bereza Trenton Simmons Michael Colton Michelle Watts
Rolf Davidson Kim Winters
Roseanne Lopez
Local Landscape Assessment Materials Reviewed
● Sacramento City/County Partnership Agreement and Fact Sheet ● Grand Jury Report and Responses (City and County of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova) ● Sacramento Homeless Policy Council Overview
● CoC Governance Charter and CoC Board Orientation Materials ● Sacramento Steps Forward CoC Overview Infographic
● Sacramento Steps Forward Core Services and Annual Report ● Local Homeless Action Plan (LHAP) and materials (Year One Plan, Progress Report, Gaps Analysis) 36 Appendix 2: Options Comparison Chart
Comparison of Shared Governance Options
Current State Option 1 Option 2A Option 2B
Description No change to the current
governance and
implementation structure
Collective Impact Model Independent Joint Powers
Authority (JPA)
Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
within County of Sacramento
Centralized
Entity (Backbone
Agency)
SSF, with County and
Cities managing local
resources and response
SSF SSF or newly identiﬁed
Independent Entity
New Department within
Government (likely County
of Sacramento)
Authority/ Role
of Backbone
Agency
Primarily CoC
responsibilities; data
collection and analyses;
coordinated access; CoC
funding allocation, and
strategic planning
Deﬁned by Partnership
Agreement - Authorized to
execute towards the
Regional Homeless Action
Plan
Deﬁned by the JPA -
Authorized to execute
towards the Regional
Homeless Action Plan and
Administer contracts, if
funding is pooled
Deﬁned by the JPA -
Authorized to execute
towards the Regional
Homeless Action Plan and
Administer contracts, if
funding is pooled
Governance
Structure
(Oversight and
directing work of
Backbone
Agency)
SSF Board;
CoC Board;
County Board of
Supervisors;
Sacramento City Council
Sacramento Homeless Policy
Council (Directs Strategies );
Homelessness Advisory
Committee ( Advises SHPC,
informs implementation,
functions as CoC Board )
Deﬁned by the JPA - JPA
Board of Directors + CoC
Board
Deﬁned by the JPA - JPA
Board of Directors + CoC
Board
Cooperative
Agreement
Deﬁning Roles
and Authority
No regional agreement.

CoC Governance Charter
(CoC speciﬁc)
City/County Partnership
Agreement (speciﬁc
functions of City and
Regional Partnership
Agreement
Joint Powers Agreement Joint Powers Agreement
37 County operations)
Guiding Vision Local Homeless Action
Plan
Regional Homeless Action
Plan
Regional Homeless Action
Plan
Regional Homeless Action
Plan
Fiscal Impact No change to how
resources are allocated.

No change to the ﬂow of
resources, yet increased
coordination to ensure
funding is allocated in
alignment with the shared
vision.

The scope of the JPA and
resources allocated to the
new entity would be deﬁned
by the JPA, dependent on
which public agencies
participate in the JPA.

The scope of the JPA and
resources allocated to the
County would be deﬁned by
the JPA, dependent on which
public agencies participate in
the JPA.

Time and
Resources
No change to the current
structure
Need capacity from regional
partners (CoC, County,
Cities, SHRA, and PWLEC) to
develop the Partnership
Agreement redeﬁning roles
and restructuring boards
(est. 3-6 months).

Additional resources may be
needed to sustain the newly
deﬁned role of SSF
depending on the details of
the Partnership Agreement.

Requires capacity from
regional partners to deﬁne,
negotiate, and legally
formalize the JPA (est. 9-15
months).

Signiﬁcant resources are likely
needed to establish a new
independent entity with the
capacity to carry out the
functions of the JPA, including
human resources and ﬁscal
management.

Requires capacity from
regional partners to deﬁne,
negotiate, and legally
formalize the JPA (est. 9-15
months).

Additional resources may be
needed to ensure the County
can carry out the functions of
the JPA.

