HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 - March 13, 2026 - Status of Homelessness in Cupertino Including Updates on Regional Studies and Efforts to Address Homelessness in Neighboring Cities
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Date: March 13, 2026
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Ben Fu, Director of Community Development
Re: Status of homelessness in Cupertino including updates on regional studies and efforts
to address homelessness in neighboring cities.
Background
On October 15, 2024, the City Council requested staff to return to Council with an update
after one year on the status of homelessness and abatement process throughout the City.
The update would include those sheltering in Recreational Vehicles (RVs) and a summary
and analysis of policies and best practices adopted by neighboring jurisdictions to
determine whether it is necessary to adopt an encampment clearance and management
policy.
City’s Current Abatement Protocol
The City utilizes an established protocol as a basis for addressing encampments and
assisting unhoused individuals, titled “City of Cupertino Process For Assisting Unhoused
Residents”, as outlined in the memorandum dated September 16, 2022. This protocol is a
six-step process which includes:
1. Collect reports through the City’s 311 system.
2. Contact the County Office of Supportive Housing (OSH) to engage the unhoused
individual and offer assistive services and shelter placement.
3. Contact the County Sheriff’s Office to perform wellness checks and offer
emergency medical services when necessary.
4. Continue coordinating with the aforementioned two organizations as well as
local non-profits for additional outreach.
5. Document whether the unhoused individual is receptive to accepting assistance.
6. Initiate encampment resolution process to maintain public health and safety of
the area.
The City’s Homelessness Taskforce, led by Community Development Department, meets
as needed prior to conducting abatements to consult key staff in Public Works, Sheriff’s
Office, and City Manager’s Office. In 2025, the City of Cupertino completed five
abatements:
Figure 1: 2025 Encampment Abatements
Aloft/Mandarin Yes December 2025 ~4,000
This data suggests that the current protocol for encampment clearance effectively allows
the City to continue conducting and completing routine clearance abatement while
maintaining reasonable costs.
Assistance Programs and Progress on Homelessness in Cupertino
Currently, the City funds local and regional non-profits to coordinate services to the
unhoused. Through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Human
Services Grant (HSG) programs, the City funds West Valley Community Services for the
CARE (general assistance) and Haven to Home (housing case management) programs.
Through County inventory grants, the City currently funds the Maitri domestic violence
shelter and has previously supported the Rotating Safe Car Park (RSCP) program. The
RSCP's mission is to create safe and welcoming spaces where guests who are living in
their cars can sleep, stabilize, recover, and gain access to social services. This program,
which cares for residents who are home insecure, is accomplished through the
collaboration of faith-based communities, local city governments, and other service
organizations. Funding for these programs varies yearly based on grant allocations the
City receives from federal, state, and regional funding sources.
Using a three-year average, staff estimates that the City directs a combined total of
$150,000 annually for these programs. Aside from these programs, Cupertino does not
currently offer emergency shelter or transitional housing that is open to the general public
year-round. This is because the RSCP program is only open for 2 months at a time for each
site, with only 3 host sites in the City, for a total of only 6 months out of the year. The City
collaborates with other organizations to directly engage with the unhoused and does not
have access to the county Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).
For entry into emergency shelter, rapid rehousing, and supportive housing programs, the
unhoused in Cupertino are assessed and serviced by the Santa Clara County Continuum
of Care. According to the August 2025 County of Santa Clara Supportive Housing
Dashboard, the least used programs were used to 79% capacity, while the most subscribed
programs being Permanent Supportive Housing, Rapid Rehousing, and Homeless
Prevention were used at 93%, 100%, and 100% respectively. Rapid Rehousing programs
were able to exit individuals from homelessness at a rate of 75%, Emergency Shelter
programs were able to exit individuals from homelessness at a rate of 41%, and
Transitional Housing programs were able to exit individuals from homelessness at a rate
of 34%. Overall, County programs are nearing benchmarks for system performance
measures.
In the 2023 Point in Time (PIT) count, it was reported that there were 48 people
experiencing homelessness in the City of Cupertino. In comparison, the 2025 PIT count
reported that there are 101 people experiencing homelessness in the City of Cupertino,
indicating a 110% increase. The County of Santa Clara overall had an increase of 8.2% of
unhoused populations between the two PIT counts, with the City’s increase being
disproportionately higher than the rest of the County. The historical PIT count data from
2019 and 2022 data reported the City having 159 and 102 individuals experiencing
homelessness, respectively.
The 2025 PIT count was unique in methodology in that it also had a survey component to
reveal qualitative data on the causes and barriers to addressing homelessness. When
surveyed, the highest listed reason for entering homelessness across all subpopulations
was losing employment, which was at an average of 27% of unhoused people in the
county. Prior to being homeless, 83% of unhoused people were residents of Santa Clara
County with 70% being long term residents of at least 10 years. 45% of unhoused people
entered homelessness within less than 1 year from the time of the count. 73% of unhoused
people in the County reported having a disability. The highest listed reason for the
primary barrier to homeless individuals entering shelter, at 45%, was simply that shelters
and supportive housing are too crowded and over capacity.
This data suggests that the recent increase in the unhoused population results from long-
term Santa Clara County workers who recently lost employment with many being unable
to find commensurate employment (likely impacted due to a disability condition). Despite
using their personal savings and homeless prevention assistance programs that are at
critical capacity to maintain housing costs, they are unstably housed and some will face
homelessness. Those who enter homelessness have been unable to exit thus far due to a
lack of shelter capacity and supportive affordable housing for persons with disabilities.
This data suggests that while supportive services provided by the County are generally
effective for exiting individuals who enter the programs from homelessness, they are
greatly oversubscribed. This makes the overall level of services provided insufficient to
exit individuals from homelessness at a rate faster than the inflow of people entering it.
Additionally, the lack of capacity in programs designed for highest acuity clients,
permanent supportive housing (PSH), is causing clients meant for PSH to be placed in
transitional housing (TH) programs and subsequently causing clients meant for TH to be
placed in emergency shelter. This mismatch in placement of client-to-service leads to an
overall reduction in effectiveness of the system. To address capacity issues and create
targeted solutions for unhoused individuals in Cupertino, the following areas for
improvement could be considered:
1) Expanding City assistance programs to include rapid rehousing services could
lower inflow into homelessness (for specifically Cupertino residents), and;
2) Supporting construction of more shelter capacity and supportive affordable
housing for persons with disabilities in local areas (for long term outflow to
housing stability for Cupertino households).
Oversized Vehicles Ordinance
On July 15, 2025, Council held a study session to consider the Planning Commission’s
recommendations to amend Sections 11.24.130 (72-hour parking limit), Section 11.24.200
(removal of vehicles), Section 11.28.010 (definition of oversized vehicles), and Section
11.28.020 (vehicle parking regulations) of the Municipal Code, to enhance the current
prohibition of parking oversized vehicles for more than seventy-two (72) hours on any
public street. The proposed ordinance was presented to the City Council for its first
reading on September 3, 2025 and approved on September 16, 2025.
The amendments prohibit parking oversized vehicles from parking within 1,500 ft of a
commercial district, but would allow residents to acquire an annual permit for their
oversized vehicles to allow them to park for seventy-two (72) hours in the public right of
way, after which the oversized vehicle would need to be moved a distance of 1,500 ft.
Moved vehicles would need to stay away from their citied location for a period of at least
seventy-two (72) hours. Additionally, non-residents would be able to apply for a
temporary parking permit five (5) times a year, that allows them to park in the public right
of way for seventy-two (72) hours each. Finally, the ordinance required additional signage
in areas such as Bandley Dr, Alves Dr, and other high-use areas for oversized vehicles
informing the public of the new ordinance and providing due process. Pursuant to the
ordinance, approximately 30-40 signs were installed throughout the City, but focused on
known concentrated areas where public right-of-way was being used for oversized
vehicle parking on an ongoing basis. Since the posting of these signs, Code Enforcement
has reported 100% compliance during overnight hours.
The enforcement of the oversized vehicle ordinance commenced on October 16, 2025. In
the weeks up until enforcement, City staff and volunteers from West Valley Community
Services engaged individuals living in RVs to inform them of the new regulations and to
offer connection to housing programs. The City conducted outreach to local businesses
regarding the ordinance through the business newsletter in December 2025. On March 3,
staff continued these efforts by sending notification letters to commercial properties and
businesses in the same areas to ensure awareness of the ordinance requirements. As of
March 4, 2026, efforts showed 100% compliance throughout various neighborhoods of the
city. All known areas where OVs were once found are now clear of violations during the
prohibited hours.
Enforcement of the ordinance is led by Code Enforcement with coordination from the
Sheriff’s Office. However, concerns remain in the future regarding potential logistical
costs of storing and/or towing of oversized vehicles, and biohazard cleanup.
West Valley Needs Analysis Report and Feasibility Study
On April 2, 2025, the City Council voted to execute a Memorandum of Understanding to
join a regional effort alongside the cities of Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos, and Monte
Sereno to study the joint feasibility of developing regional services, emergency shelter, or
transitional housing in the west valley. The study is comprised of two parts: a needs
analysis report that measures the unique challenges unhoused people face in the West
Valley, and a feasibility study that analyzes both the effectiveness of various programs
and shelter services to address these needs; and the combined ability for the west valley
cities to enact such policies. Completion of the study required base data for emerging
needs from the 2025 PIT Count, thus, delaying its release. The needs analysis report and
the feasibility study were completed and released to the public on July 24, 2025 and
January 26, 2026 respectively. The Needs Analysis report identified the lack of affordable
housing, shelter, and physical connectivity to supported services as primary needs in the
west valley. The Feasibility Study determined that homeless prevention services, rental
assistance, opportunity intervention funds, permanent affordable housing, rapid
rehousing, case management, and health/mental health/substance abuse services as
programs with highest feasibility and impact to address homelessness.
Despite identifying several programs as priorities, the studies do not make specific
funding suggestions to any organization or policy commitments for any of the
participating cities. Instead, the task of implementation is left as a decision that could be
enacted through the creation of a joint-cities task force to leverage combined resources
and execute agreements in conjunction with one another.
2025-2030 Community Plan to End Homelessness
The Community Plan to End Homelessness is Santa Clara County’s 5-Year plan to
prevent and address homelessness throughout the County. The plan identifies policies
to pursue that will best assist the unhoused at a county-wide level. On April 9, 2025, it
was announced that development of the 2025-2030 Community Plan to End
Homelessness had begun. This effort is headed by County staff of the Office of
Supportive Housing (OSH). The City of Cupertino’s role thus far has only been to
support county staff in their effort through sharing information and attending progress
check-ins. Recommended programs and strategies in the Plan will be informed by the
results of the 2025 PIT Count and by the feasibility of city and regional efforts to address
homelessness within the County. Progress on development of the plan is expected to
continue throughout the fall. Once completed, it will be brought before the County
Board of Supervisors and by individual City Councils for endorsement if requested. A
draft has been made available and attached to this informational memo. The final
version will be posted to the City website.
Encampment Clearance Executive Orders
On July 24, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order to direct the
Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to assess the legality of prioritizing federal discretionary grant
funding towards jurisdictions that enforce prohibition on urban camping and loitering,
enforce prohibition of urban squatting, and enforce civil commitment of individuals
sheltering on the streets with mental illness amongst other actions related to public health
and safety. These actions include enforcement on prohibitions of illicit drug use, banning
safe consumption sites, and mapping of individuals that are registered sex offenders with
no fixed address. Additionally, the executive order aims to prioritize funding towards
jurisdictions that reduce implementation of housing-first policy: an intake methodology
for Continuum of Care programs that reduces potential barriers of being placed into
available housing, which in the past were made inaccessible by sobriety and employment
requirements prior to being able to be housed.
The City of Cupertino is currently a recipient of the CDBG and HOME programs. These
programs are formula-award grants based on population size and proportional share of
low-income households, and are not discretionary. However, proposed budget cuts and
the prior government shut down have created uncertainty for the long-term stability of
these programs and their recipients.
Similarly, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-1-24, directing State
agencies to develop policies to prioritize addressing encampments on state property and
to encourage local jurisdictions to develop similar policies. The Executive Order also
maintains that adopting policies that effectively ban homelessness without providing
adequate space for shelter is inhumane and should be avoided. In May 2025, the
Governor’s Office released a model ordinance, for which they encouraged cities to use,
that bans urban camping on public property, erecting permanent and semi-permanent
structures for shelter, and prohibits sleeping, lying, or sitting in the public right of way. It
provides recommendations for encampment clearance procedures, including providing
encampments one written notice, then initiating clean-up in 48 hours and storing personal
belongings for up to 60 days. Such a proposed ordinance would also make it unlawful to
camp within 200 feet of any posted notice to vacate. The executive order does not touch
upon enforcement of the sample ordinance and lets each City decide whether to issue
citations, infractions, or misdemeanors for violations. Both executive orders were brought
before the Housing Commission meeting on September 25, 2025 for a study session and
will continue to be studied as findings are made regarding the federal directives.
Current and Emerging Practices in Neighboring Jurisdictions
Functional Zero Strategies
Functional Zero is a model for addressing homelessness where a city or county will aim
to have a sustainable model of shelter, services, and housing programs that are able to
keep the number of individuals experiencing homelessness below the system capacity for
exiting people from homelessness. This is achieved by both preventing homelessness to
reduce inflow and by meaningfully addressing issues faced by the unhoused to keep them
housed in the long-term to prevent recidivism. This model also promotes efficient
spending of public funds as it measures success by exiting the highest number of people
from homelessness for each dollar spent. This is often achieved by the use of an
opportunity intervention fund for individually tailored assistance to prevent people from
resorting to shelter on the street. Some examples of interventions include: application fees
for Section 8 voucher holders, medical co-pays for individuals with health issues, or car
repairs for those sheltering in their cars. In California, this model was first used by
Redondo Beach and Bakersfield, but has been adopted by local neighboring jurisdictions
as well, such as Mountain View, San Jose, and San Mateo County.
Staff Unhoused Specialists/Coordinators
While most large cities maintain a team of on-staff employees to coordinate outreach to
the unhoused, medium and smaller sized cities, including the City of Cupertino, will
typically manage contracts with regional non-profits or with county employees to provide
these services. This model reduces staffing costs as staff coordinates with outside
organizations for unhoused outreach. This could increase the time for services to be
administered and prevents City staff from having access to the confidential County HMIS
system. Based on the need, some smaller and medium-sized jurisdictions have created
Unhoused Specialist/Coordinator positions. Some local examples include the cities of
Campbell, Morgan Hill, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale.
Public Camping Bans and Encampment Clearance Ordinances
The Supreme Court in Grants Pass v. Johnson, held that enforcing public camping bans
when shelter is not immediately available did not constitute cruel and unusual
punishment under the 8th Amendment. In response, several cities in California have
passed ordinances banning camping on public property and adopted standards for
clearing encampments. However, for many neighboring cities, these policies are either
only recently enacted or are still being proposed. As a result, data is not yet readily
available as to whether adopting such ordinances has been effective in aiding cities in
conducting clearance abatements significantly more quickly than under previous
protocols. A summary of some policies enacted by other neighboring jurisdictions is
included below:
Figure 2: Bay Area Municipalities Encampment Ordinances
Analysis
The current level of rapid rehousing services, shelter, and permanent supportive housing
offered by the County of Santa Clara is oversubscribed and insufficient for addressing
homelessness. As federal funding sources become more uncertain, the vitality of these
programs becomes threatened, organizations will be searching for solutions through local
funding sources. Funding contributions from the City of Cupertino to non-profits and
regional organizations that provide these services could ensure the sustainability of the
programs and allow the City to target funds to serving Cupertino clients.
Regional work can leverage effort for establishing shelter, services, and programs within
the County and the Community Plan to End Homelessness. As the practice of mid-size
cities adopting Vision Zero frameworks and hiring specialized staff for unhoused
outreach and services continues to grow amongst neighboring jurisdictions, the efficacy
of these practices to create targeted solutions to address homelessness should continue to
be monitored. Cupertino housing staff should collaborate wherever possible with housing
staff of neighboring jurisdictions for partnership opportunities and sharing of best
practices.
The current protocol for clearance abatement still effectively allows the City to continue
conducting and completing routine clearance abatement while maintaining reasonable
costs. The legality of directives in the President’s Executive Order that prioritize funding
to cities that enact public camping bans and adopt standards in line with federal policy
2025 encampment may be
cleared immediately
where property is left
$1000 fine and/or
6 months jail
clean-up can take place $1000 fine and/or
Berkeley Protocol Fire, health, or 72 hr written notice Infraction; $100
City if available with 24 hrs in between, $100 fine and/or 6
San Mateo
(County)
January 2024 All public spaces,
if available
Two written notices
with 24 hrs in between,
Misdemeanor;
$500 fine and/or 6
if available within 18 months, and $1000 fine and/or
goals is still under review. It has yet to be confirmed whether this action stays within the
executive branch’s authority or attempts to exercise legislative power that belongs to
Congress. The order is currently being litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals. In December
2025, a federal judge in Rhode Island issued a preliminary injunction which blocked
implementation of the new criteria, however in March 2026, HUD filed an appeal to
challenge this block. The model state ordinance provided in the Governor’s executive
order is not being adopted by cities, who are adopting policies that are tailored to their
local preferences. If the City of Cupertino were to consider enacting its own public
camping ban with strict clearance procedures, it is recommended to study the efficacy of
other adopted local ordinances first to refine the policy with best practices. However,
many of these policies have only been recently enacted. Data is not yet readily available
as to whether adopting such ordinances have been effective in aiding cities in conducting
abatement more efficiently or if there have been any potential fiscal impacts from the cost
of repeat abatements from heightened enforcement. This issue should continue to be
studied through the Housing Commission as data becomes available and findings are
shared.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
Yes – Unhoused Policies: Determine best practices for limited budget smaller cities to
manage the unhoused. Review RV practices in surrounding cities for impacts and
potential adoption. Review transitional housing outcomes in surrounding cities. Policies
to include nimble contingency plans.
Council Goal:
Quality of Life
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
___________________________________________
Prepared by: Nicky Vu, Senior Housing Coordinator
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Community Development Director
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
A - City of Cupertino Process For Assisting Unhoused Residents
B – County of Santa Clara Supportive Housing Dashboard August 2025
C – 2025 Santa Clara County Point in Time Count Report
D – October 15, 2024 Study Session on Unhoused Services and Programs Staff Report
E – West Valley Homeless Needs Analysis
F – West Valley Homeless Feasibility Study
G – Draft 2025-2030 Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness
City Of Cupertino Process For Assisting Unhoused Residents
September 16, 2022
Cupertino City Council Resolution 20-140, adopted on December 15, 2020, endorsed the
Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness. The City of Cupertino’s (City)
process listed below addresses Strategy 3: Improve quality of life for unsheltered
individuals and create healthy neighborhoods for all. The City has received input from
the community regarding concerns of unhoused individuals living on Cupertino
property. Working to address these concerns as quickly and effectively as possible is
important to the City. There are many social and legal hurdles that must be considered
when working on these scenarios. Recent court cases have upheld the rights of unhoused
individuals to occupy public property if alternative housing options and certain levels of
support are not available to these individuals. These necessary services are not directly
provided by the City and therefore the City must engage with other entities to ensure
these services are available.
Many individuals experiencing homelessness simply need assistance to change their
unhoused situation. For this reason, the City of Cupertino has taken an approach that
focuses first on ensuring the well-being of the unhoused individuals, second on informing
the individuals of the assistance available to them, and third on assisting the individual
to a setting that can provide services. These steps require time to properly implement.
For emergency situations, call 911. To request a non-emergency welfare check, call 408-
299-2311.
The City’s Process for Assisting Unhoused Individuals:
1) To notify the City of unhoused individuals or encampments, submit a request
through Cupertino 311 app or www.cupertino.org/311.
2) City contacts County Office of Supporting Housing (OSH) who engages the
individual, offering available assistance services to them. In cases where
individual accepts services, the individual is typically taken to facilities where
assistance is provided.
3) City may request County Sheriff’s Office to engage with individual(s) and perform
a wellness check. For individuals needing immediate medical assistance, the
Sheriff’s Office will initiate emergency medical services. The Sheriff’s Office will
notify the City of its assessment.
4) Where individuals are not willing to immediately accept services, the City
continues to coordinate with OSH in additional outreach. OSH and non-profit
contractors work to build trust with the individual towards having the individual
accept the assistance available.
5) During the OSH outreach period, OSH provides the City with its assessment of its
efforts. If continued efforts do not result in the individual accepting assistance,
OSH provides the City with a determination that continued efforts will not result
in the individual relocating to assistive services.
6) City initiates an encampment resolution process. This process follows the steps
required to notice the encampment occupants of the City’s intent to dismantle the
encampment and to have the area cleared of any items that remain at the location.
The resolution process requires the City to work with OSH to secure available
shelter options for each individual at the location. Any items of apparent value
will be stored for up to 90 days. A posted notice at the location will provide
guidance to individuals on how to retrieve their belongings.
An encampment resolution is the final effort to have an encampment removed from City
property. This step typically results in individuals relocating to another site, whether a
sanctioned shelter or another unsanctioned location, and the site is cleaned up by City led
forces. If individuals relocate to another unsanctioned location, the City’s process steps
are reinitiated upon notification of the new encampment.
The City makes every effort to engage with unhoused individuals and to provide to them
the services available to help them off the streets. The encampment resolution phase is
considered a last resort as this typically does not result in the individual being assisted off
the street.
The process to prioritize outreach and engagement to build trust and rapport has shown
to be the most effective approach at helping unhoused individuals on a path to housing
and addressing the community’s concerns.
