Item 3.5: Updated Functional Zero Model and
Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Reducing Unsheltered
Homelessness Focus Area Work Plan
September 15, 2026
City of San José
Lee Wilcox, Assistant City Manager, Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness Erik L. Soliván, Housing Director, Housing Department
1 Agenda
1 Why We Are Here
2 FY 2025-2026 in Brief
3 From FY 2025-2026 to FY 2026-2027
4 FY 2026-2027 Logic Model Update and Priorities
5 Community Plan Alignment
2 SECTION 1: WHY WE ARE HERE
From Rapid Expansion to Functional-zero Management
Our focus today → Define what the City can operationally manage and where County, regional, State, or partner action is required.
FY2025-2026
IMPLEMENTATION
FY2026-2027
MANAGEMENT
Built capacity
Stood up operations
Protected
public spaces
Strengthened
data infrastructure
Manage flow
Improve
service fit
Increase
throughput
Sustain
funding
Advance shared
accountability
Strategic reset
The system built in FY 2025-2026
is the system we now manage.
3 SECTION 2: FY 2025- 2026 IN BRIEF
FY2025-2026 built the operating foundation
1 Capacity
Shelter + EIH
Motels + supportive parking
Site activation
2 Outreach &
engagement
In-house outreach
EEP planning
Improved field coordination
3 Public-space &
vehicle response
No-Encampment Zones
Vehicle response
OLIVE / VRAP
4 Data
infrastructure
Data lakehouse
HMIS exchange
UrbanLogiq + reporting
1) Shelter, EIH, motels, supportive parking, and
site activation.
2) In-house outreach, Enhanced Engagement
Program planning, new outreach zones, and
improved field coordination.
3) No-Encampment Zones, waterways, EIH
surroundings, lived-in vehicle response,
OLIVE/RV strategies.
4) Data lakehouse, HMIS enhancements,
improved operational reporting, and
UrbanLogiq/dynamic model work.
1 2
3 4
4 SECTION 2: FY 2025- 2026 IN BRIEF
Neighborhood homelessness indicators improved year over year Encounters are down. Weekly-or-more encounters
with unsheltered residents fell from 68% (2024) to 63%
(2025) to 53% (2026); daily encounters fell from 44% to 30%.
Perceptions are shifting. Residents who perceive
neighborhood homelessness increasing dropped by
half, from 40% (2024) to 20% (2026), while those who
perceive a decrease rose from 8% to 17%.
Homelessness is a smaller driver of “unclean.”
Homelessness as the reason the city feels unclean
declined from 60% (2024) to 52% (2025) to 44% (2026).
Downtown sentiment improved. Agreement that
residents enjoy visiting downtown rose 4 points year
over year, part of gains across all six downtown
measures.
The unsheltered population itself is smaller.
Perception gains track a real decline: the estimated
unsheltered population is down ~30% since the
February 2025 planning estimate of ~5,477. Detail on
slide 17.
✓ SUPPORTING / POSITIVE INDICATORS SURVEY VIEW · MULTI -YEAR TREND Neighborhood homelessness indicators, 2024–2026
68%
63%
53%
44% 41%
30%
40%
31%
20%
60%
52%
44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
2024 2025 2026
Weekly-or-more encounters
Daily encounters
Perceive homelessness increased
Homelessness = reason city feels unclean
−10 pts ↓
Weekly-or-more
encounters
68% - 2024 · 53% - 2026
−14 pts ↓
Daily encounters
44% - 2024 · 30% - 2026
−20 pts ↓
Perceive increase
40% - 2024 · 20% - 2026
+9 pts ↑
Perceive decrease
8% - 2024 · 17% - 2026
~30% decrease Estimated unsheltered population is down since the February 2025 planning estimate of 5,477. Model estimate and PIT count comparison detailed on slide 17.
Survey measures resident perception. Counted reduction (PIT + model) is covered later in this presentation. Source: City of San José 2026 Focus Area Community Survey, True North Research, July 2026 (Q18, Q19, Q14). 5 SECTION 3: FROM FY 2025- 2026 TO FY 2026- 2027
FY 2025-2026 lessons are shaping the FY 2026-2027 strategy The buildout is done. With the planned expansion complete (707 units delivered; a portfolio of ~1,820 units, 2,202 beds, 22 sites), five lessons fr om the year now set the FY 2026-27 work plan.
