We would love to hear your thoughts on this presentation. To See Kinara’s response to this, please see our Full Vision here
Video Summary
Briefing on the Alameda County Home Together Plan and Community Perspectives
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the key components of Alameda County’s strategic approach to homelessness, as detailed in a community meeting for Supervisor District 4. Alameda County is refreshing its “Home Together” plan, a county-wide strategy for building a coordinated homeless response system, extending it to 2030. This effort is supported by the newly established Home Together Fund, which will direct an estimated $1.4 billion from Measure W revenue over its lifetime toward homelessness initiatives.
While the 2024 Point-in-Time count revealed the first slight reduction in overall homelessness since 2013, the system remains under significant strain, serving nearly 25,000 individuals annually. This challenge is compounded by a looming fiscal crisis, with anticipated federal (HUD) and state funding reductions threatening between $33 million and $60 million in annual resources. As a result, a significant part of the new Home Together Fund will be required to preserve existing services and prevent the loss of permanent housing for over 1,000 people.
The County’s strategic priorities are organized into four pillars: Prevention, Shelter, Housing, and Access/Coordination. The investment approach is threefold: preserving at-risk programs, enhancing existing operations, and expanding services where possible.
Community feedback from service providers and individuals with lived experience provided a powerful counterpoint to the systemic overview. Speakers consistently emphasized the critical need for human-centered, relationship-based support over purely programmatic solutions. Core themes included the indispensable role of peer support from those with lived experience to navigate the transition to housing; the necessity of mobile services to meet the most vulnerable people where they are; and a profound call to focus on building community and social belonging, rather than simply providing a housing unit.
——————————————————————————–
I. Overview of the Home Together Plan and Fund
A. Strategic Framework: Home Together 2030
The Home Together plan serves as Alameda County’s strategic roadmap for its homelessness response system. Originally adopted in 2022 as the “Home Together 2026 Community Plan,” it is currently undergoing a “refresh” to become “Home Together 2030.” This update is not a complete overhaul but builds upon the progress and insights of the 2026 plan.
The 2030 refresh incorporates:
- New data, system modeling, and trend analysis.
- An updated racial equity analysis.
- Additional feedback from stakeholders, particularly people with lived experience.
The plan’s development involves multiple workgroups and a Home Together Task Force. The process, which began in January 2024, is currently in the strategy development phase, with a draft plan expected in Spring and final adoption by County leadership in Summer. The overarching goals are to meet the needs of people experiencing homelessness and to reduce racial disparities within the system.
B. State of Homelessness in Alameda County (2024 Data)
The 2024 Point-in-Time (PIT) count provides a snapshot of homelessness in the county. While the PIT count is acknowledged as an undercount, it revealed several key trends.
| Metric | 2024 Data |
| Total Homeless Population (PIT) | 9,400+ individuals on a single night in January 2024 |
| Overall Homelessness Trend | First slight reduction since 2013 |
| Unsheltered Homelessness | Reduced by 11%; over 6,300 people remained unsheltered. |
| Sheltered Homelessness | Increased by 19% |
| Total Served Annually | Nearly 25,000 people (over 18,000 experiencing literal homelessness) |
| System Growth (Past 4 Years) | 44% increase in the number of people served |
Crucially, the 44% growth in demand for services over the past four years has not been matched by a corresponding increase in resources, leading to a system that is consistently overwhelmed.
C. The Home Together Fund (Measure W)
The Home Together Fund was created as a dedicated local funding source to advance the goals of the Home Together Plan. It is primarily funded by revenue from Measure W. The allocation of Measure W revenue is as follows:
- 80% to the Home Together Fund (estimated $1.4 billion over the life of the measure).
- 20% to an Essential County Services Fund.
- A one-time $170 million prudent countywide reserve.
The fund is not a standalone program but a resource designed to integrate with other funding streams to achieve the community-wide goals outlined in the plan.
II. County Investment Priorities and Strategies
A. Core Programmatic Areas
The Home Together plan and fund are structured around four “evergreen” priority areas. The projected annual revenue of roughly $150 million will be allocated across these areas.
| Priority Area | Description & Examples | Projected Annual Funding |
| Housing | Permanent housing solutions, including subsidies (rapid re-housing, PSH), and services to sustain housing. | ~40% |
| Shelter | Expansion of low-barrier, people-centered shelter, including non-congregate sites, safe parking, and medical respite beds. | ~30% |
| Access & Coordination | System entry points and navigation services like street outreach, coordinated entry, and capacity building for partners. | ~18% |
| Prevention | Keeping people housed through emergency rental assistance, housing problem-solving, and shallow subsidies. | ~15% |
| Capital (One-Time) | A separate category for one-time investments to acquire, rehabilitate, or build new housing, shelters, and health clinics. | N/A |
B. Investment Approach: Preserve, Enhance, Expand
Funding will be deployed according to a three-pronged strategy:
- Preserve: Provide funding to essential programs facing financial gaps or imminent closure due to funding cuts. This is the first and most urgent priority.
- Enhance: Invest in existing programs to improve operations, add evidence-based practices, and optimize outcomes.
- Expand: Strategically create new services, housing, and interventions to increase the system’s overall capacity and impact.
C. Critical Challenge: Looming Funding Reductions
A significant portion of the Home Together Fund will be required for preservation due to severe, forthcoming cuts in federal and state funding.
- Federal Cuts: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has released new funding changes that will result in a loss of $33 million to $60 million in annual funding for Alameda County. This puts the permanent housing of more than 1,000 people at risk.
- State Cuts: The state’s primary homelessness funding source (the “HAT” program) has been reduced. The next round of funding will be 50% lower than previous rounds.