County of Santa Clara
Office of Supportive Housing
150 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
(408) 278-6400 Main
(669) 220-1444 Fax
Board of Supervisors: Sylvia Arenas, Betty Duong, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, Margaret Abe-Koga
County Executive: James R. Williams
August 8, 2025 TO: Board of Supervisors Housing, Land Use, Environment and Transportation Committee (HLUET) FROM: Kathryn Kaminski, Office of Supportive Housing (OSH) SUBJECT: Supportive Housing System in Santa Clara County The attached report highlights trends, successes, and challenges of the supportive housing system in Santa Clara County between July 2024 and June 2025. The primary function of this report is to communicate how different programs and efforts are contributing to an overall reduction in homelessness. The supportive housing system includes housing programs that fall into five main categories: Emergency Shelter (ES), Transitional Housing (TH), Rapid Rehousing (RRH), Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), and Homelessness Prevention (HP). Additionally, this report provides supplementary data focusing on the County’s Temporary Housing and Homelessness Prevention programs.
Supportive Housing System Trends and Highlights Appendix A highlights data on two of the five overarching targets detailed in the County’s 2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness (Community Plan). As shown in Chart 1, the Supportive Housing System has housed 19,194 individuals (equivalent to about 11,300 households) since January 2020, 96% toward the goal of housing 20,000 people by the end of 2025. Chart 2 depicts progress toward the County’s goal of reducing inflow or the number of newly homeless households each year by 30%. Inflow is measured by those completing a housing assessment or VI-SPDAT for the first time with assessments for families with children completed by the head of household, while multiple adults in an adult-only household may complete an assessment (since a household composition may change). Inflow for the July 2024 to June 2025 reporting period is 4,030 households, demonstrating progress towards the five-year goal to reduce the number of households completing their first assessment to 3,321 households. Inflow has decreased slightly (6%) from the past year (from 4,309 to 4,030), demonstrating the need to continue focusing on expanding homelessness prevention services and increasing the supply of affordable housing.
Page 2 of 7
Appendix B provides program capacity and utilization for the five program categories outlined above plus the Safe Parking (SP) initiative. As depicted in the Program Utilization chart in Appendix B, Rapid Rehousing (100%), Homelessness Prevention (100%), followed by Permanent Supportive Housing (93%), have the highest utilization for the reporting period. Capacity across programs has remained relatively stable over the past year, with the largest capacity being in Permanent Supportive Housing with 4,631 units. With 1,075 upcoming PSH and RRH housing units under construction or approved by the Board of Supervisors, supportive housing capacity is expected to continue to increase in the coming years. The need for additional capacity remains high with 5,751 households currently on the Santa Clara County Community Housing Queue waiting for housing and 4,083 (71%) of these households’ scores indicating a high level of need addressed by Permanent Supportive Housing. The Community Housing Queue includes households who have completed a housing assessment in Santa Clara County and are in need of permanent housing. This queue is used to match households with the type of permanent housing program best suited to meet their housing needs and prioritizes limited resources to serve the most vulnerable households. Appendix C illustrates key system performance measures, benchmarks for which are determined in coordination with community partners on an annual basis. A few highlights for the reporting period are provided below.
• Chart 2 provides data on exits to permanent housing destinations by project type and period with improvements seen overall and by each project type. The system-wide value for exits to permanent housing destinations exceeded the 39% benchmark at 47% and represented a 9% improvement from the previous 12-month period. Forty-three percent (43%) of households exiting Emergency Shelter programs moved on to permanent housing, exceeding the County’s 42% performance goal. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of RRH households exited to permanent housing destination for the current reporting period, which represents a 6% increase from the previous 12-month period, exceeding the County’s 76% performance goal.
• Chart 3 provides retention data on the percentage of people in Permanent Supportive Housing programs who were housed for 12 consecutive months during PSH enrollment. The housing retention rate was 95.8% for the current reporting period and this number has remained near the current benchmark of 97% for several years.
Page 3 of 7
• Chart 4 provides data on returns to homelessness after exiting a program to a permanent housing destination two years prior. Data for the July 2024 to June 2025 period are fairly aligned with the previous two periods for returns to homelessness within 6 and 12 months. Returns to homelessness within 2 years shows an improvement for the current period with 17% of clients returning to homelessness compared to 20% in the previous year. This overall decrease can be attributed to a decrease in returns to homelessness within 2 years for RRH households. Appendix D presents data on housing placements and inflow by project type and month. The upper chart indicates the number of households that moved to permanent housing (housing placements), compared to the number of households completing their first housing assessment (inflow). Over the past one year, approximately 1,932 households have been permanently housed (27% being families with children) and 4,030 households have completed a housing assessment for the first time (inflow). This means for every one household getting permanently housed, 2.1 households are completing a housing assessment for their first time since becoming homeless. The pie chart on the right shows where households reported sleeping most frequently at the time of their first housing assessment. Thirty-six percent (36%) of clients were outdoors and 27% in a vehicle (car/RV/van). Clients who are couch surfing (temporarily staying with family/friends) represent 12% with another 12% staying at shelters or hotels/motels. The inflow is classified by level of housing intervention needed by the household – minimal intervention, RRH, or PSH. The need remains high with 331 households completing a housing assessment for the first time in June 2025 (upper chart), 59% of which scored in the PSH level of housing intervention. The lower chart breaks down the housing placements by the type of project from which the household was receiving assistance. In June 2025, 37 households were housed through RRH programs, and 35 households were housed in PSH programs.
Temporary Housing Programs
Appendices E through G contain data related to the County’s temporary housing programs, which consist of traditional Emergency Shelter (ES), Interim Housing (IH) programs, Transitional Housing, and Safe Parking projects. Table 1 in Appendix E shows the number of households and individuals enrolled in the past year, along with their utilization and average length of stay. In the past 12 months, 5,488 households or 8,010 individuals were served in various temporary housing programs, with the majority in regular emergency shelter programs.
Page 4 of 7
Temporary housing programs have the capacity to serve a total of 2,991 households (refer to Appendix E, Chart 2) and when accounting for multiple beds in family units, the temporary housing system can serve an estimated 4,152 people every night. Year-round emergency shelters (ES) represent the largest share of capacity with 2,273 units including 1,411 units of traditional emergency shelter and 862 units of interim housing. Interim housing units are often designated for clients enrolled in permanent housing programs and in housing search and/or include more robust case management and housing navigation services. As a result of enhanced services and the nature of the program, clients enrolled in interim housing programs had a 63% exit rate to permanent housing during the past 12 months (refer to Appendix E, Chart 3) which is more than double compared to exits to permanent housing from traditional emergency shelters (31%). Of transitional housing clients, many of whom are youth and young adults, 45% exit to permanent housing destinations and 33% exit to temporary destinations (which can include shelter, jail, treatment facility, and family/friends). Between January 2015 and December 2019, through the collective efforts of the County and its community partners, temporary housing and emergency shelter capacity doubled. The County’s 2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness contains a goal to again double the number of year-round temporary housing beds and offer a variety of temporary housing options for unhoused residents. Currently the county is nearly 60% to the goal of doubling temporary housing capacity from the baseline of 1,882 units in 2019. In September 2021, the County officially launched the “Here4You” hotline which serves to centralize referrals to emergency shelter programs. The hotline matches households to the appropriate emergency shelter based on need and availability thus increasing the efficiency at which homeless clients can be linked to shelter beds in the County and eliminating the need for unhoused people to access multiple waiting lists. Over 1,130 single adults and 423 families with children were placed in emergency shelters through the Here4You hotline between July 2024 and June 2025. In March 2022, Housing Problem Solving was added as part of the services provided by the hotline to quickly resolve a client’s housing crisis through creative problem solving, mediation techniques, and financial assistance. Housing Problem Solving is currently being offered by five agencies within the county. As tracked in the Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS), over 3,800 clients have received Housing Problem Solving services over the past one year with nearly 650 households avoiding homelessness or
Page 5 of 7
quickly resolving their homelessness by entering a temporary or permanent housing situation. The county’s safe parking programs provide a safe place for families and single adults living in cars or RVs. With various parking lots located in the cities of Mountain View, San José, Palo Alto, Gilroy, and Morgan Hill, safe parking programs have a total capacity of 332 spaces and a utilization rate of 88%. In the past year, 522 households were served with 31% of households exiting to permanent housing destinations and 29% of households exiting to temporary destinations (refer to Appendix E, Chart 3). Households staying at safe parking lots receive case management services that connect clients to a variety of resources and help them attain more stable and permanent housing. Appendix F compares demographics for the various temporary housing project types. Emergency Shelter – Interim Housing programs have the largest percentage of households with children (23%), closely followed by regular emergency shelter programs (18%). Safe Parking programs have the largest senior population with 25% between 55 and 64 years of age and 14% at 65 years and above. Hispanic/Latina/e/o is the largest race and ethnicity group for all temporary housing project types and especially for Safe Parking where Hispanic/Latina/e/o represent 63% of enrolled households. Appendix G is new to this report and introduces a client story illustrating a family’s experience in an emergency shelter program. OSH has included client experiences in the report to demonstrate how these efforts and programs can transform lives.
Homelessness Prevention Programs The County’s HP system identifies households at risk of experiencing homelessness and provides a range of financial assistance and case management services to help them regain stability. The current system includes two interventions. The first is short-term or one-time financial assistance and case management, provided through the Emergency Assistance Network (EAN HP). This intervention is delivered by the seven EAN agencies across the county, ensuring residents have access to immediate support. The second intervention is the Homelessness Prevention System (HPS), which offers rapid and flexible time-limited assistance coordinated through 19 participating agencies. This centralized effort, managed by the HPS Network Coordinator, provides flexible financial assistance over a period of time (rather than a single instance), legal support and case management and funding for other essential expenses. The HPS program also includes a Wellness and Housing Stabilization Program (WHSP) which is a referral-based support in partnership with the behavioral health and substance use treatment services programs. This fiscal year, HPS was strengthened by adding Bill Wilson Center as a new HPS partner and expanding our
Page 6 of 7
capacity at Family Supportive Housing, which manages the HPS phone line and plays a critical role in connecting households to timely support. All HP programs offer rental assistance, security deposit, and utility assistance. Appendices H through K include data related to these HP programs. Table 1 in Appendix H provides annual household capacity for HPS and EAN HP programs as well as additional HP programs in the county that may not be tracked in the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). As of July 1, 2025, the County’s HP programs can serve a total of 2,693 households annually. Over 4,300 households completed an HPAT, the prevention assessment tool, during the past 12 months and slightly over half score within the HPS level of intervention compared to 49% within short-term level of intervention (refer to Appendix H, Chart 2). Capacity and utilization of the main HP programs have increased significantly since program inception (refer to Appendix H, Chart 3). Currently these programs can serve 2,323 households per year. Utilization (households served) is measured by how many households became newly enrolled in a program that year. Enrollments were lower in FY20-21 with the availability of additional COVID-related programs and the State COVID Relief program which ran through March 2022. Program outcomes for 3,147 households who were assisted by HPS and EAN HP between July 2024 and June 2025 (refer to Appendix H, Chart 4) show high levels of housing stability with ninety-four (94%) of HP households remaining stably housed while receiving prevention assistance. Of those who exited the programs during the period, 94% of HP households exited to permanent housing destinations. Chart 1 of Appendix I provides the reasons for requesting HP assistance as reported by program participants. The primary reason remains income loss (i.e., job loss, benefits ended), reported by 42% of participants. Income reduction (i.e., work hours reduction, benefits reduction, etc.) and change in family composition (i.e. separation, death, etc.) are the next most common reasons for assistance at 16% and 15% respectively. Medical Emergency (self or family member) also remains one of the top reasons for assistance with 12% of participants. These primary reasons for prevention assistance are consistent with what unhoused clients report as their primary cause of homelessness. Financial assistance data (refer to Appendix I, Chart 2) shows the most common type of assistance provided was rental assistance (81%). The HP programs have provided over $15.7 million in financial assistance over the past year. As shown in Chart 3, the average rental assistance for the HPS programs was $6,603 per household, compared to $2,885 in rental assistance per household for the EAN HP program. The larger amount for the HPS program reflects the flexible, often longer-term program designed to meet specific
Page 7 of 7
household needs, as most individuals and families enrolled in HPS are assisted for two or more months. Demographic information for 3,147 households enrolled in the HP programs over the past one year is provided in Appendix J. The majority (57%) of participants are households with children and 72% of the heads of household are women. Sixty-five (65%) of participants reported to be Hispanic/Latina/e/o and over half (58%) are between the ages of 25 and 44. Appendix K includes a client narrative that underscores the value of prevention services. These stories provide qualitative insight into how system-level interventions protect individuals from the trauma of homelessness and support long-term stability.
4,146
1,602
328
2,141
274
2,547
4,631
1,516
348
2,311
332
2,619
PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING (PSH)
RAPID
REHOUSING
(RRH)
TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING
(TH)
EMERGENCY
SHELTER
(ES)
SAFE
PARKING
(SP)
HOMELESSNESS
PREVENTION
(HP)
Program Capacity (Units or Households)
June 2024 June 2025
3,321
4,030
4,744
GOAL: REDUCTION OF BASELINE
INFLOW BY 30%
INFLOW OVER THE PAST ONE YEAR
(JULY 1, 2024 TO JUNE 30, 2025)
BASELINE: INFLOW OF HOUSEHOLDS
IN 2019
Goal: Achieve a 30% Reduction in Annual
Inflow of People Becoming Homeless
(Inflow = Number of Households Completing Their First Assessment)
19,194
20,000
Goal: Housing 20,000
People by 2025Office of Supportive Housing
Supportive Housing System
Dashboard
July 1, 2024 –
June 30, 2025
The 2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness
The county-wide plan is our roadmap for ending homelessness in Santa Clara County. The 2020-2025 plan set aggressive targets designed
to reverse the current growth in homelessness and bring us one step closer to our collective goal of eliminating homelessness in our
community. Appendix A highlights specific goals related to this plan.
Appendix A: Community Plan Goals
96% to
Goal
21
Appendix B: Capacity and Utilization as of 6/30/2025
•Utilization: PSH is point-in-time utilization for June 30, 2025; TH and ES data reflects utilization for the month of June 2025; RRH, SP and HP utilization are based on enrollments during the last 12 months.
•Program utilization is based on households enrolled in programs that are tracked in HMIS.
•PSH capacity includes 89 units which are Permanent Housing with services (no disability required).
•For Safe Parking programs, one parking space is the equivalent of one unit of capacity.
Under Construction
or in the Pipeline
Approved by the
Board
1,075 Total Housing
Units (470 PSH, 549 RRH,
and 56 VASH)
Housing
Placements
from Jan.1,
2020 to June
30, 2025
93%100%
79%90%88%
100%
PSH RRH TH ES SP HP
Program Utilization
June 2025
34%
73%
27%
39%38%
73%
30%39%47%
79%
45%43%
SYSTEM
(39% BENCHMARK)
RAPID REHOUSING
(76% BENCHMARK)
TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING (33%
BENCHMARK)
EMERGENCY
SHELTER (42%
BENCHMARK)
Exits to Permanent Housing Destinations
Of Persons in ES, TH, and RRH who Exited a program, the
Percentage of Successful Exits to Permanent Housing
7/1/22 to 6/30/23 7/1/23 to 6/30/24 7/1/24 to 6/30/25
2
Appendix C: System Performance Measures
94.0%96.3%95.8%
7/1/22 TO 6/30/23 7/1/23 TO 6/30/24 7/1/24 TO 6/30/25
Permanent Supportive Housing Retention
Percentage of People in Permanent Housing Programs Housed
for 12 Consecutive Months During PSH Enrollment
(Benchmark = 97%)
3
7%8%6%
11%13%
11%
18%
20%
17%
7/1/22 TO 6/30/23 7/1/23 TO 6/30/24 7/1/24 TO 6/30/25
Returns to Homelessness
After Exiting to Permanent Housing Destinations, the
Percentage of People who Return to Homelessness within 6
Months, 1 Year, and 2 Years
<6 Months < 1 Year < 2 Years
4
9,328 7,788 6,934
System
Entries
6,167
System
Entries
4,972
System
Entries
4,411
7/1/22 to 6/30/23 7/1/23 to 6/30/24 7/1/24 to 6/30/25
Total Enrollments and First Time Homelessness
Enrollments into ES, SH, TH, or PH Programs
System Entries: People Experiencing Homelessness for the First Time*
* “First Time” per HUD = no enrollments in ES, SH, TH or PH in the previous 24 months
66%
64%64%
1
44 38 47 48 44 39 46 32 40
66
41 55
27 32 36 40 26 39 26
26 33
28
29
2922
4 8
7 4 20
13 4
6
7
6373513
29
19 23
47
40 22
33
33
37
56 44 48
85
31
38
62
41 48
40
42
35
166
151 148
210
127
143
201
152 147
173
152 162
JUL-24 AUG-24 SEP-24 OCT-24 NOV-24 DEC-24 JAN-25 FEB-25 MAR-25 APR-25 MAY-25 JUN-25
Monthly Housing Placements from Project Types
Permanent Supportive Housing
Rapid Rehousing
Transitional Housing
Emergency Shelter
Other (i.e. Services, Street Outreach)
166 151 148
210
127 143
201
152 147
173 152 162
30 20 28 35 14 24 27 29 35 24 23 25
148
109
137 145
100 112 145 118 142 161
104 112
192
179
179
223
149
152
201
157
172
210
175 194
370
308
344
403
263
288
373
304
349
395
302
331
Jul-24 Aug-24 Sep-24 Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25
Monthly Housing Placements vs. Homeless Inflow
Housing Placements (Household)
Inflow: PSH Score Range
Inflow: RRH Score Range
Inflow: Minimal Intervention
Appendix D: Housing Placements and Inflow by Month
Note: PSH housing placements include
VASH and some other types of permanent
housing (no disability required)
Over the Past 1 Year:
Approximately 1,932
Households Housed
and 4,030 First Time
Housing Assessments
(Inflow)
Outdoors,
1,456 , 36%
Vehicle,
1,099 , 27%
Couch Surfing,
490 , 12%
Shelters/ Hotel,
467 , 12%
Transitional
Housing, 168 , 4%
Jail/ Hospital,
168 , 4%
Other, 182 , 5%
FY25 Homeless Inflow: Where do you
Sleep Most Frequently?
Temporary Housing Type Households
Enrolled
Individuals
Enrolled
Utilization
(June 2025)
Average Length of
Stay (Days) for
Households who
Exited
Emergency Shelter (ES)3,395 4,984 92%112.5
ES - Interim Housing (IH)1,345 2,161 88%217.1
Transitional Housing 556 622 79%281.5
Safe Parking 522 749 88%276.4
Unduplicated Total 5,488 8,010
Clients Served in Temporary Housing Programs during FY25
(July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025)
Emergency
Shelter, 1,411,
47%
ES -Interim
Housing, 862,
29%
ES/TH for
Victims of
Domestic
Violence, 42,
1%
Transitional
Housing, 344,
12%
Safe Parking,
332, 11%
Temporary Housing Program Capacity
(2,991 Total Units or 4,152 Beds)
31%
45%
63%
31%
29%
33%
25%
28%
20%
11%
5%
24%
20%
12%
7%
18%
SAFE PARKING
(265 EXITS)
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
(341 EXITS)
ES -INTERIM HOUSING
(1,077 EXITS)
EMERGENCY SHELTER
(2,941 EXITS)
Exit Destinations by Temporary Housing Type, FY25
Permanent Temporary Place not meant for habitation Unknown/Deceased
Appendix E: Temporary Housing Capacity, Utilization and Outcomes – FY25
Note: Domestic Violence program data is not reported as data is not
recorded in HMIS in compliance with HUD safety and confidentiality
provisions.
32
Exit Destination Definitions:
•Permanent destination: rental/own with or without ongoing housing subsidy, living with family/friends
(permanent tenure), long-term care facility/nursing home
•Temporary destination: emergency shelter, foster care, hospital, jail, safe-haven, transitional housing,
substance abuse treatment facility, family/friends (temporary tenure)
•Place not meant for habitation: a vehicle, an abandoned building, bus/train/subway station/ airport or
anywhere outside
•Unknown: client doesn’t know, prefers not to answer, data not collected, no exit interview, other
1
Appendix F: Temporary Housing Demographics, FY25
The following are demographics for heads of households enrolled in temporary housing programs during FY25
10%
6%
23%
18%
17%
1%
5%
2%
73%
93%
72%
78%2%
SAFE PARKING
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
ES - INTERIM HOUSING (IH)
EMERGENCY SHELTER (ES)
By Household Type
Household with
Children
Household
without
Children
Single
Adult
Single
Child
24%26%25%24%
2%3%2%2%1%
49%54%54%63%
18%15%16%5%7%5%6%5%
8%12%6%6%
EMERGENCY
SHELTER (ES)
ES - INTERIM
HOUSING (IH)
TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING
SAFE
PARKING
By Race and Ethnicity (Multiple Responses Allowed)
American Indian, Alaska
Native, or Indigenous
Asian or Asian
American
Black, African American,
or African
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or
North African
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
White (Non-
Hispanic/Latina/e/o)
65%
66%
53%
61%
35%
34%
47%
39%
SAFE PARKING
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
ES - INTERIM HOUSING (IH)
EMERGENCY SHELTER (ES)
By Gender
Man Woman/ Other
1%4%6%
29%
4%
21%18%
23%
11%
24%25%
21%
24%
19%23%
12%
22%
19%18%
10%
25%
11%10%6%14%
EMERGENCY
SHELTER (ES)
ES - INTERIM
HOUSING (IH)
TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING
SAFE
PARKING
By Age Tier
65 or Above
55 to 64
45 to 54
35 to 44
25 to 34
18 to 24
0 to 17
Appendix G: Client Experience with Temporary Housing
In March 2025, a single mom was placed at a family shelter site after calling the Here4You hotline
seeking shelter for her family. Shortly after her moving into the shelter, the shelter staff and the
participant spoke about possible family connections and the needs of her 2 kids.