Regional Impact No change A role for the County, all 7 Cities, and other system
partners (i.e. SHRA) in
deﬁning the shared vision
(RCHAP) and oversight
(Partnership Agreement).

Potential for increased
regional accountability when
restructuring boards.

A role for the County, all 7
Cities, and other system
partners (i.e. SHRA) in
deﬁning the shared vision
(RCHAP) and oversight (JPA).

The Role of each jurisdiction is
impacted by the choice to
enter into JPA.

A role for the County, all 7
Cities, and other system
partners (ie SHRA) to
participate in deﬁning the
shared vision (RCHAP) and
oversight (JPA).

The Role of each jurisdiction
is impacted by the choice to
enter into JPA.
38 Sacramento Homeless and Housing
System Partnership Structure
City Council Meeting
October 14, 2025

Goals for Presentation and Workshop
Background on
homelessness and
housing
structures
Background on
homelessness and
housing
structures
Provide background
and history on the
current
homelessness and
housing structure
Discuss updates
and status from
partner jurisdictions
and proposed
model
Receive input on
key elements for
the City’s preferred
homeless and
housing partnership
structure
Timeline of Key Activities
Sacramento
Housing and
Redevelopment
Agency established
as a JPA of the City
and County
1982
HUD establishes
Continuums of Care
(CoC) funding and
governance
1994
CoC lead transfers
from Sacramento
County to
Sacramento Steps
Forward
2011
City establishes
Homeless Services
Manager position
2015
Grand Jury Report
State establishes
HHAP program
City establishes
Housing Manager
position
2019
Sacramento
Homeless Policy
Council formed
2021
Measure O passed
by voters in City
City/County
Partnership
Agreement adopted
2022
Grand Jury Report
Consultant Report on
Shared Governance
Models completed
City IMT established
2023
Regionally
Coordinated
Homelessness
Action Plan
Adopted
2024
SB 802 Proposed
County and cities
contemplate
partnership structure
for housing and
homelessness
2025
2015 PIT 2,659 PEH
948 unsheltered
2019 PIT 5,561 PEH
3,900 unsheltered
2022 PIT 9,278 PEH
6,664 unsheltered
2024 PIT 6,615 PEH
3,944 unsheltered
2026 PIT Will be
conducted tentatively
January 26-27, 2026
Brown – External
Green – Regional
Purple – City
Current Landscape and Challenges
4 Reduced State
funding and shift
in direction,
uncertain future
of Federal policy
and funding
landscape
Increased
expectations on
needs of
individuals and
community
impacts of
homelessness
Continued crisis of
homelessness
especially
unsheltered
homelessness,
and shortage of
housing
Opportunities to
braid and
leverage funding
and programs
from other social
service sectors
Supporting alignment in implementation across regional partners of the Regionally Coordinated Homelessness Action Plan. The Strategic Leadership Group currently supports the SHPC.

Sacramento Homeless Policy Council
(SHPC)
Formed as a result of 1st Grand Jury report,
includes elected officials from each jurisdiction.

Focuses on homelessness, no policy or funding
authority.

Other City
Councils
Sac City
Council
Board of
Supervisors
City of Sac
Leadership
SSF
Leadership
County of
Sac
Leadership
Operational Committees, Workgroups and Advisory Boards
(including RCHAP Strategic Advisory Workgroups and CoC Committees) Membership includes City, County, CoC partners and diverse community representation Makes recommendations to policy decisions, supports alignment in program and service delivery, promotes equity, inclusion, and accountability Direct Programs and Services
(including CBO operated and gov’t operated)
Sets Local Policy and Budgets
for housing and homelessness.

Strategic
Leadership
Group
Sacramento Housing and
Redevelopment Agency (SHRA)
Formed in 1984 by the City and County of
Sacramento to consolidate the housing
authority, redevelopment and housing functions.

Current Homeless and Housing Structure
CoC Board
Aligns CoC funding and systems with regional
goals and priorities, functions as CoC
membership and Board. Sacramento Steps
Forward serves as the administrative entity.