→ Together these point to the next phase: managing flow, fit, and sustainability to reduce the persistent baseline over time.
Shelter expansion alone is not sufficient.
Capacity is necessary but not sufficient. FY 2026-2027 turns to flow, service fit, throughput into permanent housing, and shared accountability.
Standardized operations make capacity sustainable.
ACOP and service standards advanced but a portfolio-wide cost reduction was not proven. FY 2026-2027 standardizes operations across all 22 sites and sustains the portfolio.
Public-space compliance requires synchronized response.
No-Encampment Zones hold only when shelter, outreach, monitoring, and enforcement stay in sync. FY 2026- 2027 sizes the response to the full footprint and reduces re-encampment and cycling.
CalAIM and funding require deeper alignment.
Billing readiness advanced but was not operational at year end. FY 2026- 2027 pilots CalAIM billing and diversifies funding through County, provider, and data alignment.
Shared accountability is essential; the City cannot do this alone.
Reducing homelessness depends on County behavioral health and housing, provider capacity, and State- level policy and funding. FY 2026- 2027 makes the City’s role explicit and builds the shared-accountability framework with partners. 6 SECTION 3: FROM FY 2025- 2026 TO FY 2026- 2027
The next phase is flow, fit, and sustainability
Fit → Segment the persistent baseline so people are
matched to outreach, shelter, safe parking, behavioral
health, or housing pathways.
Flow → Reduce avoidable inflow, improve movement
into shelter, and increase exits to permanent
placements.
Sustainability → Stabilize funding and lower
operating costs so capacity can be maintained over
time.
SYSTEM
MANAGEMENT
FLOW
• Reduce inflow
• Move into shelter
• Increase exits
SUSTAINABILITY
• Stabilize funding
• Lower costs
• Maintain capacity
FIT
• Segment baseline
• Match to pathway
• Right intervention
Better fit improves flow. Better flow improves use of
capacity.
Sustainability keeps the
system operating.
7 4
SECTION 4 · FY 2026- 2027 LOGIC MODEL UPDATE AND PRIORITIES First, how we understand the problem
Before we provide a logic model update, four ideas set up how San José reads and acts on unsheltered homelessness.
1 Flow
Homelessness behaves like a
regional flow system, not a static
count.
›
2 Segment
The remaining persistent
baseline is segmented by need
and pathway.
›
3 Estimate
We are building a system to
estimate the number better, and
more regularly.
›
4 Manage
We clarify what the City can
manage and what needs shared
action.
8 SECTION 4: FY 2026- 2027 LOGIC MODEL UPDATE AND PRIORITIES Unsheltered homelessness behaves like a regional flow system Why people move
Easier access to services, shelter, or safe parking
Lower risk of abatement or towing
Ability to stay with belongings, pets, or vehicles
Existing networks and familiarity
Regional policy effect
More camping and parking restrictions shift
pressure across jurisdictions
San José receives inflow
What this means for San José
Local outcomes are shaped by a broader regional
portfolio
Capacity planning must account for inflow, not just
local counts
1. Flow 2. Segment 3. Estimate 4. Manage
9 Illustrative. This visual shows regional flow dynamics and is not a comprehensive inventory of all jurisdictions or factors. Regional inflow is based on field observation and is not yet quantified. The region’s interconnected rail network (e.g., BART, Caltrain, VTA light rail) also makes travel across the Bay Area easier, independent of the factors above. Shelter, safe parking, and other bed and space counts reflect what could be collected as of July 2026 and may have since changed.
SECTION 4: FY 2026- 2027 LOGIC MODEL UPDATE AND PRIORITIES Downtown concentration is shaped by discharge and release patterns Conceptual illustration for policy discussion. Downtown figures are planning estimates.
How the pattern forms
Crisis and nuisance calls occur citywide
Some individuals are transported
downtown for evaluation or custody
Some are released downtown once no
longer a danger to self or others
Without transportation or a warm handoff,
many remain nearby
What this means for Downtown
Visible concentration of high-needs
unsheltered residents
Repeat contacts with outreach, EMS,
behavioral health, and public safety
Pressure on streets, businesses, and
transit areas
1. Flow 2. Segment 3. Estimate 4. Manage
10 SECTION 4: FY 2026- 2027 LOGIC MODEL UPDATE AND PRIORITIES Shelter and care sites cluster downtown too, driving foot traffic Map shows City and County shelter, supportive parking, and care facility locations; not an exhaustive inventory.