Staff supported the participant in connecting with a relative who was willing to have the family
move in. The assigned case worker also helped the mom get connected to services for her
children.
The family exited the shelter in under 60 days to the supportive family member’s home. The
hotline problem solving program paid the transportation costs to the family’s home and paid for
two months’ worth of groceries.
CLIENT STORY
EMERGENCY SHELTER
Santa Clara County Homelessness
Prevention Programs
Annual Household
Capacity as of
July 1, 2025
HPS (Homelessness Prevention Services)1,770
HPS - WHSP (Wellness & Housing Stabilization Program)310
EAN HP (Emergency Assistance Network - Homelessness Prevention)243
County: SSA - Department of Family and Children's Services (DFCS)55
Goodwill Silicon Valley - SSVF Veterans 55
HomeFirst SSVF (Supportive Services for Veteran Families)60
Nation's Finest SSVF Homelessness Prevention 40
Reentry EAP (Emergency Assistance Program)40
Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) - Home Safe Program 40
United Way Emergency Assistance Network 80
Total 2,693
Score within
HPS Level of
Intervention,
2183, 51%
Score within
Short-Term
Level of
Intervention,
2124, 49%
4,307 Households Completed the
HPAT (Homelessness Prevention Assessment
Tool) in FY2025
94%
89%
94%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
OF THOSE WHO EXITED, HOUSEHOLD
WHO EXITS TO PERMANENT
DESTINATIONS
HOUSEHOLDS THAT RECEIVED
FINANCIAL AID
HOUSEHOLDS THAT REMAINED
STABLY HOUSED WHILE RECEIVING
PREVENTION ASSISTANCE
HP Program Outcomes for 3,147 Total
Households Assisted, FY25
20
0
40
0
73
0
88
0
1,
3
0
0
1,
9
0
0
1,
9
0
0
1,
8
1
2
2,
2
4
0
2,
2
4
0
29
4 44
3
67
8
1,
1
7
8
1,
7
1
8
1,
7
2
8
2,
0
1
1
1,
8
9
9
2,
3
1
8
2,
2
4
6
HP Capacity and Households Served
(By Project Start Date)
Annual Capacity Households Served
Appendix H: Homelessness Prevention (HP) Capacity, Utilization, and Outcomes, FY25
2
4
The subsequent charts show results for households enrolled in HPS (includes WHSP) and EAN HP programs
1
3
$0
$977
$690
$1,848
$0
$2,885
$319
$1,089
$1,202
$2,297
$3,829
$6,603
TRANSPORTATION
OTHER
UTILITIES
SECURITY DEPOSIT
MOTEL
RENTAL ASSISTANCE
Average Financial Assistance per Household
HPS Total Assistance: $14.6 M
EAN HP Total Assistance: $1.2 M
HPS
EAN HP
Rental Assistance,
6390, 81%
Utilities, 524, 7%
Security Deposit,
337, 4%
Other, 329, 4%Motel, 199, 3%Transportation,
84, 1%
HP Service Transactions by Type, FY25
1%, 23
2%, 69
2%, 74
3%, 102
4%, 123
5%, 157
8%, 237
12%, 381
15%, 458
16%, 505
42%, 1,312
0 500 1000 1500
MOVING FROM AN UNSAFE OR ILLEGAL
UNIT
FLEEING DOMESTIC/FAMILY VIOLENCE
RENT INCREASE (INCL. MOVING TO NEW
UNIT)
MOVING FROM TEMPORARY
ARRANGEMENT TO PERMANENT HOUSING
OTHER
MUST LEAVE CURRENT LIVING SITUATION
(I.E., OVERCROWDED, ASKED TO LEAVE,
ARGUMENT WITH CO-TENANTS, ETC.)
UNEXPECTED MAJOR EXPENSE
MEDICAL EMERGENCY (SELF OR FAMILY
MEMBER)
CHANGE IN FAMILY COMPOSITION (I.E.,
SEPARATION, DEATH, ETC.)
INCOME REDUCTION (I.E., WORK HOURS
REDUCTION, BENEFITS REDUCTION, ETC.)
INCOME LOSS (I.E., JOB LOSS, BENEFITS
ENDED)
Reasons for Prevention Assistance,
FY25
Appendix I: Homelessness Prevention Financial Assistance, FY25
21
3
Appendix J: Demographics of 3,147 Households Served in Prevention Programs, FY25
3%, 91
27%, 855
31%, 968
20%, 638
11%, 354
8%, 240
18 TO 24 25 TO 34 35 TO 44 45 TO 54 55 TO 64 65 OR ABOVE
By Age Tier
Household
with
Children,
1,798 , 57%
Single Adult,
970, 31%
Household
without
Children,
379, 12%
By Household Type
Woman, 2273,
72%
Man/ Other,
874, 28%
By Gender
65%, 2,053
14%, 438 12%, 377
7%, 220 3%, 110 2%, 58 1%, 33
HISPANIC/
LATINA/E/O
WHITE (NON-
HISPANC/
LATINA/E/O)
BLACK, AFRICAN
AMERICAN, OR
AFRICAN
ASIAN OR ASIAN
AMERICAN
AMERICAN
INDIAN,
ALASKA NATIVE,
OR INDIGENOUS
NATIVE
HAWAIIAN OR
PACIFIC ISLANDER
MIDDLE EASTERN
OR NORTH
AFRICAN
By Race/Ethnicity (Multiple Responses Allowed)
A family of four faced a sudden crisis when their household income dropped to $2,000 a month after the primary earner’s hours
were cut. With rent at $2,350, the family was at immediate risk of eviction. The situation was further complicated by the
spouse’s recovery from a major surgery and an informal rental arrangement with a non-English-speaking landlord, making it
difficult to verify their housing situation.
Within days of entering the Homelessness Prevention System (HPS), their assigned Case Manager stepped in to help. Navigating
language and cultural barriers, the Case Manager conducted bilingual outreach to the landlord and secured the documentation
needed to confirm eligibility and stabilize the housing situation.
HPS issued two timely rent payments that cleared arrears and halted the eviction process. The Case Manager also supported the
family in applying for CalWORKs and CalFresh, connecting them to food pantries, legal services, and financial coaching. These
wraparound services helped the primary earner increase work hours and empowered the spouse to begin applying for jobs.
By July 2025, the family’s income had stabilized, their rent was current, and they had avoided all late fees. With continued
progress, they are expected to successfully exit HPS in the fall of 2025.
CLIENT STORY
HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION
Appendix K: Client Experience with Homelessness Prevention Services
POINT-IN-TIME COUNT
COMMUNITY REPORT
2025
S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y
Santa Clara County
Continuum of Care
Unsheltered Sheltered
2022 2023 2025
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
7,708
2,320
7,401
2,502
7,472
3,239
10,028 9,903 10,711
4%7%
12%
50%
0%3%1%
36%
<18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
9%
4%
15%
24%24%
17%
8%
OUTDOORS
24%
SHELTER
30%46%
VEHICLE
(CAR/RV)
SHELTER
STATUS
Sheltered Unsheltered
30%70%
2025 PIT COUNT OVERALL RESULTS
AGE RANGES
MALE
70%ADDITIONAL
GENDER
IDENTITIES
2%
FEMALE
28%
GENDER IDENTITIES
SLEEPING LOCATIONSCENSUS POPULATION TREND
RACIAL IDENTITIES*
WhiteAsian or Asian
American
American
Indian/ Native
Alaskan/
Indigenous
Black/ African/
African
American
Hispanic/
Latino/e/a
Middle Eastern
or North
African**
Multiple Races Native
Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander
Sheltered Unsheltered
HOUSEHOLD TYPE
Adult-Only
Households
20%80%84%
Families
16%
Children Only
(<18)
44%56%
9,005 people in
8,770 households
(84%)
1,679 people in
486 households
(16%)
27 people in
20 households
(<1%)
Sheltered ShelteredUnsheltered Unsheltered
Sheltered Unsheltered
SELECT SUBPOPULATIONS
Chronically
Homeless Veterans
31%69%49%51%21%79%
Unaccompanied
Youth & Young
Adults (<25)
4,650 People
(43%)
349 People
(3%)
378 People
(4%)
Sheltered ShelteredUnsheltered Unsheltered
Older Adults
(55+)
28%72%
Sheltered Unsheltered
2,638 People
(25%)
*Percentages add up to over 100% because people can select multiple options.
**Middle Eastern or North African was recently added as part of the 2024 data standards.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Results are from all people experiencing homelessness
counted and surveyed during the Point-in-Time Count
< 1 Year 1-2 Years 3 Years+
18%21%61%
< 1 Year 1-4 Years 5-9 Years 10 Years+
2%15%12%70%
LENGTH OF TIME LIVING IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Medi-cal/Medicare
Food Stamps/SNAP
General Assistance
SSI/SSDI/DIsability
Social Security
CalWORKS/TANF
Not Receiving any Assistance
53%
47%
20%
9%
8%
7%
25%
0%10%20%30%40%
Part Time
Self-employed
Full Time
Seasonal
Looking For Work
Unable to Work
Not Looking For Work
Unemployed
6%
5%
4%
3%
33%
25%
13%
11%
First Time
Homeless
Fleeing
Domestic
Violence
Foster
Care History
18%
Eviction/Rent
Increase
12%
Job Loss/
Income
27%
Health
Issues
13%
Household
Loss/ Breakup
17%
PRIMARY CAUSES OF HOMELESSNESS
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
2025 PIT COUNT SURVEY RESULTS
Substance Use
Disorder
21%
Serious
Mental Illness
25%
Chronic
Health Issues
27%
Physical
Disability
26%
Developmental
Disability
17%
HIV/Aids
Related Illness
Any Disabling
Condition*
3%73%
SELF-REPORTED DISABLING CONDITIONS
LENGTH OF CURRENT EPISODE OF HOMELESSNESS
Within Santa
Clara County
Outside of Santa
Clara CountyRESIDENCE
PRIOR TO
BECOMING
HOMELESS 83%17%
GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
RECEIVED
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
58%
LGBTQIA+
Community
8%16%
Pregnant/
Expectant
Parent
1%
*Respondents reported at least one disabling condition
Results are from 1,534 surveys with people experiencing homelessness
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Employed: 18%
Unemployed: 82%
A federal requirement, the Point-in-Time (PIT) count provides communities with
information about the unhoused population on a single night in January. While the
resulting data is valuable, it should be combined with other data sources to give a more
holistic and accurate picture of homelessness.
The 2025 PIT count revealed 10,711 people experiencing homelessness in Santa Clara
County on a single night in January, 30 percent of whom were in a sheltered setting. While
this is an 8 percent increase (or 808 people) from 2023, the total number has stayed
relatively consistent since 2019 as shown below.
The increase is primarily in sheltered individuals and families, which rose by 30 percent,
reflecting investments in increasing shelter capacity (adding 364 beds since 2023) and a
higher utilization of shelter beds (from 74 percent in 2023 to 88 percent in 2025) due to
efforts to streamline and improve the Here4You shelter hotline. The number of
unsheltered individuals remained relatively flat, with an increase of one percent.
The count also revealed a decrease in veterans (down 21 percent) and an increase in
families (up 37 percent) and individuals experiencing chronic homelessness (up 21
percent), and an increase in the number of people residing in vehicles. In Santa Clara
County, 46 percent of those experiencing unsheltered homelessness were found to be
living in vehicles, up from 32 percent in 2023.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
42025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Unsheltered Sheltered
2017 2019 2022 2023 2025
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
5,448
1,946
7,922
1,784
7,708
2,320
7,401
2,502
7,472
3,239
7,394
9,706 10,028 9,903
10,711
Figure 1: Point-In-Time Count Trends by Shelter Status
The results are consistent with what homelessness experts have observed in recent years:
more people are entering homelessness than exiting homelessness in the region. From July
2024 to June 2025, 1,932 households were housed and 4,028 unhoused households
requested assistance for the first time, with 800 (20 percent) being families with children
and 575 (14 percent) being youth (18 to 24 years).
Systemic factors such as the lack of affordable housing supply, wage gaps, and structural
inequities all contribute to housing insecurity and homelessness in the Bay Area, including
in Santa Clara County. In this community, 74 percent of extremely low-income (ELI)
households are paying more than half of their income on housing costs compared to one
percent of moderate-income households. Further, over 55,000 low-income renter
households do not have access to an affordable home.
Reflecting these challenges are the top four causes of homelessness based on PIT survey
results – which are consistent with households seeking prevention assistance – 28 percent
of households fall into homelessness due to job or income loss, followed by 17 percent
impacted by loss of family members or dissolution of households, 13 percent due to health
issues, and 12 percent for increases in rent and evictions. Some of the other reported
primary causes, such as substance use, incarceration, and domestic violence reflect a much
smaller proportion of the population.
These primary causes reflect the high cost of living that leave many priced out of the area.
Even with these challenges, people want to stay in their communities – 83 percent of
households surveyed stated Santa Clara County as their residence prior to becoming
homeless with 70 percent reporting living in the county longer than 10 years. More on this
data can be viewed on page 43 under the Survey Insights section.
To ensure a comprehensive and data-driven strategy for addressing homelessness, Santa
Clara County developed the 2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness in close
partnership with cities, nonprofit organizations, and people with lived experience of
homelessness. The plan adopts a multipronged approach that includes homelessness
prevention, temporary housing and shelter for those who are unhoused, and permanent
housing programs that assist people with obtaining and maintaining stable housing either
through a rental subsidy or a permanent supportive housing unit.
Through concerted efforts guided by Community Plan strategies, 35,833 people have
received homelessness prevention assistance, 25,085 people were supported in temporary
housing and shelter, and 19,194 people obtained stable housing since January 2020
(through June 2025).
Without these effective interventions to prevent homelessness and end homelessness with
permanent housing, the situation (and numbers) would be far worse. Ultimately, solving
the homelessness crisis is not possible without increasing the supply of affordable housing
and continuing to scale up prevention efforts.
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County 5
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Introduction
Limitations
Conducting the Count
Demographics
Age Range
Gender
Race ....
Health & Wellness
Jurisdictional Information
Key Subpopulations
Families with Children
Chronically Homeless
Veterans
Unaccompanied Youth and Young Adults
Older Adults (55+)
Survey Insights
Population Characteristics
Homelessness Circumstances
Employment
Government Assistance Programs and Benefits Received
Self-Reported Disabling Conditions
Volunteers
Incorporating What We Learned
Acknowledgements
Appendix A: Count Methodologies
Appendix B: Survey Instrument
.......................................................................................................................................................9
.........................................................................................................................................................10
......................................................................................................................................11
..................................................................................................................................................13
.......................................................................................................................................................13
...........................................................................................................................................................14
...........................................................................................................................................................15
..........................................................................................................................................17
................................................................................................................................18
.........................................................................................................................................21
.................................................................................................................................22
....................................................................................................................................26
........................................................................................................................................................31
...............................................................................................34
.........................................................................................................................................36
.................................................................................................................................................40
.........................................................................................................................41
....................................................................................................................42
..................................................................................................................................................44
....................................................................44
...........................................................................................................45
.........................................................................................................................................................46
....................................................................................................................47
...................................................................................................................48
................................................................................................................50
................................................................................................................56
TABLE OF FIGURES
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County 7
......................................................................................4
......................13
..................................................................................................................13
..........14
......................................................................................................14
....................................................................................15
............................................................................................................................16
........................................................................17
............................................................................20
.............................................................................22
..................................................................23
............................................................23
..................................................................................24
...........................................................24
...........................................................25
.........................................................25
.......................................................................................................26
..............................................................27
..............................................................28
........................................................................................................29
.............................................................................................................................29
.......................................................................................................30
.............................................................................31
................................................................................32
..................................32
............................................33
....................................33
.................................................34
..............................................................................35
.......................................................................................35
...........................................................................................36
..................................................................................................37
..............................................37
......................................................................38
.......................................................................................................39
Figure 1: Point-In-Time Count Trends by Shelter Status
Figure 2: Age Range of People Experiencing Homelessness and Overall County Population
Figure 3: Age Range by Shelter Status
Figure 4: Gender Identities of People Experiencing Homelessness and Overall County Population
Figure 5: Gender Identities by Shelter Status
Figure 6: Race Compared to Overall County Population
Figure 7: Race by Shelter Status
Figure 8: Adults with Long-Term Disabilities by Shelter Status
Figure 9: Unsheltered Population in Vehicles by Jurisdiction
Figure 10: Families Experiencing Homelessness Over Time
Figure 11: Families Experiencing Homelessness by Shelter Status
Figure 12: Adults in Families Experiencing Homelessness by Age Tier
Figure 13: Families Experiencing Homelessness by Race
Figure 14: Families Experiencing Homelessness by Disabling Conditions
Figure 15: Primary Cause of Homelessness for Families with Children
Figure 16: Government Assistance Received for Families with Children
Figure 17: Chronically Homeless Over Time
Figure 18: Chronic and Non-Chronic Homeless Populations by Age
Figure 19: Chronic and Non-Chronic Homeless Populations by Race
Figure 20: Primary Cause of Homelessness
Figure 21: Disabling Conditions
Figure 22: Government Assistance Received
Figure 23: Veterans Experiencing Homelessness over Time
Figure 24: Veterans Experiencing Homelessness by Race
Figure 25: Primary Cause of Veterans Experiencing Homelessness (Top Responses)
Figure 26: Disabling Conditions Among Veterans Experiencing Homelessness
Figure 27: Government Assistance Received by Veterans Experiencing Homelessness
Figure 28: Unaccompanied Youth & Young Adult Homelessness over Time
Figure 29: Unaccompanied Youth & Young Adults by Race
Figure 30: Parenting Youth Homelessness over Time
Figure 31: Older Adults Homelessness 2023 - 2025
Figure 32: Older Adults Homelessness by Race
Figure 33: Primary Cause of Homelessness Among Under 55 and 55+ Adults
Figure 34: Older Adults Homelessness by Disabling Conditions
Figure 35: Government Assistance Received
TABLE OF FIGURES
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County 8
.....................................................................................................41
..................................................................................................41
..................................................................................................41
...............................................................................41
...............................................................42
..................................................42
.................................................42
..................................................42
.............................................................................................42
....................................................................................42
......................................................43
.......................................................43
..........................................................................43
..............................................................................................44
..............................................................................................44
.............................................................................44
.....................................................................45
..........................45
......................................................................46
..................................................................................46
Figure 36: Survey Insights - Military Veterans
Figure 37: Survey Insights - Foster Care History
Figure 38: Survey Insights - Sexual Orientation
Figure 39: Survey Insights - Pregnant or Expectant Parent
Figure 40: Survey Insights - First Time Experiencing Homelessness
Figure 41: Survey Insights - Number of Homeless Episodes in Last 3 Years
Figure 42: Survey Insights - Current Homelessness Episode Length of Time
Figure 43: Survey Insights - Total Length of Time Homeless in Last 3 Years
Figure 44: Survey Insights - Chronically Homeless
Figure 45: Survey Insights - Fleeing Domestic Violence
Figure 46: Survey Insights - Length of Time Living in Santa Clara County
Figure 47: Survey Insights - Location Lived Prior to Becoming Homeless
Figure 48: Survey Insights - Primary Cause of Homelessness
Figure 49a: Survey Insights - Employment Status
Figure 49b: Survey Insights - Employment Status
Figure 50: Survey Insights - Government Assistance Received
Figure 51: Survey Insights - Self Reported Disabling Conditions
Figure 52: Survey Insights - Perceived Challenges/Barriers to Using Emergency Shelters
Figure 53: Volunteers With Lived Experience of Homelessness
Figure 54: Volunteers that Previously Participated in PIT
INTRODUCTION
92025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
A result of tremendous community collaboration, the PIT count yields one set of data that,
combined with other data sources, can inform policies, funding, and strategic planning at
the local, state, and federal levels. Aside from providing another way to better understand
local needs, strengths, and gaps, the count also increases public awareness of efforts to
address homelessness, the systemic factors leading to homelessness, and the complex
challenges faced by our unhoused neighbors.
A requirement of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Point-
in-Time (PIT) count is an annual census of people experiencing homelessness on a single
night in January. The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (CoC) is charged with
coordinating and implementing a county-wide PIT count that includes all 15 jurisdictions
and unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. The County of Santa Clara Office of
Supportive Housing serves as the CoC lead and collaborative applicant for the Santa Clara
County CoC.
*Los Altos Hills and Monte Sereno are not labeled in
the map above due to space and software limitations.
10
LIMITATIONS
While the PIT count is used to quantify homelessness locally and nationally, it is important
to understand its limitations. The PIT Count represents only a snapshot in time – not the
total number of people experiencing homelessness throughout the year – and factors, such
as weather and number of volunteers available, may impact the count’s accuracy.
Further, this year’s count adopted a new methodology designed to deliver a more accurate
and comprehensive representation of the homeless population. This new approach reflects
how technology and practices for surveying homeless populations have evolved over time.
Due to the methodology change, we cannot infer meaningful trends by comparing the 2025
results directly with the results from previous years. While the change in methodology is
meant to improve accuracy, there is no method of counting the number of people
experiencing homelessness that is 100 percent accurate.