D. Initial Fund Activations
Despite being launched only in July, the Home Together Fund has already initiated several programs:
- Housing Flexible Subsidy Pool: A pool including $10 million/year from Measure W to provide tenant-based rental assistance.
- New Interim Housing Beds: Procurement is underway for 300 new beds designed for individuals with complex medical needs.
- Emergency Stabilization Fund: A one-time fund to fill operational gaps for local affordable housing providers.
- Increased Shelter Investment: An additional $15 million per year to increase the emergency shelter bed night rate and comprehensively fund operations for 1,000 existing beds. This will be paired with an update to countywide shelter standards, centered on lived experience.
- Capital & Operating Fund: Initial funding to fill gaps for permanent housing projects, estimated to help create 250 new permanent housing units.
III. Key Themes from Community Stakeholders
Community speakers provided critical ground-truth perspectives, highlighting the limitations of a purely systems-based approach and advocating for a more relational and human-centered model.
A. The Primacy of Human Connection and Community
A recurring theme was that programmatic interventions are insufficient without a foundation of genuine human connection and community support.
- Victor Mavedzenge of Canara Pathways stated plainly, “Programs don’t keep people stable. People do.” He argued for relationship-based case management as a “continuum of care” that does not end upon housing or employment placement.
- Phil, from Healthcare for the Homeless and with lived experience, asserted, “The answer to homelessness is a home, not a unit.” He defined a “home” as a place of connection, community, support, and friendship—elements often missing in a standard housing placement.
- Z of Youth Spirit Artworks argued that the fundamental question should be, “How can we help you begin to form a sense of meaning and community so that you can respond to the complex trauma that you just encountered?” He stressed that “an address is not an answer to that question.”
B. The Essential Role of Lived Experience and Peer Support
Leger Harper of Wood Street Commons, drawing from her own journey from being unhoused for 10 years to being housed at Homefulness, articulated a detailed case for centering lived experience.
- Gaps in Traditional Services: Harper explained that case managers, while doing incredible work, often provide “paper-based, appointment-based, and time-limited” support. This misses the “in-between moments” and practical skills needed to adapt to housing, such as budgeting for new costs, using standard appliances, navigating a new neighborhood, and combating profound isolation after leaving an encampment community.
- Recommendations for Peer-Led Support: She advocated for Measure W funds to be used to create a countywide peer navigation program, where individuals who have successfully stabilized in housing are trained and equitably paid to become mentors. These peers would provide hands-on coaching—”not doing things for clients, but people who do them with them”—to rebuild confidence and independence.
C. Critique of Systemic Gaps and Inefficiencies
Speakers identified several areas where the current system falls short.
- Data & Metrics: Z noted a “massive and recurring crater” in data gathering that ignores social dimensions. He criticized the system for tracking outputs like address changes (“placements,” “exits”) instead of outcomes related to social belonging. This sentiment was echoed by Victor Mavedzenge, who urged the County to “stop measuring success in forms processed, but the changes we see in our community.”
- Service Delivery: The “Face Mask Crew” from Allen Temple Baptist Church repeatedly stressed the need for mobile services. They observed that a large percentage of unhoused individuals, like a woman living in a car that does not run, cannot physically get to centralized service locations. They called for mobile medical/mental health teams, mobile ID units, and mobile food delivery.
- Continuity of Care: Mavedzenge highlighted the problem of “shelters without continuity,” where individuals “spin back to square one,” and pointed to the burnout faced by under-resourced case managers who cannot provide the long-term support needed.
- Red Tape: Mavedzenge also cited bureaucratic hurdles, such as rules that classify stipends for transitional employment programs as “income,” creating tax problems and payment delays.
D. Urgent Need for Specific Resources and Infrastructure
The Face Mask Crew provided a clear, actionable list of needs based on their direct outreach work.
- More Housing: A simple lack of both short-term and long-term shelter beds, resulting in waiting lists.
- Mobile Services: An emphasis on bringing services directly to encampments, including mobile showers, mental and medical health teams, and units to help people obtain essential documents (IDs, birth certificates).
- Consistent Trash Pickup: Citing the overwhelming amount of trash as a “public health hazard” and an “environmental hazard.”
- Residential Treatment: Dedicated short-term and long-term residential housing for individuals needing substance abuse and mental health services.
- Community Homeless Resource Centers: Centralized drop-in centers providing referrals, life skills training, job services, mentorship, and other support.
IV. Notable Quotes
“Programs don’t keep people stable. People do. Let’s make our investment in those people… Let’s stop measuring success in forms processed, but the changes we see in our community. Let’s measure it in lives that no longer need our forms.” — Victor Mavedzenge, Canara Pathways to Community Success
“Homelessness and the staggering numbers of people living outdoors is simply immoral… It is critical that the funds be used to help the people come out of homelessness and come into complete wholeness.” — Michelle Green Zuil, Allen Temple Baptist Church “Face Mask Crew”
“People who have never experienced homelessness cannot fully understand the day-to-day skills, adjustments, and emotional challenges required to transition from encampments to permanent housing… Peer-led support is not an optional service. It’s the bridge that makes housing sustainable.” — Legar Harper, Wood Street Commons
“The measure of success is merely whether your address changed. We don’t track your social belonging once you get housed… We are effectively perhaps I would suggest we’re actually asking the wrong question. The question is not how can we put you at an address. The question is how can we help you begin to form a sense of meaning and community…” — Z, Youth Spirit Artworks
“The answer to homelessness is a home, not a unit. It’s not a widget. It’s a home. And home indicates connection, community, support, friendship.” — Phil, Healthcare for the Homeless