1. Flow 2. Segment 3. Estimate 4. Manage
→ Beyond discharge patterns, shelter, supportive housing, and care sites are concentrated citywide, most heavily near downtown.
CITYWIDE VIEW
Downtown detail
Near San José downtown: a dense mix of shelter, permanent supportive housing, and behavioral health, residential, and elder care sites, each drawing its own daily traffic of clients, residents, and visitors.
11 Shelter Legend
Emergency
Interim Housing
HomeKey
Motel Program
Safe Parking
Navigation Hub
Other Shelter
City sites
(yellow ring)
City of San José
boundary
SECTION 4: FY 2026- 2027 LOGIC MODEL UPDATE AND PRIORITIES Homelessness is a dynamic flow, not a static number
→ People move in and out of homelessness every day. The flow model shows who enters, who leaves, and who remains.
INFLOWS OUTFLOWS
AUGUST 2026 ESTIMATE
~3,702
Total Persistent Baseline + Functional Zero
(August 2026 model estimate)
= Functional Zero (unknown) + People we can support
(the gap we are working to close)
1. Regional inflow
people entering San
José from outside the
city
2. Local inflow /
newly homeless
people entering
homelessness locally
3. Citywide pickups /
discharge patterns
movement and
concentration pressure
into downtown
4. San José response
system
outreach + shelter +
supportive parking +
linkages to care
5. Absorbed indoors
moved into housing and
other indoor placements
1. Flow 2. Segment 3. Estimate 4. Manage
12 NEXT What functional zero means, and how we shrink the gap. Functional Zero and the four levers we use to close the gap, next.
SECTION 4: FY 2026- 2027 LOGIC MODEL UPDATE AND PRIORITIES What functional zero means, and how we shrink the gap
The total of 3,702 reflects the City’s model estimate of the unsheltered baseline using data through July 2026. It represents the total persistent baseline, which includes the functional zero target (people the City cannot currently help) and the people the City can support. This is a model estimate, not the biennial Point-in-Time Count or an adopted baseline.
1. Flow 2. Segment 3. Estimate 4. Manage
13 → The persistent baseline from the previous slide splits into two parts: what we can’t yet reach, and what we can support.
FROM LAST SLIDE ~3,702 (August 2026) = Functional Zero (unknown) + People We Can Support Understanding Functional Zero
What it means
People we currently cannot help, either because they can't be located or because we lack the services to support them (e.g., serious mental illness or high behavioral health needs).
Why the number moves
• Inflow: people newly entering unsheltered homelessness • System response: outreach, shelter, and placements
• Exits indoors: permanent placements that reduce the count • Unresolved cases: people we can't currently locate or serve We're still working to size Functional Zero precisely, the gap between the total baseline and what we can measure today.
How We Shrink the Gap
Reduction logic: how we reduce the baseline over time
Reduce
inflow
+
Increase exits
indoors /
permanent
exits
+
Keep people
housed
+
Improve
reconnection /
handoffs
=
Smaller
baseline
over time
By strengthening each lever, we reduce the potential gap and move the baseline lower over time.
SECTION 4: FY 2026- 2027 LOGIC MODEL UPDATE AND PRIORITIES The persistent baseline is the population that remains after major expansion
○ The remaining unsheltered baseline is not one
group and not only a shelter supply gap.
○ It is shaped by regional inflow, local inflow,
discharge and release patterns, service gaps, acuity,
vehicle-based homelessness, and willingness or
ability to engage.
○ Segments stratify further by behavioral health need.
Within the same segment, some people need
shelter alone while others also need behavioral
health support, even at lower acuity than serious
mental illness.
○ The baseline must be segmented before the City
can determine the right intervention or accountability
pathway.