Given these limitations, it is important to understand the PIT count is only one piece of data
used to understand homelessness in our community and should be used in concert with
HMIS and other data sources. This report shares how the findings in this report will be
integrated into strategic planning efforts in the Incorporating What We Learned section on
page 47.
The PIT count has two components: sheltered and unsheltered. The sheltered count is
conducted annually and includes people experiencing homelessness who are living in
emergency shelters, transitional housing, or safe havens. Every other year, the PIT count
includes people experiencing homelessness in unsheltered situations, including people
sleeping outdoors or in places not designed for habitation such as vehicles, streets, parks,
or abandoned buildings.
The 2025 PIT count included both sheltered and unsheltered counts and was conducted on
the mornings of January 22 and 23. The previous count that included both sheltered and
unsheltered was in 2023 and is referenced throughout this report. Teams of volunteers
were deployed to survey people experiencing unsheltered homelessness or complete an
observational count when a survey could not be completed. The sheltered count required
participation by all emergency shelters and transitional housing projects, including those
that do not utilize the region’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) for data
collection, such as domestic violence providers.
This report is a comprehensive summary of count results and critical insights provided by
survey responses that allow us to more deeply understand the picture of homelessness in
our community. After the PIT count was completed, the data was carefully analyzed and
validated to meet HUD’s high data quality standards. The count results found in this report
have been approved by HUD.
11
CONDUCTING THE COUNT
A change from previous years, the 2025 PIT count was conducted using geographic
sampling and enumeration rather than an observational census count. This fresh approach
provided by new vendor Simtech Solutions Inc. uses innovative technology and places a
heavier emphasis on surveys to give us a more detailed picture of the county’s homeless
population. The surveys were conducted as a first option in data collection as long as the
person agreed to be surveyed, rather than relying on a primarily observational approach as
was the case in previous counts.
This survey-first emphasis offers greater insight into the experiences and needs of
subpopulations such as veterans, youth, and people experiencing chronic homelessness.
The survey-first approach also requires a higher number of volunteers, leading to targeted
outreach efforts that resulted in 758 registered volunteers, including 291 people with lived
experience of homelessness, elected officials, outreach teams, service providers, funders,
community partners, and Santa Clara County residents. Volunteers with lived experience
were given a stipend for their time and efforts. See Volunteers on page 46 to learn more.
The 2025 Point-in-Time count consisted of the following primary components:
Unsheltered Count: A morning count and survey conducted on January 22 and 23 of
unsheltered individuals and families experiencing homelessness. This included those
sleeping outdoors on the street; at bus and train stations; in parks, tents, and other
make-shift shelters; and in vehicles and abandoned properties. Volunteers canvassed
all 15 cities and unincorporated areas across the county and would complete a survey
as long as the person was awake and willing to participate. An observational count was
completed if a survey was not possible.
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
CONDUCTING THE COUNT
12
Sheltered Count: A nighttime count of individuals and families experiencing
homelessness staying at publicly and privately operated shelters on January 21, 2025.
This included those who occupied emergency shelters, transitional housing, and safe
havens. The sheltered count is conducted using data from the Homelessness
Management Information System (HMIS), which tracks individuals and households
accessing homeless services across the county. The sheltered count also includes
domestic violence shelters that do not utilize HMIS for data collection.
Survey: The count included a brief survey to gather additional information about the
unhoused population. The survey is an in-person interview of sheltered and
unsheltered individuals conducted by volunteers and outreach teams the mornings of
the count and up to one week after the count. Surveyors asked survey-takers to
respond to the survey for the night of January 21 (e.g. “Where did you sleep last night,
January 21?”) to be consistent with the sheltered count. Participants received an
incentive gift for their time. To view the survey tool, please see Appendix B: Survey
Instrument.
This report presents insights drawn from the data sources and components outlined
above. When interpreting these findings – particularly in comparison to results from
previous Point-in-Time Counts – it is important to consider methodological differences that
may affect year-to-year comparability. For a breakdown of the geographic sampling and
enumeration method, see Appendix A: Count Methodologies.
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
In total, almost half (48 percent) of people experiencing homelessness during the 2025 PIT
Count were aged 35-54. Compared to the overall Santa Clara County population (Figure 2),
these age ranges (35-44, 45-54) are overrepresented in the homeless population at the
highest level, followed by those aged 55-64. Older adults aged 55+ are becoming unhoused
at increasing rates across the country as many live on fixed incomes that are insufficient in
covering rising rents. Read more about findings of Older Adults on page 36. 1
DEMOGRAPHICS
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County 13
Unsheltered Sheltered
<18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2%
25%
3%
8%
14%15%
27%
16%
28%
13%
18%
14%
7%
9%
Figure 3: Age Range by Shelter Status
The age distribution varies depending on whether those being counted were sheltered or
unsheltered. Unsheltered homeless individuals are generally older with 55 percent
between 35-54 years and 18 percent between 55-64 years. Families with children were in
shelter at higher rates during the PIT count (84 percent), which accounts for the higher
number of individuals under 18 years of age in Figure 3 below.
2025 PIT Count County Population
<18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
9%
21%
4%
9%
15%16%
24%
15%
24%
13%
17%
12%
8%
14%
Figure 2: Age Range of People Experiencing Homelessness and Overall County Population
Age Range
1. The National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2024). “Paint by Numbers: Older Americans and Homelessness”.
Males comprised the majority (70 percent) of the PIT count numbers whereas females
accounted for 28 percent, and other gender groups accounted for approximately two
percent. Compared to census information, 51 percent of the population was recorded as
male and 49 percent was recorded as female. It is important to note that the US Census
data currently does not provide gender demographic data beyond male and female.
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
2025 PIT Count County Population
Male Female Additional Gender Identity*
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%70%
51%
28%
49%
2%
Figure 4: Gender Identities of People Experiencing Homelessness and
Overall County Population
*Census data does not currently provide figures for Gender Identities outside of Male and Female
14
When comparing gender by shelter status, 75 percent of unsheltered individuals identified
as male while 23 percent identified as female, and two percent identified as another
gender identity. Among sheltered individuals, a higher percentage (40 percent) identified as
female and 59 percent as male. This can be attributed to a higher percentage of families
with children who are sheltered, the majority of which have a female head of household.
Unsheltered Sheltered
Male Female Additional Gender Identity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%75%
59%
23%
40%
2%1%
Figure 5: Gender Identities by Shelter Status
Gender
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Most Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) groups, especially Black/African
Americans, experience homelessness at higher rates than people who are White.
Nationally, according to the 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR), African
Americans accounted for 31 percent of all people experiencing homelessness and 37
percent of people experiencing homelessness as members of families with children,
despite being 12 percent of the U.S. population. Within Santa Clara County, people who
identify as Black or African American constitute two percent of the overall population yet
comprise 12 percent of the homeless population. Similarly, 25 percent of the population of
Santa Clara County is Hispanic/Latina/e/o, yet 50 percent were found to be experiencing
homelessness during the PIT count.
2
While the numbers are smaller, there is also a much higher proportion of people
experiencing homelessness who are American Indian, Native Alaskan or Indigenous as well
as Hispanic/Latina/e/o compared to the county population. While the U.S. Census data for
Santa Clara County indicates American Indian/Native Alaskan or Indigenous comprise one
percent of the overall population, this group accounted for four percent of the PIT count
homeless population, a greater than 500 percent over-representation.
Race: Disparities
2 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2025). The 2024 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.
Figure 6: Race Compared to Overall County Population*
2025 PIT Count County Population
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous
Asian or Asian American
Black, African American, or African
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African
Multiple Races
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
White
4%
1%
7%
40%
12%
2%
50%
25%
0%
3%
13%
1%
0%
36%
33%
15
*Percentages add up to more than 100% because people can select multiple options
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Of the 3,239 people residing in shelters on the night of the count, 62 percent identified as
Hispanic/Latina/e/o, 43 percent identified as White, and 13 percent identified as Black,
African American, or African. For those experiencing unsheltered homelessness (7,424
people), the racial groups with the highest percentages remain Hispanic/Latina/e/o (45
percent), followed by White (33 percent), and Black or African American, or African (11
percent). It is important to note respondents could select more than one option when
responding to the racial identity questions.
In Santa Clara County, the largest disparity between sheltered and unsheltered exists for
the Hispanic/Latina/e/o group, which can be explained by unsheltered Hispanic/Latina/e/o
having the highest proportion of families with children compared to other racial groups.
Families with children who are experiencing homelessness in Santa Clara County
predominantly reside in shelters or transitional housing programs.
16
Unsheltered Sheltered
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous
Asian or Asian American
Black, African American, or African
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African
Multiple Races
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
White
4%
5%
8%
5%
11%
13%
45%
62%
0%
0%
2%
5%
1%
2%
33%
43%
Figure 7: Race by Sheltered Status*
*Percentages add up to more than 100% because people can select multiple options
Race: Shelter Status
Nationwide, people who are White, as well as Asian American, are under-represented in the
homeless population. However, within Santa Clara County, the census data indicates 33
percent of the population were White and 40 percent were of Asian descent and yet
comprised 36 percent and seven percent of the homeless population during the PIT count,
respectively. While the proportion of White people experiencing homelessness was similar
to the County census, Asian or Asian Americans were drastically underrepresented in the
2025 count. This group encompasses a broad range of nationalities, and more data needs
to be collected to further understand these populations.
The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care completes regular racial disparity analysis to
create and shift strategies that address disparities through systemwide Community Plan to
End Homelessness efforts.
According to the National Health Care for the Homeless Council (NHCHC), the average life
expectancy for individuals experiencing homelessness is 25 years less than those in stable
housing. Without regular access to safe and stable housing, many individuals also lack
access to healthcare, experience preventable illness, and often endure longer
hospitalizations than those who have safe and stable housing. It is estimated that those
experiencing homelessness stay four days longer per hospital admission than non-
homeless patients.
3
4
The presence of a disabling condition, which can be exacerbated by homelessness, can
hinder a person from being able to obtain employment and maintain stable housing. In
Santa Clara County, 24 percent of the adult population experiencing homelessness
indicated having a serious mental illness, which is defined as having a mental health
disorder that is long-term and impairs the individuals’ ability to hold a job or live
independently.
In general, unsheltered adults reported having a higher incidence of disabilities compared
to sheltered adults, with the greatest differences in long-term chronic health issues,
physical disability, substance use disorder, and developmental disability. The percentage of
individuals who reported a serious mental illness is similar for those living in shelter
compared to those living unsheltered. On the other hand, for adults with a long-term
substance use disorder (18 percent of the adults experiencing homelessness), 14 percent
were sheltered, while 19 percent were unsheltered.
Health & Wellness
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
3 National Health Care for the Homeless Council. (2020). National Homeless Mortality Overview.
17
Figure 8: Adults with Long-Term Disabilities by Shelter Status
Unsheltered Sheltered
0%20%40%60%80%
Any Disabling Condition
Chronic Health Issues
Physical Disability
Serious Mental Illness
Substance Use Disorder
Developmental Disability
HIV/Aids Related Illness
73%
64%
27%
22%
26%
21%
24%
23%
19%
14%
17%
11%
3%
1%
Jurisdiction Unsheltered Sheltered Total
Percent of County’s
Homeless
Population
Campbell 108 0 108 1.0%
Cupertino 101 0 101 1.0%
Gilroy 702 257 959 9.0%
Los Altos 12 0 12 0.0%
Los Altos Hills *0 *0.0%
Los Gatos 27 0 27 0.0%
Milpitas 79 0 79 1.0%
Monte Sereno *0 *0.0%
Morgan Hill 67 *69 1.0%
Mountain View 722 157 879 8.0%
Palo Alto 399 19 418 4.0%
San Jose 3,959 2,544 6,503 61.0%
Santa Clara 711 83 794 7.0%
Saratoga 19 0 19 0.0%
Sunnyvale 328 93 421 4.0%
Unincorporated 234 0 234 2.0%
Confidential Locations
(DV)0 84 84 1.0%
Total 7,472 3,239 10,711
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION
The PIT count covered the entirety of the Santa Clara County geographic area, including the
15 cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte
Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale,
and unincorporated Santa Clara County.
The cities with the most individuals counted during the PIT were: San Jose (6,503), Gilroy
(959), Mountain View (879), and Santa Clara (794). All other jurisdictions counted a
combined total of 1,576 people.
18
Table 1: 2025 Point-in-Time Results by Jurisdiction
* Values for cities with with fewer than 11 people are not shown due to small sample size
192025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
JURISDICTION
UNSHELTERED SHELTERED TOTAL
2023 2025
2023 to 2025
% CHANGE
(UNSHELTERED)
2023 2025 2023 to 2025
% CHANGE
(SHELTERED)
2023 2025
2023 to 2025
% CHANGE
(TOTAL)
Total
Incorporated 7,169 7,238 1%2,438 3,155 29%9,607 10,393 8%
Campbell 92 108 17%0 0 92 108 17%
Cupertino 48 101 110%0 0 48 101 110%
Gilroy 817 702 -14%231 257 11%1,048 959 -8%
Los Altos 0 12 0 0 0 12
Los Altos Hills 0 *0 0 0 *
Los Gatos 81 27 -67%0 0 81 27 -67%
Milpitas 142 79 -44%0 0 142 79 -44%
Monte Sereno 0 *0 0 0 *
Morgan Hill 230 67 -71%0 *230 69 -70%
Mountain View 424 722 70%138 157 14%562 879 56%
Palo Alto 187 399 113%19 19 0%206 418 103%
San José 4,411 3,959 -10%1,855 2,544 37%6,266 6,503 4%
Santa Clara 417 711 71%44 83 89%461 794 72%
Saratoga 0 19 0 0 0 19
Sunnyvale 320 328 3%151 93 -38%471 421 -11%
Total
Unincorporated 232 234 1%2 *234 234 0%
Confidential
Locations NA NA NA 62 84 35%62 84 35%
Total 7,401 7,472 1%2,502 3,239 29%9,903 10,711 8%
Table 2: 2023-2025 Comparison of Point-In-Time Results by Jurisdiction
* Values for cities with fewer than 11 people were moved to the Incorporated total due to small sample size
Vehicle Outdoors
0%20%40%60%80%100%
COUNTYWIDE
Campbell
Cupertino
Gilroy
Los Altos
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Jose
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
Unincorporated
66%34%
52%48%
53%48%
62%38%
100%
39%61%
44%56%
76%24%
97%4%
76%24%
56%44%
88%12%
100%
84%16%
91%9%
20
Figure 9: UNSHELTERED Population in Vehicles by Jurisdiction*
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
This year’s PIT count revealed a shift many jurisdictions and county residents have noticed
– more people are living in vehicles, particularly in RVs. An increase from 32 percent in
2023, 46 percent of those experiencing homelessness in the county were found to be living
in vehicles. While people living in RVs can be considered housed, people living in RVs that
lack a utility hook up, are in disrepair, and/or parked in unauthorized locations would be
considered experiencing unsheltered homelessness per HUD.
Notably, this shift in RV dwellers is more prevalent in the northern part of Santa Clara
County, with the biggest increases in Mountain View, Santa Clara, and Palo Alto. This mode
of living, while offering some semblance of stability and privacy, comes with significant
challenges. Access to basic amenities like sanitation and healthcare remains limited, and
the transient nature of living in a vehicle makes accessing social services and employment
opportunities more complicated. A regional approach to better understanding this
population and how to support it will be key to finding solutions and pathways to
permanent housing across jurisdictional boundaries.
The 2025 PIT count included RVs in any condition that were parked on the street. A more
specific definition and survey questions will be added to future counts to better distinguish
between people living in RVs experiencing unsheltered homelessness and those using it for
other purposes. The CoC will also work with jurisdictions and service providers to collect
more data to more deeply understand this populations. For additional details related to
estimating the number of people experiencing homelessness in vehicles and makeshift
shelters, please refer to the Deriving Estimated Counts of People Living in Vehicles and
Makeshift Shelters section of Appendix A: Unsheltered Count Methodology.
*Results for Los Altos Hills and Monte Sereno are not shown due to insufficient sample size.
2 31 5
Chronically
Homeless
Veterans Unaccompanied Youth
& Young Adults (<25)
Older Adults
(55+)
4
Families with
Children
Local progress toward ending homelessness can be evaluated broadly as well as by key
subpopulations like families with children, chronically homeless, veterans, unaccompanied
youth and young adults, and older adults aged 55 and over. The following evaluation
utilizes data gathered from the current and previous Point-in-Time counts, as well as
results from the 2025 PIT count surveys. To see survey insights of overall unhoused
population, see section on Survey Insights on page 40.
KEY SUBPOPULATIONS
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County 21
2025 PIT Count
Subpopulations Unsheltered Sheltered Total Subpopulation
Total as Percent
of Total 2025 PIT
Families with Children
(includes all family members)272 1,407 1,679 16%
Percent values 16%84%
Chronically Homeless 3,219 1,431 4,650 43%
Percent values 69%31%
Veterans 298 80 378 4%
Percent values 79%21%
Unaccompanied Youth and
Young Adults (<25)205 144 349 3%
Percent values 59%41%
Older Adults (55+)1899 735 2,634 25%
Percent values 72%28%
Table 3: 2025 PIT Count Subpopulations
22
Families with Children
Families with children experiencing homelessness represented 16 percent of the 2025 PIT
count homeless population, an increase from 12 percent in 2023. The number of
households with children experiencing homelessness increased 33 percent from 2023 to
2025 (365 to 486 households) and the number of people in these homeless families
increased by 37 percent (1,226 to 1,679 people).
Addressing family homelessness continues to be a priority in Santa Clara County and – as
part of the 2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness – the Heading Home
Campaign was designed to establish a system that ensures homelessness among families
with children, including pregnant women, is rare, brief, and non-recurring. Launched in
October 2021, Heading Home aims to achieve “functional zero” for unhoused families by
the end of 2025, which means the number of families securing housing exceeds the
number of families entering homelessness. Efforts to reach functional zero focus on
multiple strategies, including leveraging Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHVs) for literally
homeless families, expanding Rapid Rehousing (RRH) programs, strengthening prevention
efforts, and increasing the availability of permanent and affordable housing. While
progress has been made with 2,380 families housed since October 2021, families with
children continue to enter homelessness and about one out of three families report
sleeping most frequently in a vehicle.
Households with Children Total People in Households with Children
2017 2019 2022 2023 2025
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
294
1,075
269
921
276
898
365
1,226
486
1,679
Figure 10: Families Experiencing Homelessness Over Time
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
23
Families with Children - continued
On the night of the 2025 PIT count, the majority (84 percent) of 486 families with children
(1,679 total people) experiencing homelessness were sheltered, staying in emergency
shelter or transitional housing programs while the remaining 16 percent were unsheltered,
residing in vehicles, tents, and encampments. With over 2,300 total Emergency Shelter
units in Santa Clara County, approximately 500 (22 percent) are dedicated for families with
children (this includes shelters for victims of Domestic Violence).
Unsheltered Sheltered
2017 2019 2022 2023 2025
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
296
779
243
678
141
757
233
993
272
1,407
Figure 11: Families Experiencing Homelessness by Shelter Status
(by Total People)
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Families with Children Adults Only
0%10%20%30%40%
18 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65+
17%
4%
37%
14%
31%
26%
12%
27%
2%
20%
1%
9%
Figure 12: Adults in Families Experiencing Homelessness by Age Tier
N=741 responses from Adults in Families with Children; N=9005 from Adults Only
For adults in families with children the largest group are between 25-34 years (37 percent)
followed by the 35-44 years group (31 percent). People in adult only households are older
with 27 percent between 45-54 years and 29 percent being 55+ years.
24
Families with Children - continued
During the count, families with children reported to be 81 percent Hispanic/Latina/e/o
compared to adult-only homeless households at 45 percent. This trend is consistent with
data for unhoused people who completed a housing assessment. Note that people may
select more than one race category.
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Figure 13: Families Experiencing Homelessness by Race*
*Percentages add up to more than 100% because people can select multiple options
As indicated by families residing in shelters and transitional housing on the night of the
count, 41 percent of adult heads of household in families with children reported a disabling
condition, compared to 74 percent of adults only. In general, families with children have a
lower incidence of self-reported disabilities compared to adult-only households.
Families with Children Adults Only
0%20%40%60%80%
Any Disabling Condition
Chronic Health Condition
Serious Mental Illness
Substance Use Disorder
Physical Disability
Developmental Disability
41%
74%
13%
27%
13%
25%
4%
21%
7%
27%
5%
17%
Figure 14: Families Experiencing Homelessness by Long-Term Disabling Conditions
N=399 Adult Heads of Household in Families with Children (HMIS); N=1,001 from Adults Only
N=1,679 Families with Children; N=9005 Adults Only
Families with Children Adults Only
0%20%40%60%80%100%
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous
Asian or Asian American
Black, African American, or African
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
White
Multi-Racial
4%
4%
3%
8%
7%
12%
81%
45%
2%
0%
36%
36%
3%
3%
25
Based on survey interviews conducted with households with children during the 2025 PIT
count, the primary cause of homelessness for families with children was reported to be job
loss, followed by Domestic Violence related situations and family dissolution.
Families with Children Adults Only
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
Lost Job
Domestic Violence Related
Family Dissolution
Eviction/Rent Increase
Incarceration
Health Related
Alcohol or Drug Use
30%
27%
13%
3%
9%
17%
7%
13%
7%
7%
4%
15%
2%
7%
Figure 15: Primary Cause of Homelessness for Families with Children
Families with Children - continued
When asked about government assistance, 80 percent of families with children
experiencing homelessness reported receiving Medi-Cal or Medicare compared to 51
percent of adult-only households. Nearly half of both groups benefit from programs such
as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Food Stamps, WIC, and CalFresh.