What Are We Trying to Solve For?
What is currently not
being addressed?
What would a new
governance structure
hope to achieve?
What is the role of the
City of Sacramento in
the homeless
response system?
Key Considerations
Authority and Governing Body
• Who sets policy and direction? (Board/Councils or separate body?) • What should City representation look like on a governing body? Community? • What authority does the City Council want to retain?
Funding and Project
Approvals
• Who provides oversight into
funding?
• Who proposes and decides
where projects are sited?
• Who proposes and decides
what projects are funded?
Accountability and
Transparency
• Who does the shared
partnership entity answer to?
• Who sets the performance
metrics?
• What is the City ultimately still
accountable for?
Roles and Responsibilities
• What should the role of
the City, County and CoC,
and Housing Authority be
in the homeless response
system?
• What should the role of
the City and Housing
Authority be in housing?
Sacramento Homeless Policy Council
(SHPC)
Formed as a result of 1st Grand Jury report,
includes elected officials from each jurisdiction.

Focuses on homelessness, no policy or funding
authority.

Other City
Councils
Sac City
Council
Board of
Supervisors
City of Sac
Leadership
Collaborative
Applicant
Leadership
County of
Sac
Leadership
Operational Committees, Workgroups and Ad-Hoc Committees Direct Programs and Services
(including CBO operated and gov’t operated)
Sets Local Policy and Budgets
for housing and homelessness.

Strategic Leadership Group
CoC Board splits into Board and Membership
becomes new
Sacramento Homeless and Housing
Board (SHHB)
Primarily elected officials + at least one PWLE (TBD)
Simplified County Proposed Partnership Structure
Housing
Authority
Leadership
Continuum of Care (CoC)
• Broad community membership
• Semi-annual meetings with SHHB
Dedicated,
professional staff
to align work,
messaging and
track outcomes
Develops system performance goals,
establishes CoC funding priorities
Shares data & program outcomes,
advises on best practices and
program needs
Strategic Leadership Group (SLG)
Direct Programs &
Services
(including CBO and government
operated)
Supports alignment in implementation across regional partners, focusing on cross- agency/department strategic coherence. Lifts up new opportunities for funding, housing and homeless programs to SHHB for consideration.

Galt
Council
Isleton
Council
Proposed Composition Options for SHHB
Option A – 11 members
Up to 10 elected officials
One member with lived expertise
Option B – 15 members
Up to 10 elected officials
One member with lived expertise
Up to 4 community leaders from specific
sectors
In either structure, subcommittees are reconstituted to:
• Focus on community identified priority policy areas
• Ensure participation from a variety of community interests & voices • Create and follow through on a workplan that aligns with SHHB goals/vision • Regularly report back to SHHB with recommendations
• (if applicable) Take final action on delegated activities Updates
11 August 19, 2025
September 9, 2025
September 10, 2025 September 24, 2025 October 6, 2025 October 7, 2025 September 10, 2025
October 8, 2025
New governing
body meets
and sets
expectations,
review charter
and bylaws,
approve
committee
structure.

Governing bodies
approval of
proposed model.

Staff continue to
finalize details,
MOU, agreements.

Next Steps
12 Cities and CoC
provide input
and direction on
model. Staff
continue to
coordinate on
developing
structure.

Solidify input on
proposed
partnership
structure and
begin outlining
details.

Governing bodies
review details of
implementation,
approve MOU/
agreements and
appoint members
to new board.

Sept/Oct
2025 Oct/Nov
2025
Dec 2025/
Jan 2026 February
2026
Spring/
Summer
2026
13 Contacts
Brian Pedro, Director of
Community Response
[email protected]
(916) 808-7816
Ya-yin Isle, City Housing Manager
[email protected]
(916) 808-1869

Sacramento City CouncilOctober 14, 2025

Sacramento City Council
October 14, 2025