Regional
inflow
Discharge /
release patterns
Service
gaps
Acuity /
clinical needs
Vehicle-based
homelessness
Persistent
baseline
remaining
unsheltered
population
SEGMENT THE BASELINE
1. High acuity /
Serious Mental
Illness
2. Needs shelter
and/or care:
Transition Age Youth
3. Needs shelter
and/or care:
Adults
4. Needs shelter
and/or care:
Older adults
5. Shelter-
declining
6. Avoiding formal
systems
7. Vehicle-based
1. Flow 2. Segment 3. Estimate 4. Manage
14 SECTION 4: FY 2026- 2027 LOGIC MODEL UPDATE AND PRIORITIES The remaining baseline can be segmented by need and pathway
1. Flow 2. Segment 3. Estimate 4. Manage
→ So the baseline breaks into segments, and each segment requires a different pathway, measure, and accountability partner. 1 High acuity /
Serious Mental Illness
clinical engagement, can be intensive
BH stabilization + PSH
2 Need shelter and/or care:
Transition Age Youth
youth-specific needs
youth pathways
3 Need shelter and/or
care: Adults
mixed needs
shelter / rapid re-housing
4 Need shelter and/or
care: Older adults
medical + access needs
age-specific housing
5 Shelter-
declining
safety, trauma, pets, rules
low-barrier options
6 Avoiding
formal systems
fear, mistrust, legal risk
trusted outreach
7 Vehicle-based
RVs, cars, belongings
safe parking + transition
Crisis /
discharge cycling
repeat contact, release gaps
warm handoff + transport
Behavioral health cuts across segments. The care-seeking segments (TAY, Adults, Older adults) and vehicle-based each include people with and without behavioral health needs.
Lower-acuity BH needs are below the SMI tier but still require more than shelter alone.
Pathway layers
Prevention /
diversion
Interim shelter /
Supportive parking
Clinical /
BH stabilization
Permanent
housing / subsidy
15 SECTION 4: FY 2026- 2027 LOGIC MODEL UPDATE AND PRIORITIES From a biennial count to a more frequent estimate
Point-in-Time Count
Biennial benchmark count
Conducted every two years
Public accountability
Broad trend benchmark
Comparison over time
Dynamic model
Higher-frequency estimate
Updated more frequently
Assesses inflow + outflow
Shows baseline + geography
Uses operational datasets
More frequent updates
Note: Inflow and outflow assessment is a planned enhancement. The model currently reports the number of unsheltered individuals up to the point the data was run. Update frequency is still under review and will be well ahead of the biennial Point-in-Time Count.
1. Flow 2. Segment 3. Estimate 4. Manage
o Point-in-Time Count: Formal
benchmark count conducted every two
years for broad trend, public
accountability, and comparison over
time.
o Dynamic model with UrbanLogiq:
A higher-frequency estimate, cadence
still under review, using operational
datasets to understand inflow, outflow,
baseline, geography, and
concentration.
o Together, the PIT count remains a
benchmark; the dynamic model helps
the City manage work and report
between counts.
16 SECTION 4: FY 2026- 2027 LOGIC MODEL UPDATE AND PRIORITIES How the City’s unsheltered estimates evolved over time
INCREASINGLY REFINED AND OPERATIONAL
1 2 3
Updated model estimate
(Aug. 2026)
Unsheltered
3,702
Incorporates City administrative data
through July 31, targeted field validation,
and methodology improvements.
~30%
decrease
The estimated unsheltered population is down ~1,775 people since February 2025. From ~5,477 in the February 2025 planning estimate to ~3,702 in the August 2026 model estimate NOTE: Data and methodology improved materially between runs, so the change should be read as a clear downward trend rather than an exact count difference. The PIT count remains the official benchmark.
1. Flow 2. Segment 3. Estimate 4. Manage
17 City planning estimate
(Feb. 2025)
Unsheltered
5,477
Developed before 2025 PIT results were
available, using City operational data.
Includes the Waterway Surge. The City found
1,236 people living in waterways, and that effort
covered only 26 miles, not the full waterways.
2025 PIT Count
(conducted Jan. 2025)
Unsheltered
3,959
Official one-night benchmark snapshot
used for public accountability and
comparison over time.
Under representative. Covers areas surveyors
can safely access and did not count the 1,236
people found in waterways.