Among families with children, 41 percent receive CalWORKS/TANF benefits. Being
connected to such benefits is critical to help families gain stability as they try to get
connected to stable housing.
Families with Children Adults Only
0%20%40%60%80%
Medi-Cal/Medicare
Food Stamps/SNAP/WIC/CalFresh
CalWORKS/TANF
General Assistance
SSI/SSDI/Disability/Social Security
Not Receiving Any Assistance
80%
51%
47%
46%
41%
4%
4%
21%
2%
10%
18%
25%
Figure 16: Government Assistance Received for Families with Children
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
N=49 survey responses from Families with Children; N=1,195 from Adults Only
N=49 survey responses from Families with Children; N=1,001 from Adults Only
HUD defines a chronically homeless person as someone who has experienced
homelessness for a year or longer — or who has experienced at least four episodes of
homelessness totaling 12 months in the last three years — and also has a disabling
condition that prevents them from maintaining work or housing. This definition applies to
individuals, as well as people in family households.
The chronically homeless population represents one of the most vulnerable populations
with a mortality rate four to nine times higher than that of the general population. The
chronic homeless population tends to have higher community costs attributed to
emergency room visits, interactions with law enforcement, incarceration, and regular
access to social support and homeless services. These combined costs are often
significantly higher than the cost of providing individuals with permanent housing and
supportive services.
4
In the 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR), HUD found that 167,991
individuals were experiencing chronic homelessness, which is just under one-quarter of all
homeless individuals. Within Santa Clara County, 4,097 of 9,005 (45 percent) individual
adults were estimated to be chronically homeless. For family households, the percentages
are lower with 553 of the 1,679 (33 percent) people in households with at least one adult
and one child considered to be chronically homeless.
Chronically Homeless
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Unsheltered Sheltered
2017 2019 2022 2023 2025
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
1,795
302
2,095
376
1,913
925
2,913
920
3,219
1,431
2,097
2,471
2,838
3,833
4,650
Figure 17: Chronically Homeless Over Time
4. USICH. 2010. Supplemental Document to the Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness.
26
272025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Chronically Homeless - continued
18 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65+
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
17%
35%
38%
40%
50%
47%
Figure 18: Percent Chronically Homeless by Age Tier (Adults)
N=455 survey responses from Chronically Homeless
During the 2025 PIT count, 1,431 of 4,650 total chronically homeless people (31 percent)
were in shelters and 3,219 (69 percent) were unsheltered. The number of people who
reported experiencing chronic homelessness increased 21 percent since the last
unsheltered count in 2023. The chronically homeless population living in shelter increased
56 percent, while the increase among those living unsheltered was 11 percent. More
investments in housing development and prevention programs are needed to combat
people becoming chronically homeless as they await resources and opportunities for stable
housing.
During PIT count canvassing, 455 chronically homeless individuals responded to survey
questions aimed to capture a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics, needs,
and challenges faced by this population.
Survey results reveal that males comprised the majority of individuals experiencing chronic
homelessness, accounting for 76 percent. Females represented 23 percent, while 1 percent
identified as other gender identities.
Survey findings indicate that older adults (aged 55 and above) experience higher rates of
chronic homelessness. This demographic often faces unique challenges as the potential for
age-related health issues can complicate their situation.
282025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Chronically Homeless - continued
Figure 19: Chronic and Non-Chronic Homeless Populations by Race*
Chronic Non-Chronic
0%10%20%30%40%50%
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous
Asian or Asian American
Black or African American
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African
Multiple Races
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
Other
4%
2%
6%
6%
12%
8%
35%
47%
1%
8%
9%
2%
1%
31%
24%
2%
1%
N=446 survey responses from Chronic; N=588 from Non-Chronic
Individuals identifying as Hispanic/Latina/e/o during PIT count represented the largest
portion of the chronically homeless population, accounting for 35 percent. Following
closely were those identifying as White, who made up 31 percent of individuals
experiencing chronic homelessness. Together, these two groups constituted the majority
of those facing chronic homelessness in the county, which are reflective of the largest
populations experiencing homelessness overall. Additionally, Black and American Indian
individuals faced higher rates of chronic homelessness compared to those experiencing
non-chronic homelessness. Recognizing the racial and ethnic composition of this
population is essential to effectively address the unique needs of these communities.
*Percentages add up to more than 100% because people can select multiple options
Job loss was the leading reported cause of homelessness among both chronically and non-
chronically homeless individuals in the 2025 PIT Count — accounting for 22 percent of
chronic cases and 32 percent of non-chronic cases. Among those experiencing chronic
homelessness, other significant contributing factors included family dissolution (20
percent) and health-related issues (20 percent), highlighting the complex challenges faced
by this population. Chronic homelessness is often the result of multiple, interconnected
factors, making it essential to provide holistic services that address a wide range of needs.
29
Chronically Homeless - continued
Overall, chronically homeless individuals on a single night reported significantly higher
rates of health conditions compared to those who were not chronically homeless. The
most commonly reported conditions among this group were physical disabilities (51
percent) and serious mental illnesses (47 percent). Additionally, 52 percent reported
having a chronic health condition. Substance use disorders were noted by 39 percent of
chronically homeless individuals, and 32 percent reported a developmental disability.
Chronic Non-Chronic
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Any Disabling Condition
Substance Use Disorder
Chronic Health Condition
Serious Mental Illness
Developmental Disability
Physical Disability
HIV/AIDS
100%
51%
39%
5%
52%
7%
47%
6%
32%
4%
51%
6%
6%
1%
Figure 21: Disabling Conditions
N=455 survey responses from Chronic; N=563 from Non-Chronic
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Chronic Non-Chronic
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%
Lost Job
Family Dissolution
Health Related
Eviction/Rent Increase
Alcohol or drug use
Incarceration
DV related
Financial/Cost of living
22%
32%
20%
17%
20%
10%
11%
14%
7%
6%
4%
7%
4%
2%
3%
4%
Figure 20: Primary Cause of Homelessness
N=428 survey responses from Chronic; N=550 from Non-Chronic
30
When asked about government assistance, 75 percent of individuals experiencing chronic
homelessness reported being connected to some form of assistance. This includes
programs such as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), SSI/SSDI
(Supplemental Security Income/Social Security Disability Insurance), Medicaid, or housing-
related benefits. The lack of access to or engagement with these resources highlights
potential gaps in system navigation, eligibility, or outreach — factors that can contribute to
prolonged experiences of homelessness. Ensuring individuals are connected to available
benefits is a critical step in supporting long-term stability and recovery.
Chronically Homeless - continued
Chronic Non-Chronic
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Medi-cal/Medicare
Food Stamps/SNAP/WIC/CalFresh
General Assistance/CAAP
SSI/SSDI/Disability
Social Security
CalWORKs/TANF
Santa Clara Valley Health Plan
Other
Blue Anthem Medi-cal/Medicare
Any VA Disability Compensation
Other Veterans Benefits
Not Receiving Any Assistance
53%
38%
47%
37%
20%
15%
9%
5%
8%
10%
7%
3%
6%
4%
3%
4%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
25%
38%
Figure 22: Government Assistance Received
N=422 survey responses from Chronic; N=885 from Non-Chronic
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Veterans across the U.S. are at a high risk of becoming homeless. Many veterans face
substantial challenges reintegrating into civilian life, which can lead to housing instability.
Contributing factors include disproportionately high rates of Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), military sexual trauma, and substance use
disorders. These conditions can impair daily functioning, limit employment opportunities,
and strain personal relationships, all of which increase the risk of homelessness.5
Santa Clara County, in collaboration with the City of San José, the Santa Clara County
Housing Authority, and Destination: Home, initiated the All the Way Home campaign in
2015. This collaboration continues to partner with the community’s consortium of service
providers with the aim of ending veteran homelessness. Additionally, veterans seeking
housing and homelessness resources are closely monitored by the Veterans Affairs and
community partners through a by-name-list.
Due to these coordinated efforts, more veterans are consistently housed each month
than are requesting assistance for the first time in our community. Veterans are
housed using a variety of supports and initiatives, including federal programs such as HUD-
VASH, a permanent supportive housing voucher program, and the Supportive Services for
Veterans and Families (SSVF) program, a rapid rehousing program.
During the 2025 PIT count, 378 people were identified as veterans, with 298 (79 percent)
unsheltered and 80 (21 percent) sheltered. This marks a 21 percent reduction in homeless
veterans from 2023 (479 veterans). 42 percent (160) of veterans are chronically homeless
which highlights ongoing challenges. The 2025 PIT count underscores the impact of local
efforts by the Santa Clara County Veterans Services Office and its partners, which have
driven the homelessness decline.
Veterans
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County 31
Unsheltered Sheltered
2017 2019 2022 2023 2025
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
449
211
444
209
521
139
351
128
298
80
660 653 660
479
378
Figure 23: Veterans Experiencing Homelessness over Time
5. Olenick M, Flowers M, Diaz VJ. (2015). US veterans and their unique issues: enhancing health care professional awareness. Adv MedEduc Pract. 6:635-9..
322025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Veteran Non Veteran
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenious
Asian or Asian American
Black, African American, and African
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
Multi-Racial
3%
4%
4%
7%
27%
11%
10%
37%
1%
1%
50%
36%
4%
3%
Figure 24: Veterans Experiencing Homelessness by Race*
Veterans - continued
Among veterans experiencing homelessness, 94 percent are male and six percent are
female, which is fairly consistent with previous years. The following chart shows the racial
distribution of veterans experiencing homelessness with 50 percent identifying as White
and 27 percent identifying as Black, African American, or African.
*Percentages add up to more than 100% because people can select multiple options
Veteran Non Veteran
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
Lost Job
Family Dissolution
Health Related
Other
Alcohol or Drug Use
Eviction/Rent Increase
24%
27%
22%
17%
16%
13%
11%
10%
10%
7%
10%
13%
Figure 25: Primary Cause of Veterans Experiencing Homelessness (Top Responses)
N=63 survey responses from Veterans; N=1275 from Non Veterans
The primary cause of veterans experiencing homelessness is primarily lost job, with 24
percent of veterans citing it compared to 27 percent of non-veterans. Family dissolution
follows as a significant factor, affecting 22 percent of veterans versus 17 percent of non-
veterans, suggesting that social support breakdowns may disproportionately impact
veterans. Health-related issues rank third as a primary cause of homelessness.
332025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
The following reveals a pressing need for comprehensive medical support, particularly for
chronic health conditions and physical disabilities. Chronic health conditions are more
pronounced among veterans at 40 percent compared to 26 percent of non-veterans, a
possible effect of the long-term toll of military service. Physical disabilities are reported by
32 percent of veterans and 26 percent of non-veterans.
Veterans - continued
Figure 26: Disabling Conditions Among Veterans Experiencing Homelessness
Veteran Non Veteran
0%20%40%60%80%
Any Disabling Condition
Substance Use Disorder
Chronic Health Condition
Serious Mental Illness
Developmental Disability
Physical Disability
HIV/AIDS
75%
73%
20%
21%
40%
26%
16%
25%
9%
17%
32%
26%
5%
3%
N=67 survey responses from Veterans; N=951 from Non Veterans
When asked about government benefits during the survey, 32 percent of homeless
veterans report not receiving any assistance, a figure higher than the 24 percent among
non-veterans, signaling a bigger barrier to accessing benefits in this high-cost region. Food
Stamps/SNAP/WIC/CalFresh emerges as the most accessed benefit, with 35 percent of
veterans utilizing it compared to 47 percent of non-veterans. Medi-Cal/Medicare reaches 23
percent of veterans, far below the 54 percent among non-veterans, indicating a critical
need for improved healthcare access.
Figure 27: Government Assistance Received by Veteran Experiencing Homelessness
Veteran Non Veteran
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Food Stamps/SNAP/WIC/CalFresh
Medi-Cal/Medicare
General Assistance/CAAP
SSI/SSDI/Disability
Social Security
Not Receiving Any Assistance
35%
47%
23%
54%
17%
20%
15%
9%
15%
8%
32%
24%
N=60 survey responses from Veterans; N=1247 from Non Veterans
Unaccompanied Youth &
Young Adults (<25)
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
6. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2021). HUD Releases 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report Part1
In 2025, Santa Clara County counted 349 unaccompanied youth under the age of 25, of
which eight percent were under the age of 18. This represents a 55 percent decrease from
the 772 persons counted in 2023. Unaccompanied youth and young adults experiencing
homelessness are under the age of 25 and have more difficulty accessing services,
including shelter, medical care, and employment. Potential reasons for this include the
stigma of their housing situation, lack of knowledge of available resources and/or how to
navigate them, and a lack of services targeted to young people. Moreover, there are
historical and persistent challenges in accurately counting youth experiencing
homelessness.
A major challenge in an accurate youth count is that frequently youth alternate between
unsheltered homelessness, such as their car, to couch surfing with a friend or family
member. Couch surfing is not recognized by HUD as homelessness and thus, we miss
counting youth who are staying with friends or family temporarily and not stably housed.
Further, depending on the time of day, youth may be in class or at work during the count
and those that sleep in their cars may get up early to move their car to avoid tickets or
other issues.
In 2021, the Santa Clara County CoC was chosen to be a Youth Homelessness
Demonstration Project community, which provided funds for housing and services
specifically for young adults 25 and under. These efforts started ramping up around the
time of the last full PIT count in 2023 and are now fully operational. They provide our
community with tailored services to better address the unique housing challenges of youth.
Currently on the Community Housing Queue are 299 youth and young adults who
completed a housing assessment and are waiting for permanent housing.
Unsheltered Sheltered
2017 2019 2022 2023 2025
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2,436
1,774
1,046
658
2,530
1,868
1,155
764
349
Figure 28: Unaccompanied Youth & Young Adult Homelessness over Time
34
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Unsheltered Sheltered
2017 2019 2022 2023 2025
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
8
26
25
33
7
40 40
55
34
58
47 46
58
Youth who find themselves parenting while experiencing homelessness face additional
challenges than their counterparts. This subcategory is significantly smaller and more
difficult to find, and often these youth are under the umbrella of another household at the
time of the count. While the total number has increased over the last two years, the
proportion of parenting youth who are surveyed as unsheltered has decreased
dramatically since 2023, with only five percent being counted as unsheltered in 2025.
To better understand the full picture of youth and young adult homelessness, other data
sources must be considered such as local HMIS and McKinney Vento data. The Santa Clara
County Continuum of Care (CoC) will continue to work with youth providers, local
colleges/universities, and youth with lived experience on how to more accurately capture
youth and young adults in future counts.
Figure 30: Parenting Youth Homelessness over Time
35
Parenting Youth Under 25
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenious
Asian or Asian American
Black, African American, and African
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
Multi-Racial
3%
7%
15%
51%
2%
22%
5%
Figure 29: Unaccompanied Youth & Young Adults by Race*
*Percentages add up to more than 100% because people can select multiple options
Unaccompanied Youth &
Young Adults (<25) - continued
Older Adults (55+)
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County 36
Unsheltered Sheltered
2023 2025
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
1,918
620
1,899
735
2,538 2,634
Figure 31: Older Adults Homelessness 2023 - 2025
Homelessness is increasingly affecting older adults in California, with a notable rise in the
number of individuals aged 55 and over experiencing housing instability. In Santa Clara
County, recent data show that 30 percent of households enrolled in emergency shelter
programs are headed by or include individuals aged 55 or older. Furthermore, 58 percent
of households in permanent supportive housing programs fall within this age group,
highlighting a growing need for age-responsive housing solutions. In response to this, Santa
Clara County has implemented targeted programs and strategies specifically designed to
address older adult homelessness. These efforts are integrated into the county’s
Community Plan to End Homelessness and aligned with broader affordable housing
development initiatives.
In Santa Clara County, a total of 2,634 older adults (55+) was counted on the night of the
Point-In-Time count. Of the 2,634 older adults, 735 (28 percent) were sheltered and 1,899
(72 percent) were unsheltered. Since the last unsheltered count in 2023, there was a four
percent overall increase of older adults. Older adults in sheltered settings increased by 19
percent and older adults in unsheltered settings remained flat.
The data below presents additional insights into older adults from the PIT count survey
findings. Among the older adults population, 78 percent identified as male while 22 percent
identified as female. Among older adults, the most commonly reported racial identity is
White (35 percent), followed by Hispanic/Latina/e/o (33 percent). This pattern is reversed in
the under 55 population, where 46 percent identify as Hispanic/Latina/e/o and 24 percent
as White.
37
Older Adults (55+) - continued
Under 55 55+
0%10%20%30%40%50%
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous
Asian or Asian American
Black or African American
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African
Multiple Races
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
Other
3%
3%
6%
7%
10%
11%
46%
33%
1%
9%
7%
1%
2%
24%
35%
2%
1%
Figure 32: Older Adults Homelessness by Race*
N=709 survey responses from Under 55; N=332 from 55+
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Consistent with the under 55 population, older adults report similar primary causes of
homelessness. However, older adults report higher rates of family dissolution, health
issues, and eviction/rent increase as reasons for their homelessness compared to the
under 55 population.
*Percentages add up to more than 100% because people can select multiple options
Under 55 55+
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
Lost Job
Family Dissolution
Health Related
Eviction/Rent Increase
Alcohol or drug use
Incarceration
DV Related
27%
26%
16%
19%
12%
16%
11%
16%
8%
5%
8%
7%
5%
3%
Figure 33: Primary Cause of Homelessness Among Under 55 and 55+ Adults
N=921 survey responses from Under 55; N=417 from 55+
Under 55 55+
0%20%40%60%80%
Any Disabling Condition
Substance Use Disorder
Chronic Health Condition
Mental Health Disorder
Developmental Disability
Physical Disability
HIV/AIDS
72%
76%
21%
19%
22%
38%
26%
23%
16%
17%
21%
37%
4%
2%
Figure 34: Older Adults Homelessness by Disabling Condition
N=698 survey responses from Under 55; N=320 from 55+
38
Older Adults (55+) - continued
Compared to the under 55 population, older adults experience higher rates of chronic
health condition (38 percent), developmental disability (17 percent), and physical disability
(37 percent). While older adults experience higher rates of specific conditions, the overall
rate at which they report any disabling condition is comparable to that of people under 55
(76 percent for older adults and 72 percent for under 55). This suggests that although the
types of disabilities may differ by age group, the overall prevalence of disability is not
drastically higher among older adults.
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Survey results indicate that older adults are more likely to utilize some form of assistance
than the under 55 population (27 percent compared to 20 percent). Specifically, older
adults utilize Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI),
and Social Security retirement benefits at significantly higher rates than the under 55
population. Additionally, older adults are more likely to have health-related benefits such
as Medi-Cal, Medicare, and other benefit programs. However, people in this age group are
less likely to utilize food assistance programs like SNAP, WIC, or CalWORKs/TANF compared
to the under 55 population. This contrast reflects differences in eligibility, income sources,
and household composition between age groups.
39
Under 55 55+
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Medi-cal/Medicare
Food Stamps/SNAP/WIC
General Assistance
CalWORKS/TANF
Santa Clara Valley Health Plan
SSI/SSDI/Disability
Social Security
Blue Anthem Medi-cal/Medicare
Other
Any VA Disability Compensation
Other Veterans Benefits
Not Receiving Any Assistance
52%
55%
49%
42%
21%
18%
9%
3%
6%
5%
4%
20%
4%
18%
2%
2%
2%
5%
1%
2%
0%
1%
27%
20%
N=897 survey responses from Under55; N=410 from 55+
Figure 35: Government Assistance Received
Older Adults (55+) - continued
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
SURVEY INSIGHTS
40
The Point-in-Time Count efforts create an opportunity for communities to gain valuable
and quantifiable insight into the experiences and needs of unhoused people. This year’s
new methodology used geographic sampling and enumeration that prioritized asking all
people encountered experiencing homelessness to complete the survey, rather than
sampling a predefined subset of people like in the past.
People who agreed to complete the survey received an incentive gift for their time. Those
who did not elect to take the survey or could not be surveyed because they were asleep
were still counted for the PIT but have no survey data reflected in this section of the report.
During the count, 1,534 people experiencing homelessness agreed to take the survey. Most
were experiencing unsheltered homelessness, however a subset of people in emergency
shelter and transitional housing were also surveyed (393 people). Respondents were
allowed to refuse to answer questions they did not feel comfortable answering. Therefore,
each of the following results reflect valid answers of people who provided an answer to the
questions – that is, the question wasn’t skipped or refused to answer.
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County 41
Population Characteristics
Straight
92%
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Queer
8%
Eight percent of survey respondents
identified as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or
Queer.
Figure 38: Sexual Orientation
Along with demographic information related to age, race, and gender, survey respondents
provided additional details about their military history, foster care history, sexual
orientation, and if they were pregnant or expecting a child soon. These survey insights help
communities determine if additional services may be needed to serve specific subsets of
people experiencing homelessness and can inform targeted homelessness prevention
strategies.
No
82%
Yes
18%
18 percent of people responding had
foster care system involvement.
Figure 37: Foster Care History
No
99%
Yes
1%
One percent of respondents indicated
they were pregnant or expecting to
become a parent soon.
Figure 39: Pregnant or Expectant Parent
No
96%
Yes
4%
United States Military Veterans made
up four percent of the people surveyed.
Figure 36: Military Veterans
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Homelessness Circumstances
This section provides insight into the number of times a person has been homeless, the
duration of homelessness among people surveyed, how long they lived in the county, as
well as the primary reasons people cited as the cause of their homelessness.
Figure 40: First Time ExperiencingHomelessness
58 percent surveyed indicated it was their
first time experiencing homelessness.
Yes
58%
No
42%
Figure 45: Fleeing Domestic Violence
16 percent of people reported being
homeless because they were fleeing domestic
violence.
No
84%
Yes
16%
Figure 44: Chronically Homeless
Approximately 30 percent of the survey
responses were from people who met the
definition of chronically homeless.
No
70%
Yes
30%
Figure 43: Total Length of TimeHomeless in Last 3 Years
Of the people who reported having more
than one homeless episode in the last 3
years, 61 percent reported the combined
duration of all episodes to be three years
or longer.
0%20%40%60%80%
Less than 1 Year
1-2 Years
3 Years or Longer
18%
21%
61%
Figure 42: Current HomelessnessEpisode Length of Time
55 percent people surveyed reported the
duration of their current episode of
homelessness to be longer than one year.
0%10%20%30%40%50%
Less than 1 Year
1-2 Years
3 Years or Longer
45%
14%
41%
42
37 percent of people surveyed had four or
more episodes of homelessness over the last
three years.
Fewer Than Four
63%
Four or More Times
37%
Figure 41: Number of Homeless Episodes inLast 3 Years
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County 43
Figure 47: Location Lived Prior toBecoming Homeless
95 percent of the people surveyed
indicated they lived in California prior
to becoming homeless, with 83 percent
living in Santa Clara County.
0%20%40%60%80%
100%
Santa Clara County
Other County in CA
Out of state
83%
12%
5%
Figure 46: Length of Time Living in SantaClara County
Most people experiencing homelessness
in Santa Clara County reported living in
the county longer than ten years (70
percent), while only two percent lived
there for less than a year.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Less than 1 Year
1-4 Years
5-9 Years
10 Years +
2%
15%
12%
70%
Figure 48: Primary Cause of Homelessness
Multiple factors contribute to a person falling into homelessness. When asked about the
primary cause of their current episode of homelessness, the top four reasons reported
were related to job loss, family dissolution, health issues, and housing loss.
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
Lost Job
Family Dissolution
Health Related
Eviction/Rent Increase
Other
Substance Use
Incarceration
Domestic Violence
Cost of Living
Aging Out of Foster Care
Asylum/Deportation
27%
17%
13%
12%
10%
7%
6%
4%
3%
1%
0%
Homelessness Circumstances - Continued
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
44
Employment
Government Assistance Programs & Benefits
Received
People experiencing homelessness who indicated they had a job comprised 18 percent of
respondents. Of those, six percent reported part time employment, five percent were self-
employed, four percent reported full time employment, and three percent were seasonally
employed.
Most people experiencing homelessness surveyed, 82 percent, were unemployed. The
majority were either looking for work (33 percent) or unable to work (25 percent). 13
percent indicated they were not looking for work and the remaining 11 percent did not
specify additional information about their unemployment status.
More than half of people surveyed reported receiving health insurance benefits, primarily
through Medi-cal/Medicare. Additionally, almost half reported receiving food assistance.
Income-related benefits were reported in lower percentages and almost one quarter of the
population indicated they did not receive any forms of assistance.
Unemployed
82%
Employed
18%
Figure 49a: Employment Status
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Medi-cal/Medicare
Food Stamps/SNAP/WIC/CalFresh
General Assistance/CAAP
SSI/SSDI/Disability
Social Security
CalWORKs/TANF
Santa Clara Valley Health Plan
Other
Blue Anthem Medi-cal/Medicare
Any VA Disability Compensation
Other Veterans Benefits
Not Receiving Any Assistance
53%
47%
20%
9%
8%
7%
6%
3%
2%
1%
1%
25%
Figure 50: Government Assistance Received
0%10%20%30%40%
Part Time
Self-employed
Full Time
Seasonal
Looking For Work
Unable to Work
Not Looking For Work
Unemployed
6%
5%
4%
3%
33%
25%
13%
11%
Figure 49b: Employment Status
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County 45
Self-Reported Disabling Conditions
In Santa Clara County, 73 percent of the people responding to the PIT count survey had one
or more disabling conditions. The top three disabilities reported were chronic health
conditions (27 percent), physical disabilities (26 percent), and serious mental illnesses (25
percent).
Perceived Challenges/Barriers to Using
Emergency Shelters
Increasing available temporary housing beds has been a key focus of the Community Plan
to End Homelessness with the understanding that a one-size solution does not meet all
needs. Since 2020, our community is 66 percent towards the goal of doubling capacity for
emergency shelter, transitional housing, and safe parking. Additional funding of the
countywide shelter system allows us to operate the shelters 24/7 and increase access to
basic needs services.
When asked about challenges to using emergency shelter, shelter crowding was the most
reported response with 45 percent of the population indicating this reason. Additionally,
one-third indicated there were too many rules in shelter, and just over one-quarter
reported being treated poorly in shelter in the past.
Figure 51: Self-Reported Disabling Conditions
0%20%40%60%80%
Any Disabling Condition
Chronic Health Condition
Physical Disability
Serious Mental Illness
Substance Use Disorder
Developmental Disability
HIV/AIDS
73%
27%
26%
25%
21%
17%
3%
0%10%20%30%40%50%
Too Crowded
Too Many Rules
Poor Treatment at Shelter
No Storage for Belongings
Bugs/Germs
Waiting for Shelter
Pet Not Accepted
Too Far Away
45%
33%
26%
15%
14%
13%
12%
8%
Figure 52: Perceived Challenges/Barriers to Using Emergency Shelters
VOLUNTEERS
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County 46
Figure 53: Volunteers With LivedExperience of Homelessness Figure 54: Volunteers that PreviouslyParticipated in PIT
More than one third of volunteers for the
count were people with lived experience.
One fifth of volunteers had previously
participated in the PIT Count.
No
80%
Yes
20%
No
62%
Yes
38%
While generally PIT count efforts rely heavily on volunteers, this year’s methodology
necessitated an increase in volunteers from previous years to survey as many people
experiencing homelessness as possible. Remarkably – due to the dedicated outreach of our
partners and Jurisdictional Leads – 758 volunteers registered to participate, including 291
people with lived experience of homelessness, elected officials, outreach teams, service
providers, and community members. This is a dramatic increase from the 300 volunteers
that participated in 2023, reflecting our community’s continued commitment to address
homelessness and learn more about the experiences of our unhoused neighbors. The shift
to a more survey-intensive methodology using Simtech Solutions' Counting Us mobile app,
facilitated real-time data collection, canvassing, and interviews with 1,534 people
experiencing homelessness. The app ensured consistency with HUD guidelines,
emphasizing comprehensive geographic sampling for unsheltered counts.
Volunteers played a pivotal role in administering surveys, improving data quality, and
promoting equity-focused approaches, ultimately contributing to a more accurate snapshot
of homelessness in the county. One thing stands out for Santa Clara County, among all the
volunteers, 38 percent of them have had lived experience of homelessness; 20 percent of
them have participated in previous PIT counts.
This community-wide effort not only fulfilled HUD mandates but also fostered deeper
connections between volunteers and unhoused individuals, as highlighted in post-count
feedback where participants appreciated the opportunity for meaningful engagement.
Recommended actions based on volunteer survey findings are listed in the next section,
Incorporating What We Learned.
The robust volunteer turnout in 2025 demonstrates Santa Clara County's commitment to
combating homelessness, with volunteers not only boosting count accuracy but also
humanizing the process through direct interactions. The high proportion of lived
experience volunteers suggests effective mobilization. However, racial underrepresentation
in volunteers, particularly for Hispanic/Latina/e/o groups, could undermine equity in future
counts, as diverse volunteers are key to accessing hard-to-reach populations and ensuring
culturally relevant surveys.
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County 47
INCORPORATING WHAT WE LEARNED
Findings from this report, along with other data sources, are used regularly to tailor
strategies, goals, and approaches that will best address the current state of homelessness.
Currently, our community has embarked on updating the 2020-2025 Community Plan to
End Homelessness, a road map of systemwide strategies to prevent and end homelessness
in Santa Clara County. Building on the successes and lessons learned of the current plan,
the planning process involves qualitative data collection (e.g. targeted focus groups with
people with lived experience of homelessness) and data analysis from a variety of local
sources, including the 2025 PIT count findings.
Additionally, this year’s change in methodology brought many lessons learned. The Santa
Clara County CoC gathered feedback from Jurisdictional Leads, outreach workers, and all
registered volunteers, providing valuable insights to inform future planning. As the
backbone of PIT efforts, Jurisdictional Leads and volunteers’ diverse involvement is critical
for accurate, compassionate data that informs policy and funding.
What worked well:
New Jurisdictional Lead role fostered closer collaboration and provided critical
relationship-building opportunities that will enhance future efforts.
Increased outreach efforts were successful in recruiting a large number of volunteers
needed.
Jurisdictional Leads and volunteers reported feeling a stronger connection their
communities and their unhoused neighbors.
Recommendations for improvement:
Improve communication and role clarity with Jurisdictional Leads and the County.
Target underrepresented groups in volunteer recruitment efforts through partnerships
with community organizations, using bilingual materials and incentives to boost
Hispanic/Latina/e/o participation.
Improve the process for timely and more efficient volunteer sign-ups and team
assignments.
Include cultural humility training for volunteers to more effectively address disparities.
Leverage volunteer data for ongoing advocacy, such as joining the Continuum of Care
listserv for updates on homelessness efforts.
Update youth homelessness count methodology in collaboration with youth providers,
schools/colleges/universities, and youth with lived experience to more effectively count
youth and young adults.
The 2025 PIT count was a true community-wide effort and all involved had a critical role to
play.
First and foremost, we would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the people
experiencing homelessness that allowed us to interview them to gather the data that is
presented in this report.
We would also like to deeply thank the many who were involved in the planning and well-
executed implementation of the 2025 PIT count, including:
The many volunteers and outreach staff who conducted the count and engaged with
unhoused neighbors on January 22 and January 23, assisting us in better understanding
our community.
Jurisdictional Leads, listed on the following page, for their incredible commitment to the
planning process and utilizing local expertise to ensure the most accurate count
possible.
All of our community partners who informed the planning process, conducted the
count, recruited volunteers, and provided donated items. This long list includes elected
officials, jurisdiction staff, people with lived experience of homelessness, lived
experience advisory boards, outreach teams, service providers, county staff, people
community members, funders, advocates, and community-based organizations.
The committed elected officials and staff who participated in the Count, including Santa
Clara County Board of Supervisors President Otto Lee; San José Mayor Matt Mahan; San
José Councilmember Michael Mulcahy; San José Councilmember Domingo Candelas;
Mountain View Vice Mayor Emily Ann Ramos; and Santa Clara Unified School District
Trustee Kathy Watanabe.
Simtech Solutions, Inc., who created the software, developed the sampling and
enumeration protocols, facilitated meetings, and conducted data analysis for this
report.
The Continuum of Care team at the Office of Supportive Housing, who partnered
closely with all of the above groups to ensure a successful and well-coordinated
implementation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
482025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
All 15 cities in Santa Clara County identified representatives to serve as Jurisdictional Leads,
a new role this year. Jurisdictional Leads are experts in their own communities and their
involvement ensured local knowledge and expertise were integrated into the PIT count
planning process. Efforts beyond planning included volunteer recruitment and
management, coordinating with other city staff and community organizations, working
closely with local outreach teams, and securing donations and volunteer deployment
centers during the count. Thanks to the significant time and commitment of Jurisdictional
Leads, the PIT count was well-informed, tailored to each locality, and completed
successfully.
The following individuals participated as Leads for their jurisdiction from start to finish. We
also want to acknowledge that many others from the entities below were involved in the
planning and implementation, including conducting the count. We thank all of you for your
crucial contributions!
JURISDICTIONAL LEADS
49
Jurisdiction Local Lead(s)
Campbell Chris Miranda, Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Stephen Rose
Cupertino Thomas Chin, Nicky Vu
Gilroy Christie Thomas, Angelina Valverde, Andy Lam, Laura Flores, Tim
Davis
Los Altos Monica Gallardo-Melkesian
Los Altos Hills Lisa Ochoa, Jay Bradford
Los Gatos Joel Paulson, Katy Nomura, Alexa Nolder
Milpitas Sarah Balcha, Michelle Silva, Aisha Daffeh
Monte Sereno Diana Perkins
Morgan Hill Edith Ramirez, Brian Malicdem
Mountain View Laura Salcido
Palo Alto Melissa McDonough, Minka Van Der Zwaag, Alayna Cruz
San Jose Garrett Stanton, Vanessa Butera, Juan Villalobos, Jiri Rutner
Santa Clara Jennifer Caravalho
Saratoga Bryan Swanson
Sunnyvale Amanda Sztoltz, Janelle Resuello
Santa Clara County (SCC)
Office of Supportive Housing
KJ Kaminski, Hilary Armstrong, Michelle Covert, Shana Kurlan,
Katherine Alexander
SCC Continuum of Care Laura Urteaga-Fuentes, Leila Qureishi, Fang Zhu, Jazmine Wong,
Spencer Leo
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
APPENDIX A: COUNT METHODOLOGIES
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Fully canvassing a large Continuum of Care (CoC) such as Santa Clara County for the
Point-in-Time count would require a tremendous number of surveyors. Fortunately, HUD
supports a “geographic sampling and enumeration” model that enables regions to derive a
statistically reliable point-in-time count estimate without necessitating the entire
community to be canvassed. The reporting logic used within the Regional Command
Center to support this model was developed by Simtech Solutions Inc. in collaboration with
statistician and University of Pennsylvania professor, Dan Treglia, PhD. HUD has since
authored the “How to Use Sampling within a CoC to Conduct an Accurate Unsheltered
Count” paper which aligns with Simtech’s approach.
A stratified random sample was employed to estimate the number of unsheltered people
experiencing homelessness across the entire CoC. This approach required designating each
of the 408 census as block groups within the geographic boundaries of the CoC as either
“high” or “low” based on the probability of finding a person experiencing homelessness in
that census tract. All high-probability areas, and a random sample of low-probability areas,
were canvassed during the PIT count.
Sampling Strategy
The Unsheltered Count
50
Designation of the High Probability Census area block
groups
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
The high probability designations were based on results from the 2023 PIT count and data
gathered during the planning phase by outreach staff of areas known to contain people
experiencing homelessness. This information was captured using the “Known Locations
Survey” within the Counting Us mobile app. In total, 183 of the 408 census area block
groups contained at least Ten (10) people experiencing homelessness and were
subsequently designated as high-probability areas. All 183 block groups were selected for
canvassing.
Census area block groups were designated as “high probability” based on Known Locations identified by
outreach staff and 2023 PIT count survey locations. These are the areas in orange on the map.
51
Sampling Low Probability Census Area Block Groups
The low-probability census area block groups to be canvassed are chosen through a
random, computer-generated sample of all census area block groups that were not
previously designated as high-probability areas. For Santa Clara County, there are 408 total
census area block groups, 183 of which were designated as High Probability. This left a total
of 225 low-probability areas to be randomly sampled. Determining the number of Low-
Probability census area block groups to be sampled, Simtech used the formula below to
estimate the predicted precision of the count estimate, within each CoC, for any given
sample size. For Santa Clara County, the Confidence Level of 90 percent and a Margin of
Error of 10 percent were used. This resulted in 53 of the 225 low-probability census area
block groups needing to be randomly sampled. This means 53 or more tracts need to be
canvassed to have a confidence level of 90 percent that the real value is within ±10 percent
of the measured/surveyed value.
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
To ensure this threshold was met,
59 block groups were randomly
selected instead of 53. Based on
the determination of the number
of low-probability census area
block groups to be sampled, the
“Randomly Select Tracts” function
within the Command Center was
used to determine which of the
tracts are to be canvassed and
which are to be ignored. The
resulting tract designation is
shown below.
The sampling setup resulted in 183 total high-probability census area block groups (shown
in orange), 59 randomly selected low-probability tracts (shown in blue), and 166 tracts not
canvased (no coloring). The Role of the Weighting Factor in Deriving Estimated Count
Figures The Low Probability Weighting Factor is a simple calculation derived by dividing the
total number of low-probability census area block groups by the number of low-probability
tracts to be sampled.
For example, for Santa Clara County, the weighting factor is 225/59 or 3.814. After all low-
probability areas that have been randomly selected are canvassed, the count results from
these areas are multiplied by the weighting factor to derive estimated count figures for all
low-probability tracts in the region.
52
Sampling Low Probability Census Area Block Groups -
continued
Enumeration of Count Results
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Sampling weights, estimates, and
confidence intervals are applied differently
to high and low probability census area
block groups to produce final estimates.
Since all high-probability census area block
groups are to be fully canvassed, there are
no sample weighting factors or confidence
intervals applied. The weighting factor is
applied to survey figures from the low-
probability census area block groups to be
sampled to derive estimated figures for all
low-probability census area block groups.
To ensure the methodological rigor of the
PIT estimate, only surveys from areas
designated as high probability, or are
within low probability census area block
groups to be sampled, are included in the
results calculation. Surveys from outside
of the boundaries of these designated
tracts are not included in the results, as
doing so would remove the randomness
of the random sample.
As shown in the image below, the HUD
Point-in-Time Report can be “Run with
Sampling” simply by checking off the box
shown before clicking “Run Report.” An
example of the results for the Santa Clara
County is shown below.
After the count was completed, 1822 people were counted in the high-probability areas,
and 80 were counted in the 59 sampled low-probability areas. The number of people
surveyed (80) was multiplied by the Weighting Factor of 3.814 to derive an estimated count
of 305.12 people for all low-probability census tracts. These count figures are adjusted
further to include the estimated count of people experiencing homelessness (PEH) believed
to have been living in vehicles or makeshift shelters.
Estimated Number of Homeless in Santa Clara County for the night of the 2025 Point in Time Count
53
The Vehicle/Structure Tally is an optional feature used to count Vehicles and Makeshift
Shelters (VMS) that appear to be serving as temporary living situations for people who cannot
be engaged. The process for deriving estimates of people living in these situations is as follows:
In adherence to the guidance from the HUD
Housing Inventory Count (HIC) and Point-in-
Time (PIT) Count Notice, these structures are
only included in the count estimates if the
following conditions are met:
A. The answer to the question “Please indicate
whether or not the vehicle or structure appears
to be actively being used or if it appears
abandoned?” is not “Appears Abandoned.” B.
For RVs, the RV is counted if the answer to
“Please provide details on the condition of the
RV?” is “RV appears to be in good working order
and is suitable for habitation” or “Occupants
do not have access to sewer, water, and
electricity” is selected.
The averages derived in step 1 are multiplied
by the counts from step 2 to derive an
estimated count per vehicle and structure
type.
The total estimates for each vehicle and
structure type are added together to create
a total estimated count of people living in
VMS for the region. These totals are
subsequently weighted based on whether
the vehicle or structure was in a low or high-
probability area that was designated to be
canvassed.
3.
4.
An average count of people sleeping in each
vehicle and makeshift shelter type is
derived. To calculate this average, the
additional question of “Including yourself,
how many people are sleeping in this
location?” is asked of anyone who responds
to the “Where did you sleep during the night
of the count?” question with any living
situation that is either a type of vehicle or a
makeshift shelter. For instances with three
or less people surveyed for the living
situation, national averages derived from
the regions that used Counting Us for the
2025 Count, are applied. The averages foir
each vehicle/makeshift shelter are shown in
the table below.
Surveyors use the Vehicle/Makeshift Shelter
Tally to count any of these living situations
that are believed to contain people sleeping
in them who cannot be engaged.
1.
2.
Deriving Estimated Counts of People Living in Vehicles
and Makeshift Shelters
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County 54
Vehicle or Makeshift Shelter Type
Multiplier (Average
People per Vehicle/
Structure)
Car 1.2
RV 2.1
Abandoned Building 1.9
Tent 1.5
Van 1.2
Makeshift Shelter 1.8
Boat 1.6
Other 1.2
Deriving Estimates in Sub-Regions
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
Since the number of census area block groups within a sub-region such as a city or town is
an insufficient sample size for the purposes of estimations, the estimates for these sub-
regions are derived from the estimates calculated at the CoC level. These estimates are
based on the number of people counted in high-probability census area block groups
within the subregion combined with the weighted average number of people estimated in
the low-probability sample.
For example, in the city of Campbell, 29 people were counted in “high probability”
census tracts. The weighted average for the low-probability tracts is calculated by
multiplying the count estimate for all low-probability tracts in the COC (59) with the
percentage of low-probability tracts that exist within the sub-region. For Campbell, the
five (5) low-probability tracts comprise 2.22 percent of the 225 low-probability tracts
within the CoC. This sub-region percentage is multiplied by the count estimate of people
for the entire CoC to derive a sub-region estimate of 6.77 people. The final count
estimate is derived by adding this figure to the 29 people counted in high-probability
tracts to derive an estimate of 35.77.
55
56
APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
2025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
572025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
582025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
592025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
602025 Point-in-Time Count Report for Santa Clara County
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 15, 2024
Subject
Study Session on Unhoused Services and Programs
Recommended Action
Staff recommend the City Council to consider the following options:
1. Continue the current model based on the City's Unhoused Task Force, Process
for Assisting Unhoused Residents, and partnerships with the County of Santa
Clara to measurably serve the City based on the relative needs of existing
unhoused residents, including continuing to seek partnerships and possible
grant opportunities.