SECTION 4: FY 2026- 2027 LOGIC MODEL UPDATE AND PRIORITIES Functional zero should clarify what San Jose can solve on its own and what requires shared action
o Persistent baseline The full
remaining unsheltered population
after major expansion, including
groups shaped by regional flow,
acuity, discharge, and service gaps.
o City operational target The
portion the City can directly reduce or
manage through shelter, safe parking,
outreach, public-space response,
data, and site-based coordination.
o Shared accountability County,
regional, State, and partner systems
needed for behavioral health capacity,
permanent housing, prevention,
discharge planning, and regional
policy alignment.
1. Flow 2. Segment 3. Estimate 4. Manage
18 SECTION 4: FY 2026- 2027 LOGIC MODEL UPDATE AND PRIORITIES FY 2026-27 Updated Logic Model and Priorities
Revised problem areas, near-term priorities, and the measures the City will report on regularly. What changed from Version 1 to the recommended Version 2:
VERSION 1
Prior structure. Four problem areas.
1. System Gaps in Services
2. Shelter-to-Housing Throughput
3. Sustainable Funding Sources
4. Public Space Movement & Cycling
VERSION 2 RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
Four problem areas, restructured.
1. System Functionality & Sustainability
V1 Areas 1+3 realigned: ACOP/HMIS moved in, CES/referral moved to Area 2. Funding = Goal 1.4.
2. Throughput Shelter-to-Permanent Placement
CES/referral goals moved in from Area 1. Two goals added:
length-of-stay and participation.
3. Public Space Movement & Cycling
Was Area 4 in V1. Renumbered, content unchanged.
4. Functional Zero, Regional Flow & Downtown
Concentration
New in V2. A strategy and systems-planning track, not tactical delivery.
Indicator change. CES Referrals into City Sites is retired and replaced by Operation Optimization. Per-Unit Cost Reduction is retired and replaced by Functional-Zero Baseline & Flow, tracked frequently. Exit Rate to Permanent Placements and NEZ Response Time carry forward.
19 Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness Focus Area
Performance Scorecard
Operation Optimization
(Achieve consistent operations across
100% of shelter sites )
Problem
Areas
Near-Term
Goals
(FY2027)
Indicators
Long-Term Goal. Move toward functional zero in unsheltered homelessness by managing a sustainable shelter system, reducing inflow, increasing throughput to permanent housing, and strengthening coordinated service delivery with the County.
Change
Initiatives
1. System Functionality &
Sustainability
2. Throughput Shelter-to-
Permanent Placement
3. Public Space
Movement & Cycling
1.1. Finalize & implement a standardized
ACOP across all 22 City shelter sites.
1.2. Implement the HMIS inventory
module (or comparable) across all 22
sites.
1.3. Embed on-site County behavioral
health services at 4 City-funded sites.
1.4. Pilot CalAIM billing; deploy
grant/matching funds and bundled
service contracts to sustain operations
and reduce costs.
2.1. Integrate 8 sites into County CES &
implement CES-aligned referral
workflows, for 10 CES-connected sites
total.
2.2. Establish shared City-County referral,
placement & client-tracking pathways for
high-acuity residents.
2.3. Evaluate length-of-stay policies to
improve shelter throughput.
2.4. Evaluate required program
participation policies to improve readiness
for permanent housing or placements.
3.1. Maintain NEZs across 30 miles of
priority waterways & around EIHs.
3.2. Reduce large encampments (>5
structures) in high-impact areas.
3.3. Improve response to trash & bio-
waste near lived-in vehicles.
3.4. Launch a citywide Vehicle
Relinquishment Assistance Program
(VRAP) pilot.
• Standardize operations via ACOP &
HMIS across all 22 sites.
• Expand behavioral health access;
sustain CalAIM-funded operations.
• Integrate CES sites & align referral
workflows to boost throughput to
placement.
• Evaluate length-of-stay & participation
policies to support system movement.
• Maintain NEZs & reduce large
encampments.
• Pilot VRAP & faster environmental
response.
4. Functional Zero, Regional Flow
& Downtown Concentration
4.1. Regularly utilize the functional-zero
methodology and calculation to track
performance.
4.2. Propose a regional/shared
accountability strategy clarifying roles,
responsibilities & constraints.
4.3. Use functional-zero modeling data to
segment unsheltered sub-populations by
pathway to permanent placement.
4.4. Use sub-population data to identify and
recommend state or regional policy
changes.
• Apply functional zero data modeling to
track performance.
• Build shared accountability and segment
the baseline to target pathways, warm
handoffs & policy changes.