OR
2. Direct the City Manager to propose an item for the Fiscal Year 2025-2027 City
Work Program to develop an encampment management policy by evaluating
examples from other jurisdictions in the Bay Area and incorporating best
practices for review by the City Council.
Executive Summary
Homelessness is a complex, regional problem. The City has procedures in place and
employs strategies to collaboratively, equitably, and humanely address the unhoused
encampments, balancing the safety and cleanliness of City streets and the rights and
needs of unhoused individuals. The City partners with Santa Clara County and West
Valley Community Services to provide outreach and engagement services. The City
Manager's Office also leads the Unhoused Task Force—a cross-agency, multi-sector
team that operates without a budget, relying on the collaboration and expertise of staff
and department resources.
The City Council has requested a study session on the status of unhoused services and
relative needs in the City following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in City of
Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. ___ (2024). The report outlines the legal basis for
Page 2 of 9
unhoused services, highlights existing services in the City, reviews processes for
encampment resolution, and provides an overview of processes initiated in similar
jurisdictions. The report is divided into the following key sections:
• Background
• Current Status of Unhoused Individuals in Cupertino
• City's Unhoused Task Force
• Countywide Service Model: Office of Supportive Housing
• Overview of Local Jurisdictional Programs
• Potential Options Forward
Background
There are many concerns about environmental, health, and safety issues related to
homeless encampments in Cupertino. Several court decisions until very recently
drastically reduced the City's ability to "evict" or "remove" individuals living on public
lands, including City-owned property.
Martin v. City of Boise
In 2018, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that imposing criminal penalties
for camping or sleeping on public property constituted cruel and unusual punishment
under the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031
(9th Cir. 2018). Subsequent court rulings extended Martin to effectively require an offer
of alternative shelter (i.e., a dedicated shelter bed or sanctioned outdoor location) before
action could be taken to resolve a homeless encampment. Like other jurisdictions in the
Ninth Circuit, the City of Cupertino adopted the practice of offering dedicated shelter
before resolving any encampment in a public place. Due in part to limited shelter
availability, encampments continue to exist.
2024 Legal Decision
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit's Martin v. City of
Boise ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson, 902 F.3d 1031. The Court concluded that enforcing
anti-camping ordinances against homeless individuals, as practiced in Grants Pass,
Oregon, does not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual
punishment. This decision eliminates the legal requirement to provide shelter before
dismantling an encampment. Consequently, the decision allows cities increased
authority to establish encampment regulations tailored to specific health and safety
concerns.
The Grants Pass decision does not change other legal obligations that protect the rights of
unsheltered individuals, including protections against unreasonable searches and the
right to due process. The City protects these rights by posting advanced notices to
vacate, evaluating abandoned items at encampments, and storing items of value for up
to 90 days.
Current Status of Unhoused Individuals in Cupertino
Page 3 of 9
The Point in Time Count (PIT) is a semi-annual survey that provides a snapshot of the
number of sheltered and unsheltered homeless individuals within a specific area on a
designated day in January. This count is part of a national initiative led by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The data from the PIT Count is
instrumental in understanding the extent of homelessness, identifying trends, assessing
needs, and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions.
The PIT Count and subsequent reports show that the City of Cupertino has consistently
had fewer homeless individuals than nearby cities. The semi-annual PIT count
highlights the city's ongoing efforts, with a significant decrease from 159 individuals in
2019 to 48 in 2023. This data helps identify trends, assess needs, and evaluate
intervention effectiveness.
Figure 1: The 2023 Santa Clara County PIT Counts demonstrated a decrease in sheltered and
unsheltered individuals
2023 Santa Clara County Point in Time Count
City's Unhoused Task Force
In 2020, the City of Cupertino established an Unhoused Task Force, which convenes
representatives from multiple city departments to address homelessness-related issues
as they arise. This cross-agency, multi-sector Task Force operates without a dedicated
budget, relying on the collaboration and expertise of staff and department resources.
The Task Force's responsibilities include responding to resident inquiries, coordinating
with local service providers, addressing encampments, and providing outreach and
support to individuals experiencing homelessness. The Task Force follows the City's
Process for Assisting Unhoused Residents (Attachment A), which was updated in
September 2022. On December 15, 2020, the City Council adopted a resolution endorsing
the Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025 (Attachment
B). The Task Force supports Strategy 3: Improving the quality of life for unsheltered
individuals and creating healthy neighborhoods for all.
The Task Force includes participation from various departments and organizations, such
as the City Manager's Office, the Office of Emergency Management, the Public Works
Department, the Community Development Department, the Sheriff's Office, the County
of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing, and the West Valley Community Services.
The duties of the Unhoused Task Force are multifaceted and essential for addressing the
intricate issue of homelessness within the city. In addition to their primary roles,
members of the Task Force are involved in:
• Resource Coordination: By leveraging existing resources, the Task Force ensures
that services are provided to unhoused individuals and encampments. Outreach
Page 4 of 9
and engagement services provided in kind by the county and non-profits help
assess and identify specific needs that need to be addressed and tracked by the
Task Force.
• Responding to the Community: The Task Force responds to community
members and local businesses to raise awareness about homelessness and foster
a collaborative approach to addressing homelessness issues.
• Partnership Development: The Task Force built cooperative partnerships with
agencies not typically linked to Cupertino's unhoused individuals. This includes
grants from the County Board of Supervisors, in-kind trash bins from Recology,
and entry into the Coordinated Entry System.
• Emergency Response: In times of crisis, such as extreme weather conditions or
public health emergencies, the Task Force coordinates with the County of Santa
Clara emergency shelter and services to ensure the safety and well-being of the
unhoused population.
• Encampment Resolution: When the County and non-profits exhaust available
options and the City Manager concludes the encampment presents a health and
safety concern, the Task Force coordinates an encampment resolution as a last
resort. Once the determination for a resolution has been made, the Task Force
conducts the following steps:
o The Task Force coordinates a date and time all services are available. Staff
from the City, Sheriff's Office, and any in-kind non-profit support are
scheduled.
o Public Works develops a traffic plan if needed to protect staff during the
operation. Public Works staff will deploy and retrieve delineators, cones,
and barricades as needed, including notifying Valley Transportation
Authority of any impacts to bus lines.
o A contractor is engaged to conduct the physical removal of encampment
items and clean the area according to environmental regulations.
o Code Enforcement posts a notice to the encampment occupants of the
City's intent to dismantle the encampment and to have the area cleared of
any items that remain at the location.
o Code Enforcement works with the contractor to assess all items
remaining and any items of apparent value are stored for up to 90 days.
The posted notice provides guidance to individuals on how to retrieve
their belongings.
o The contractor collects debris, cleans the area, and hauls materials away
from the location.
o The Task Force confirms the restoration of the site.
Each encampment resolution has resulted in unbudgeted costs to the City.
Contractor expenses related to encampment resolutions have been accounted for
in the City Manager's Contingency as needed. While each encampment varies in
size and complexity, staff have estimated the costs for a single-occupant
encampment below. The estimates do not account for coordinating outreach and
Page 5 of 9
engagement services in advance of the resolution, responding to 311 or email
complaints, or in-kind costs from non-profit organizations.
Estimated Costs for Single-Occupant Encampment Resolution
Personnel Hours Rate Total
Hours Cost
As evidenced by the overall reduction in the PIT Count, the Unhoused Task Force's
comprehensive approach made a significant impact on the lives of the unhoused
community in Cupertino. By leveraging existing resources, the Task Force ensures that
the City's response to homelessness is both efficient and effective.
Santa Clara County Grant Funding
Starting in 2023, the Unhoused Task Force partnered with Supervisor Simitian's Office to
secure a grant of $50,000 from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The Task
Force secured a second grant in 2024, making the total amount received $100,000 to date.
These funds are designated specifically to enhance the services provided to the
unhoused population and are instrumental in bolstering the Task Force's efforts,
enabling more comprehensive outreach and robust support, and implementing
innovative solutions to homelessness within the community. The first $50,000 grant was
awarded in Fiscal Year 2023 - 2024 to bolster the Haven to Home program at West
Valley Community Services, a crucial initiative aimed at facilitating transitions from
homelessness to stable housing. The County grants have come in support of the City's
prior investment into Haven to Home. This funding significantly increased direct
services to unhoused individuals by addressing immediate needs.
The City will pursue an agreement using the second $50,000 grant from the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors to enhance outreach and engagement services for
unhoused individuals. The City has limited outreach and engagement services due to
the absence of a direct service agreement and dedicated funding. Any outreach and
engagement services have been provided in kind by the County or West Valley
Community Services. By enhancing these services, the City hopes to significantly
Page 6 of 9
improve the rate of engagement with unhoused individuals and encampments. By
leveraging this grant, the City aims to expedite its response to notifications of
encampments through Cupertino 311, ensuring the timely provision of assistance and
interventions. This approach is intended to address the immediate needs of the
unhoused community more effectively, fostering a supportive and responsive
environment for all residents.
Countywide Service Model: Office of Supportive Housing
The County of Santa Clara, through its Office of Supportive Housing (OSH), provides a
comprehensive system of support for individuals experiencing homelessness. This
model includes a range of programs and services designed to assist individuals in
securing and maintaining stable housing.
OSH plays a central role in addressing homelessness in Cupertino and neighboring
jurisdictions. OSH coordinates a variety of services aimed at preventing and reducing
homelessness, including:
• Homelessness Prevention Programs: These programs offer rental assistance,
legal services, and financial aid to individuals and families at risk of eviction.
• Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing: OSH manages temporary
housing services across the county, though shelters are often at capacity,
requiring additional solutions.
• Permanent Supportive Housing: OSH provides long-term housing assistance
combined with supportive services to help individuals achieve housing stability.
• Rapid Rehousing: This program offers short-term rental assistance and
supportive services to help individuals and families quickly exit homelessness
and stabilize them in housing.
• Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services: OSH collaborates with local
healthcare providers to refer unhoused individuals with mental health or
substance dependency issues to available services.
Biannually, the County develops a progress report on the services and programs
provided for the unhoused. The 2024 Mid-Year Progress Report on the Community Plan
to End Homelessness is available in Attachment B.
Overview of Local Jurisdictional Programs
Staff's initial research of local jurisdictions shows that several cities in the area have
adopted diverse policies and strategies to tackle homelessness. These are listed below.
More in-depth research is needed on the effectiveness and impact of these strategies.
Town of Los Gatos
On August 26, 2024, The Town of Los Gatos Town Council authorized the Town
Manager to negotiate and execute an Agreement with the County of Santa Clara to
provide unhoused engagement services in an amount not to exceed $92,777. The Town
Page 7 of 9
intends to contract unhoused engagement services through OSH to leverage existing
contracts, ensure cohesive implementation, and expand on services already provided
through OSH. Like Cupertino, the outreach teams currently serve Los Gatos on a limited
basis for a few hours a month, when available, as they are responsible for meeting the
needs throughout the County. The recommended dedicated funding through their
agreement with the County ensures a consistent presence in the Town, enabling
outreach teams to build rapport with unhoused individuals. This dedicated funding also
allows for coordination between the Town and County staff to identify individuals and
geographic areas for deployment, so the outreach is responsive to the Town's needs. The
source of the grant funding is the same County grant received by Cupertino in FY
2023/2024 and FY 2024/2025.
City of Morgan Hill and City of Campbell
Morgan Hill and Campbell received the capacity-building grant from Destination: Home
to support work related to the 2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness. The
three-year partnership has enabled Morgan Hill and Campbell to hire dedicated liaisons
on homelessness issues (with a particular focus on Strategy 3: Improving the quality of
life for unsheltered individuals and creating healthy neighborhoods for all). The grant
requires demonstrated support from each city for the Community Plan to End
Homelessness. The grant award in both cities covers the first three years of costs. Long-
term funding is needed in both cities for the position.
West Valley Shelter Feasibility Study
The City of Campbell City Council recently allocated $100,000 for a West Valley Shelter
Feasibility Study. The study will assess the feasibility of creating a facility to provide
temporary or emergency housing for the unhoused population in the West Valley. There
are currently 221 homeless individuals in the West Valley (County 2023 PIT count), and
no shelters or temporary housing options exist. Campbell anticipates completing MOUs
in the coming months, entering into an agreement with Home Base by the end of 2024,
and completing the study in 2025.
The study has two parts:
• Evaluate the demographics of the West Valley's unhoused population (data from
the Office of Supportive Housing).
• Analyze and recommend facilities and services for temporary housing (options
include shelters, hotel rooms, sanctioned camping, and tiny homes) with cost
estimates.
City of Berkeley
On September 10, 2024, the City Council of Berkeley, California, approved a policy and
made changes to a local ordinance aimed at regulating homeless encampments. This
policy establishes location restrictions and designates areas where encampments are
allowed while imposing strict rules for their maintenance and hygiene to safeguard the
well-being of both housed and unhoused individuals. The policy prioritizes ongoing
Page 8 of 9
shelter offers, with a preference for individual units, but it also explicitly grants the City
Manager authority to clear encampments under certain conditions. The policy is noted
as a prominent example of City Council direction regarding encampment resolution
policy.
Future Potential Options to Consider
While the City has made significant progress in reducing unsheltered homelessness
since 2020, the City of Grants Pass ruling has prompted the reevaluation of encampment
resolution practices and policies throughout the state. In responding to the ruling, the
City Council may wish to take into account the relative success of the City's current
practices and the relatively limited scale of unsheltered homelessness in Cupertino, as
well as the constraints imposed by the City's extensive reliance on outside agencies and
resources to address the needs of unsheltered individuals and the impact of
homelessness on the community. Any policy changes adopted by the City of Cupertino
should take into account this regional context. For these reasons, staff recommend the
City Council consider the following options:
1. Continue the current model of the City's Unhoused Task Force, Process for
Assisting Unhoused Residents, and partnerships with the County of Santa Clara
to measurably serve the City based on the relative needs of existing unhoused
residents, including continuing to seek partnerships and possible grant
opportunities.
OR
2. Direct the City Manager to propose an item in the Fiscal Year 2025-2027 City
Work Program to develop an encampment management policy by evaluating
examples from other jurisdictions in the Bay Area and incorporating best
practices for review by the City Council.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
Option 1: Continued Support and Partnerships
Should the City Council determine that the existing framework of the City's Unhoused
Task Force, the Process for Assisting Unhoused Residents, and partnerships with the
County of Santa Clara sufficiently meet the needs of the current unhoused population,
the fiscal impact will primarily involve the maintenance of the existing system. Under
this scenario, staff will continue seeking partnerships and potential grant opportunities,
which could provide supplementary funding. This approach may incur minimal
additional costs beyond the current budget allocations, provided that there are no
significant changes in service demand or in the costs associated with maintaining the
Page 9 of 9
current level of support. Additionally, the $50,000 grants received from the County of
Santa Clara in Fiscal Years 2023 – 2024 and 2024 – 2025 may not continue.
Option 2: Development of an Encampment Management Policy
If the City Council directs staff to develop an encampment management policy for
inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2025-2027 City Work Program, this will likely require a more
substantial fiscal commitment. The creation, implementation, and ongoing maintenance
of a new policy will necessitate resources for evaluating best practices, drafting policy
documents, and potentially hiring additional staff or consultants. Continuous funding
will be required to support the ongoing management and enforcement of the policy. An
estimated cost of this option would be provided as part of the Fiscal Year 2025-2027
Work Program process.
California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Thomas Chin, Emergency Manager
Reviewed by: Christopher D. Jensen, City Attorney
Tina Kapoor, Interim Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:
A – City of Cupertino Process For Assisting Unhoused Residents
B – Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025
C – 2024 Mid-Year Progress Report on the 2020-2025 Community Plan to End
Homelessness
D – City of Berkeley City Council Policy Encampment Policy Resolution to Promote
Healthy and Safe Neighborhoods and Related First Reading of Ordinance Amending
Chapter 14.48 of the Berkeley Municipal Code
West Valley Homeless Services
Needs Analysis Report
Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno,
and Saratoga, and Town of Los Gatos
July 24, 2025
Prepared by:
Acknowledgements
West Valley Jurisdictions
City of Campbell: Rob Eastwood, Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Chris Miranda
City of Cupertino: Nicky Vu
Town of Los Gatos: Joel Paulson, Katy Nomura
City of Monte Sereno: Diana Perkins
City of Saratoga: Bryan Swanson, Cindy McCormick
With Special Thanks to
County of Santa Clara, Office of Supportive Housing: Hilary Armstrong, Diana Castillo, Michelle
Covert, Laura Urteaga Fuentes, Kathryn (KJ) Kaminski, Tina La Perle, Leila Qureishi
Destination: Home: Ray Bramson
Good City Company
Nicholas Hamilton, AICP, Public Policy Lead
Aaron Aknin, AICP, Principal
Vera Gil, Housing Specialist
Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2
Background ................................................................................................................................... 4
UNDERSTANDING HOMELESSNESS TODAY .................................................................................................................... 4
POLICY CONTEXT .............................................................................................................................................................. 7
KEY POLICY IMPLICATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 9
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................................. 13
Quantitative Needs Analysis ..................................................................................................... 15
Existing Programs, Services, and Systems............................................................................... 20
PROGRAMS IDENTIFIED .................................................................................................................................................. 21
SYSTEMS AND SUPPORTS .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Interviews and Insights of Homeless Individuals ................................................................... 29
Gap Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 30
GAPS IN SERVICES FOR CURRENTLY HOMELESS PEOPLE ............................................................................................ 31
SYSTEMS GAPS ................................................................................................................................................................ 34
Conclusion & Next Steps ........................................................................................................... 35
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................................... 35
List of Materials Consulted and Supporting Documents ...................................................... 40
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 1
West Valley Homeless Services
Needs Analysis Report
Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno
Saratoga, and Town of Los Gatos
July 24, 2025
Executive Summary
The West Valley Homeless Services Needs Analysis Report analyzes the state of homelessness
and homeless services in 2025 in the five West Valley cities of Santa Clara County: Campbell,
Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga and identifies gaps in the services provided.
Key findings
• Homelessness is a Serious Problem: At least 524 individuals across 322
households were counted as homeless in the West Valley area in 2024. About 214
new homeless households sought shelter or services for the first time in 2024 and
51 percent have been homeless for two or more years.
• Homelessness is Not One-Size-Fits-All: While there are many homeless
individuals who visibly live on the street, there is also a large population who are
more hidden. Matching appropriate services to specific individuals is critical.
• Impacts on Children: Nineteen percent of homeless households are
unaccompanied youth and 19 percent are families with children. In addition,
homelessness is associated with significant negative health and child
development outcomes.
• Homelessness Affects Us All: Homelessness impacts all members of the
community, not just those who are homeless. The effects on housed residents,
the economy, and local government services are substantial.
• Services and Housing Work: Permanent housing is critical, even if it is expensive
and time-consuming. Immediate services are sometimes as important as housing.
2 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Introduction
The West Valley cities are located in the heart of Silicon Valley, known for innovation and
myriad globally recognized companies. While some of the highest median income zip codes in
the state and country are in the area, it is also home to many people facing significant economic
challenges. In 2023, Santa Clara County ranked sixth in the US for the prevalence of unsheltered
individuals among major population centers, with 412 unsheltered people per 100,000
residents. This data is based on a point-in-time count conducted in January 2023. The County
saw a 5 percent increase in homelessness in 2023 compared to 2019 1 and another 8.2 percent
increase between 2023 and 2025 2.
In July 2024, the City of Campbell allocated
$100,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
funds to conduct a homeless needs analysis and
feasibility study. In December 2024, the City
contracted with Good City Company to conduct a
needs assessment and feasibility study. Good City
Company is a local government consulting firm
based in Redwood City. The firm offers support
to local government agencies in the fields of
planning, economic development, housing, and
city manager’s office services.
The first phase of analysis is reflected in this
needs analysis report, which includes an analysis
of available quantitative data, existing
background material and research, and the
results of interviews with key stakeholders,
including service providers and currently homeless individuals in the area. The needs
1 Love, Hanna, and Tracy Hadden Loh. “Homelessness in US Cities and Downtowns: The Perception, the Reality, and How to Address Both.” Brookings Institution. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/homelessness-in-us-cities-and-downtowns/.
2 County of Santa Clara, California. “County of Santa Clara Releases Preliminary Results of 2025 Point‑in‑Time Homeless Count.”
County News Center, June 20, 2025. Accessed July 17, 2025. https://news.santaclaracounty.gov/county-santa-clara-releases-
preliminary-results-2025-point-time-homeless-count
“I care about the homeless
here, but I have young kids
and the quality-of-life
impact on families also
matters. T
doesn’t work,
this.”
Local Community Member
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 3
assessment describes existing services and identifies gaps in services impacting homelessness in
the West Valley area. This analysis is intended to establish a baseline of existing conditions
regarding homelessness in the West Valley and provide a foundation of information for a
subsequent feasibility study for improved services.
Following the completion of this needs analysis, the project team will also conduct a feasibility
analysis. A list of items likely to be analyzed in the feasibility study are included in the
conclusions section of this needs analysis document.
Figure 1. The five West Valley Jurisdictions (Image credit: Santa Clara County LAFCO, Good City Company)
4 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Background
Understanding Homelessness Today
Homelessness is a complex problem, impacting different segments of the community in
different ways. Individuals and families at risk of homelessness face constant pressure from
forces that ultimately push many into homelessness. These forces are magnified by the housing
crisis and felt most acutely where the cost of housing is highest, such as the West Valley.