Exit Rate to
Permanent Placements
(20% Increase in Permanent
Placements from Current Baseline)
NEZ Response Time
(within 5 business days, ≥80% of
reports)
Functional Zero,
Baseline & Flow
(frequent tracking)
VERSION 2 (V2)
Updated structure. Changes from V1
marked.
NEW INDICATOR
TACTICAL FY2027. V1 Areas 1+3 realigned TACTICAL FY2027. CES goals merged; 2.3-2.4 added TACTICAL FY2027. Was Area 4 in V1 STRATEGY & SYSTEMS PLANNING. New in V2Green = changed in V2
STRATEGY & SYSTEMS PLANNING TRACK
20 SECTION 4: FY 2026- 2027 LOGIC MODEL UPDATE AND PRIORITIES Critical Pathway: Strengthen City-County pathways for high- acuity and vulnerable residents
1 10 CES-connected City-funded sites
Integrate 8 additional sites
Integrate 8 additional City-funded sites into the County Coordinated Entry System (CES), for 10 CES-connected
City-funded sites total.
2 Downtown Collaboration
Shared referral, tracking & case conferencing
Use the Downtown Collaboration, a multi-agency
partnership, to coordinate shared referral, placement
tracking, and case conferencing for high-acuity residents. 3 Embedded behavioral health at 4
sites
On-site County behavioral health services
Embed on-site County behavioral health services at 4
targeted City-funded sites.
4 CalAIM pilot at 3 sites
Service delivery + billing; grant funds where feasible
Pilot CalAIM service delivery and billing at 3 targeted City- funded shelter sites; use awarded grant funds for startup and initial operations.
ALSO EXPLORING The City is also exploring embedding its own behavioral health capacity to support triage and client referrals, and to partner with the County, whose capacity is currently limited. This would build internal City capacity, deepen understanding of the client populations served, and strengthen pathway and accountability work.
GOAL 2.1
GOAL 2.2
GOAL 1.3
GOAL 1.4
21 SECTION 4: FY 2026- 2027 LOGIC MODEL UPDATE AND PRIORITIES Critical Pathway: Build regional accountability and advance County and State policy requests
1 Shared functional-zero standard
Request County/regional adoption
Request that the County and regional partners adopt a
compatible functional-zero methodology so results can be measured and compared consistently region-wide.
GOAL 4.1
2 Regional accountability framework
Formal roles & responsibilities agreement
Propose a regional/shared accountability strategy with the County and regional partners that clarifies roles,
responsibilities, and constraints across the homelessness response system.
GOAL 4.2
3 Sub-population data sharing
County data access for segmentation
Request County data-sharing needed to segment
unsheltered sub-populations by the pathways required to reach permanent placement.
GOAL 4.3
4 State & regional policy requests
IGR-led policy agenda
Use sub-population findings to bring specific state and regional policy requests forward through the City's
Intergovernmental Relations team.
GOAL 4.4
KEY CAUTION These are requests to the County, State, and regional partners, not commitments the City can deliver alone. Adoption, timing,and resourcing depend on external partners’ priorities, capacity, and legislative or budget cycles. 22 SECTION 5: COMMUNITY PLAN ALIGNMENT
How the Focus Area fits the Community Plan to End Homelessness → The City’s Focus Area work is San José’s operational contribution to the regional plan, made measurable through shared accountability.
REGIONAL
Community Plan to End Homelessness
Led through the Continuum of Care and the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ
Reducing Unsheltered Homelessness Focus Area
SAN JOSÉ SUB -REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Shelter system management Outreach coordination
Public space impacts Data infrastructure
Funding sustainability City and County alignment
The City and County are coordinating
Meeting and coordinating on how San José’s work aligns with the regional plan, including coordinated entry, behavioral health services at City-funded sites, and shared data.
No single system can do this alone
Reducing unsheltered homelessness requires shared accountability across the City, County, providers, regional and State partners. The City owns the tools it controls and is explicit about what requires partner action.
The logic model makes the contribution measurable
The updated logic model translates regional goals into measurable local action, reported quarterly so Council and the public can see progress and course correction.
What this means in practice. City measures show what San José can manage directly. Regional and County measures show what has to move with us. Both are needed to reduce the persistent baseline over time. 23