Addressing homelessness has been an increasing priority in the region, and there are social,
public health, economic, and quality of life reasons that motivate this. However, there is also a
broadly held moral belief that human beings should live with a level of dignity that is not
possible to achieve while being homeless. While the problem can feel nearly impossible to
solve, immediate services and long-term housing can substantially reduce homelessness and its
negative impacts.
The first image of a homeless person that comes to mind for many is a single male with
significant substance abuse and mental health issues. While this characterization represents a
visible phenomenon, the data paints a more complex picture. There is also a large hidden
population of homeless individuals and families. Across the West Valley cities, 37 percent of
homeless households are unaccompanied youth or families with children, and 50 percent are
male. Many homeless women and families with children are less visible. A recent study of
homeless adults in California showed that a significant portion of homeless people reported not
having used drugs regularly in the prior six months 3. Homeless people come from a wide range
of backgrounds, and while some come from outside the community, many were raised or were
previously housed in the local community.
California’s housing challenges are well-documented and acutely felt across the entire West
Valley of Santa Clara County. Statewide, nearly one-third of California renters pay more than 50
3 Baggett, Travis P., James J. O’Connell, Jesse M. Yedinak, and Thomas J. Stopka. “Illicit Substance Use and Treatment Access
Among Adults Experiencing Homelessness.” JAMA 331, no. 12 (2024): 987–997. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.27922.
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 5
percent of their income toward rent 4. California
is also home to a disproportionate number of
homeless residents. While the state is home to
12 percent of the nation’s population, the
homeless population makes up 22 percent of
the nation’s homeless population 5. In 2023,
Santa Clara County had approximately 10,028
people experiencing homelessness 6. This
translates to roughly 2.3 people per 1,000
residents. The West Valley ratio of homeless
people translates to 1.28 people per 1,000.
The high cost of housing is a central cause of
homelessness and is driven not only by demand
but also by the policy decisions and other
factors that have resulted in so few homes being
built relative to jobs. Job growth in the Bay Area
has far exceeded the production of housing for
decades 7.
Homelessness is also a health issue. Health and medical issues are both an effect and cause of
homelessness. Living on the street, in a car, RV, shelter, or couch surfing can be extraordinarily
difficult and result in tremendous adverse social, medical, economic, and safety consequences 8.
4 California Department of Housing & Community Development. Addressing a Variety of Housing Challenges. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-and-research/addressing-variety-housing-challenges. California Department of Housing & Community Development. Addressing a Variety of Housing Challenges. Accessed May 10, 2025.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-and-research/addressing-variety-housing-challenges.
5 Ibid
6 County of Santa Clara and City of San José, "County of Santa Clara and City of San José Release Preliminary Results of 2023 Point-in-Time Homeless Census," County News Center, May 30, 2023, https://news.santaclaracounty.gov/news-release/county-santa-clara-and-city-san-jose-release-preliminary-results-2023-point-time.
7 Kober, Eric. “The Bay Area: The Land of Many Jobs and Too Few Homes.” Manhattan Institute. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://manhattan.institute/article/the-bay-area-the-land-of-many-jobs-and-too-few-homes.
8 Community Solutions. “The Costs and Harms of Homelessness: A Learning Brief Examining the Costs Borne by Individuals,
Communities, Systems, and Society.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://community.solutions/research-posts/the-costs-and-
harms-of-homelessness/.
“We want to end
homelessness forever. Even
for people who have a nice
to haunt them later.”
Local Homeless Resident
6 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Some studies have shown the average age of death for homeless individuals to be 44 years of
age 9. The stigma associated with homelessness can impact all aspects of life for those without a
home, and research has shown a correlation between stigma and poorer mental and physical
health outcomes 10.
Medical debt and loss of work due to illness are major contributing factors to the economic
causes of homelessness. Two-thirds of people who have filed for bankruptcy cite these two
factors as the primary reason for their bankruptcy 11. While most people with medical debt do
not become homeless, research indicates that medical debt can significantly prolong periods of
homelessness. Studies suggest that medical debt, even for relatively small amounts, can extend
the length of time a person experiences homelessness by an additional two years on
average. For those whose medical debt goes to collections, the impact on overall homelessness
duration can be even more significant 12.
While single, homeless men are often the most visible in communities, homeless women,
families with children, and youth are also prevalent. Women who are homeless or experiencing
housing instability are at significantly higher risk for sexual and physical violence 13.
The impacts of homelessness on children and child development cannot be understated.
Homelessness and housing instability expose children to prolonged activation of stress
responses, also known as “toxic stress,” which is in turn associated with greater instances of a
9 National Health Care for the Homeless Council. “Premature Mortality in Homeless Populations.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://sbdww.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PrematureMortalityFinal.pdf.
10 Reilly, Johanna, Angela Greenfield, Rebecca Gillam, and Peter L. H. Barrett. “A Systematic Review of the Effect of Stigma on the Health of People Experiencing Homelessness.” Health & Social Care in the Community 30, no. 6 (2022): 2128–2141. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13884.
11 Himmelstein, David U., Robert M. Lawless, Deborah Thorne, Pamela Foohey, and Steffie Woolhandler. “Medical Bankruptcy:
Still Common Despite the Affordable Care Act.” American Journal of Public Health 109, no. 3 (2019): 431–433.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304901
12 Bielenberg, Joseph E., Maren Futrell, Benjamin Stover, and Annette Hagopian. “Presence of Any Medical Debt Associated With Two Additional Years of Homelessness in a Seattle Sample.” INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing 57 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0046958020923535.
13 Riley, Elise D., Jennifer Cohen, Kelly Knight, et al. “Violence and Emergency Department Use among Community-Recruited
Women Who Experience Homelessness and Housing Instability.” Journal of Urban Health.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7010900/#CR5.
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 7
variety of health, social, and developmental problems 14. Homeless children are two to four times
more likely to have a mental health issue requiring clinical evaluation than low-income
children 15. Homeless infants are known to have poor birth outcomes, and homeless children are
more likely to be diagnosed with respiratory infections, fevers, injuries, and nutritional problems
than housed children 16.
Homelessness impacts the entire community, not just those who are homeless. The impact on
public services, particularly emergency room visits, is significant, with studies indicating
homeless people use the emergency room significantly more than the general population,17,
which are generally much more expensive than preventative care.
Other community and public health concerns include increased spread of communicable
diseases due to lack of access to hygiene, healthcare, and shelter, and unsanitary conditions in
campsites and improper waste disposal with impacts both to public health and the
environment. Economic issues include potential reduction in property values or commercial
activity in areas with visible homeless people or campsites. While harder to quantify, impacts on
public safety and economic investment are widely perceived by communities at large. In
addressing these concerns there is often a conflict between different policy objectives, as
discussed below.
Policy Context
Local, State, and Federal housing policies, programs, and funding play a pivotal role in assisting
local jurisdictions and service providers in preventing homelessness and addressing the
homelessness crisis. Below, we will discuss how the West Valley municipalities, the State of
California, and the Federal government all play vital roles in addressing homelessness.
14 Shonkoff, Jack P., Andrew S. Garner, et al. “The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress.” Pediatrics 129,
no. 1 (2012): e232–e246; https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/129/1/e232/31628/The-Lifelong-Effects-of-Early-
Childhood-Adversity
15 Bassuk, Ellen L., M. Beardslee, and J. Bassuk. “The Prevalence of Mental Illness in Homeless Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271536943.
16 Clark, Robin E., Marguerite E. Tracy, William B. Whitmore, et al. “Infants Exposed to Homelessness: Health, Health Care Use, and Health Spending from Birth to Age Six.” Health Affairs 38, no. 5 (2019): 721–728. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00090.
17 Vohra, Neha, et al. “Homelessness and the use of Emergency Department as a source of healthcare” International Journal of
Emergency Medicine. https://intjem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12245-022-00435-3
8 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Each of the West Valley municipalities is mandated by State law to draft a Housing Element and
submit the element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) for review and approval. The Housing Element is one of seven mandated elements of
each jurisdiction’s General Plan. The Housing Element process is complicated, but it essentially
outlines how a city or county will plan for housing needs across different income levels. It is a
policy document that identifies current and future housing needs, establishes goals and policies,
and provides programs to address those needs, including affordable housing and housing for
special needs populations, including homeless people and householders at risk of
homelessness.
The State of California plays a role in enforcing State laws relating to housing development and
providing resources to municipalities. HCD is responsible for reviewing and monitoring
municipalities’ progress in implementing approved housing elements. In addition, State laws,
such as Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) and Assembly Bill 1482 (AB 1482), place requirements on cities
to streamline the housing development process, uphold renter protections and to comply with
no net loss requirements relating to housing redevelopment. AB1482, the California Housing
Crisis Act of 2019, provides a form of statewide rent control and just cause eviction protections
for residential renters. It limits rent increases to five percent plus the local Consumer Price Index
(CPI), or ten percent, whichever is less, and requires landlords to have a valid reason (just cause)
to evict a tenant. The law went into effect on January 1, 2020, and is set to expire on January 1,
2030. SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, is a California law that aims to address the State's
housing shortage by streamlining the housing development process and protecting existing
housing. It went into effect in 2020.
The State also provides annual funding allocations for affordable housing and homelessness
services. HCD's Super NOFA (Super Notice of Funding Availability) was created to streamline
and consolidate funding opportunities for affordable housing by combining previously separate
funding streams into a single, streamlined application process for developers, aiming to make
funds more accessible and equitable. The Super NOFA is broken down between ownership
opportunities and multifamily opportunities. The Multifamily Super NOFA combines affordable
development funding and funding opportunities for homeless military veterans. In addition, the
State provides HomeKey and Homekey+ funding to provide transitional and permanent
supportive housing for the homeless population.
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 9
Santa Clara County’s Department of Office of Supportive Housing (OSH) receives Federal
McKinney Act funding for homeless and homeless prevention programs. OSH is responsible for
the Continuum of Care (COC) by coordinating the County-wide homeless response, allocating
funding throughout the County, and coordinating the Point-in-Time (PIT) homeless count.
Key Policy Implications
Several key findings with policy implications can be drawn from an analysis of the literature and
practices of surrounding jurisdictions and are listed below. A bibliography is also provided at
the end of this report.
Funding
The current unpredictability of federal and state funding negatively impacts the fight against
homelessness by making it difficult to plan and implement effective programs. This can
potentially lead to increased homelessness and setbacks in progress. This funding instability
also undermines the ability of service providers to maintain stable staffing and operations and
continue to provide service levels.
Coordination
Coordination across sectors, jurisdictions, and departments within jurisdictions is critical to
developing and implementing lasting impact. As described subsequently, the Continuum of
Care model, coordinated entry, the facilitation of coordinated responses by Santa Clara County
and the West Valley Cities, the work across departments within cities, and public-private
partnerships such as Destination: Home are best practices already underway.
Much of this approach is reflected in the 2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness,
which is currently being updated and is also described later in this assessment. Its three goals
are to: address the root causes of homelessness through system and policy change, improve the
quality of life for unsheltered individuals, and create healthy neighborhoods for all, and expand
homelessness prevention and housing programs to meet the need.
Conflicting Policy Objectives
In addressing homelessness, there is often a conflict between different policy objectives. Some
approaches are tailored toward minimizing immediate negative impacts on the community at
large, such as the removal of encampments. These may provide relief from quality-of-life issues
in the immediate area but may also exacerbate the difficulties homeless people experience.
10 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
While providing long-term housing solutions and preventing homelessness are broadly shared
community goals, this approach may do little to address the immediate impacts of
homelessness on either homeless people or the broader community. In practice, such policy
choices are rarely an either-or choice, and a suite of approaches deployed together generally
work best.
Challenges of Congregate Shelter
Many unhoused individuals and families prefer not to stay in congregate shelters for logical
reasons. A congregate shelter is defined as a type of temporary housing facility that provides
shelter for individuals and families in shared, open spaces with limited privacy. These challenges
can result in many choosing to live in a car, RV, couch, or on the street 18. Approximately twice as
many homeless people live outside the shelter system as within it 19. These challenges include:
• Concerns about safety and privacy in shelters. Communal living in homeless
shelters can be a source of insecurity and unease for some individuals due to
factors like the potential for theft, violence, and lack of privacy, especially for
those with past traumatic experiences or vulnerable populations. Furthermore,
restrictive rules and schedules, limited access to belongings, and the general
feeling of being "dormed up" can contribute to a sense of confinement and
disconnection.
• Lack of available shelter space, long waiting lists, or shelters are far or difficult to
get to relative to where their social, economic, and health networks are located.
• Shelters may prohibit pets, visitors, or a large volume of belongings.
• While stringent sobriety requirements and the potential for separation of adults
or families have been reduced at many facilities, particularly those that are not
faith based, these remain concerns among homeless individuals and advocates.
18 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Understanding Encampments of People Experiencing Homelessness and Community Responses: Emerging Evidence as of Late 2018. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Understanding-Encampments.pdf.
19 Ibid
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 11
Alternatives to the congregate model include safe parking programs, sanctioned camping sites,
using hotels as temporary, transitional, or permanent non-congregate shelters, and the “tiny
home” model of interim housing 20.
Demographics and Disparities
The impacts on child development, families with children, and youth aging out of foster care
cannot be understated.21 According to a report from the Terner Institute, stark racial and ethnic
disparities in California’s homelessness rates continue to grow 22. For instance, despite making
up a small percentage of the state's population, Black individuals are disproportionately
represented in the homeless population, with a significant increase in their share of the
unsheltered population. According to the report, “Black people in California experienced the
highest rate of homelessness, about 205 people per 10,000—almost five times higher than the
state’s overall homelessness rate of 44 per 10,000. Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, Native
American and Indigenous, and multiracial people also experienced disparate homelessness rates
compared to the state’s overall population.” Similar disproportionate rate of homelessness of
Black, Hispanic, and Native individuals are reflected in Santa Clara County and the West Valley
area 23.
Importance of Housing
Affordable housing is crucial to addressing homelessness because it directly tackles the core
issue: lack of stable, affordable housing. When people struggle to afford housing, they become
vulnerable to losing their homes and falling into homelessness. By increasing the supply of
affordable housing, the number of people experiencing homelessness decreases, and those
currently experiencing homelessness find stable homes. When rents and property prices
20 Finnigan, Ryan. “Five Recent Trends in Homelessness in California.” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley.
October 2023. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Five-Trends-in-CA-Homelessness_Oct-2023-
5.pdf.
21 Murran, Sarah, and Emma Brady. “How Does Family Homelessness Impact on Children’s Development? A Critical Review of
the Literature.” Child & Family Social Work 28, no. 2 (2023): 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12968.
22 Finnigan, Ryan. “Five Recent Trends in Homelessness in California.” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. October 2023. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Five-Trends-in-CA-Homelessness_Oct-2023-5.pdf.
23 Olivet, Jeff, et al., SPARC/Destination: Home. “Race and Homelessness In Santa Clara County, California.” January 31, 2020.
https://destinationhomesv.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/RacialEquityReport0131020.pdf?mc_cid=06a7865957&mc_eid=53a9a53ca3.
12 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
increase and wages polarize or don't keep pace, low-income households are at higher risk of
losing their housing and becoming homeless.
Short-term and long-term solutions to homelessness are crucial, with short-term
interventions providing immediate relief and a path to long-term stability. Short-term solutions,
like emergency shelters, offer shelter and access to immediate support services, including
mental health and substance abuse programs and assistance. Long-term solutions, such as low
barrier, rapid rehousing programs and permanent supportive housing, address many of the
underlying dynamics of homelessness and enable individuals to achieve self-sufficiency.
Root Causes and Upstream Issues
Homelessness is a complex issue with certain factors being both a cause and impact of
homelessness across economic, social, and personal domains. Some of the upstream causes of
homelessness reflect broader dynamics in society, such as income inequality and healthcare
access. Addressing them completely may be beyond the scope of local government, however,
there are actions local governments can take—alone and in partnership—to make a significant
positive impact.
Housing affordability relative to income is a key driver of homelessness 24. The importance of
local governments to encourage the production and preservation of housing at all income
levels, and especially at the extremely low-income level, is exceedingly important. While local
public subsidies for the development of units are important, the local land use regulatory tools
of local government, including but not limited to inclusionary housing programs and
community benefits agreements, may have even greater potential for impact.
Prevention of homelessness is crucial. Once someone becomes homeless it is significantly more
difficult to get them back into permanent housing. The Homelessness Prevention System,
piloted by Destination: Home 25 in 2017, is a nationally recognized model for homelessness
prevention piloted in Silicon Valley. A six-year randomized control trial showed that immediate
financial assistance to at risk families is a proven solution to keeping families from becoming
24 Powell, Alvin. “Why It’s So Hard to End Homelessness in America.” Harvard Gazette. January 2024.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/01/why-its-so-hard-to-end-homelessness-in-america/.
25 https://destinationhomesv.org/
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 13
homeless 26. Similarly, home sharing programs can be an important part of the homelessness
prevention ecosystem as they can unlock lower cost housing options relatively quickly and serve
to reduce social isolation. However, providers underscore that they are usually not practical for
the rapid rehousing of people who are currently homeless. Although not ideal for every
community, home-sharing programs have proven effective for achieving functional zero
homelessness in many communities, such as Redondo Beach, California. Home-sharing
programs are also an important part of the overall response to housing and homelessness in
nearby counties such as San Mateo County, which operates a program in partnership with HIP
Housing.
Another key tool of local government is raising awareness and promoting actions to address
homelessness that can be made at the state or federal levels. Regional and subregional efforts
to raise awareness and advocate for increased funding can often be a more effective approach
than individual communities doing so alone.
Methodology
This research triangulates quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis, and insights from best
practices and other research. Quantitative analysis is based on the following core data sources:
2024 Vulnerability Index - Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT): A survey
and database used to collect data for the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)
and additional data that allows municipal staff to categorize and prioritize needs in the
community.
2023 Point-in-Time Count (PIT Count): A count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless people
on a single night in January.
Qualitative analysis is based on interviews with stakeholders that included local jurisdiction staff,
service providers, and homeless individuals. Meetings and interviews with staff from Santa Clara
County, and the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga were
conducted between February and April 2025.
26 Phillips, David, and James X. Sullivan. “Do Homelessness Prevention Programs Prevent Homelessness? Evidence from a
Randomized Controlled Trial.” The Review of Economics and Statistics (2023). https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01344.
14 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
An initial list of service providers was developed in consultation with staff from Campbell, Santa
Clara County, Destination: Home, and the four additional West Valley cities. Additional service
providers were interviewed at the recommendation of some of the initial interviews. These
stakeholders include service providers active in one or more of the five West Valley cities and
are listed below. Service provider interviews were conducted between February and April 2025.
Interviews with currently homeless individuals were conducted in March and April 2025.
Interviews were conducted in person in March 2025 and were facilitated by Campbell’s
Unhoused Specialist. Additional observational findings were also made in the field, including
from individuals who did not wish to be interviewed. An additional interview was conducted via
Zoom and email correspondence as a result of outreach made by a homeless advocate and
homeless individual to the project team.
The quantitative and qualitative findings are supported by a literature review of relevant
research and public documents regarding related topics, best practices understood in the field
today. A list of key resources consulted is included as an attachment to this report.
Service Provider Stakeholders Interviewed
Table 1. Service Provider Stakeholders Interviewed
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 15
Quantitative Needs Analysis
Available quantitative data was analyzed across several factors including unduplicated intakes
over time, location across each of the five cities, how long they have been homeless, and
demographic breakdowns by age, gender, household (family) type, and race and ethnicity.
The number of homeless people by City, with the data from the Point-in-Time count
(individuals) in blue and the data extrapolated from the VI-SPDAT entries (households) in green,
is shown in Figure 2. While it is not reflected in the data presented, we know from prior VI-
SPDAT data and interviews with service providers that some homeless people have recently
been associated with Monte Sereno.
Figure 2. Homeless Counts by City
Each instance reflected in the data was input following a comprehensive methodology. While
these numbers are among the best available, they should be understood to be an absolute floor
for the instance of homelessness. This data does not attempt to quantify the total number of
homeless people in the community. For example, someone would not be counted if they had
not completed a VI-SPDAT assessment or were couch surfing or living in an RV on private
property and not visible on the night of the Point-in-Time count. The two data sets were also
developed using substantially different methodologies; no trend over time can be inferred from
92 81
48
0 0
209
60
95
19
0
50
100
150
200
250
Campbell Los Gatos Cupertino Monte Sereno Saratoga
Homeless Counts by City (2023 PIT Count, Total 221 Individuals)
Homeless Counts by City (2024 VI-SPDAT, Total 383 Households)
16 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
the VI-SPDAT data collected in 2024 relative to the Point-in-Time data collected in 2023. Point-
in-Time data for 2025 is only available County-wide as of publication. The 2025 data indicates
homelessness has increased by 8.2 percent since the 2023 count 27.
Figure 3. Homeless Inflow - First Time VI-SPDAT Assessment 2016-2024 (VI-SPDAT)
Individuals in the Point-in-Time are included if they are seen on the morning of the count. In the
counts, people are associated with a city based on where they are located on a specific night
during the count. This involves identifying and counting individuals experiencing homelessness
in shelters, transitional housing, or on the streets within the city's designated area. Whereas with
the VI-SDAT assessment, the homeless individuals self-identify in which city they last lived,
worked, where any children go to school, or where they spend most of their time. While
multiple entries were allowed, only six households are counted in more than one West Valley
jurisdiction.
27 County of Santa Clara, California. “County of Santa Clara Releases Preliminary Results of 2025 Point‑in‑Time Homeless Count.”
County News Center, June 20, 2025. Accessed July 17, 2025. https://news.santaclaracounty.gov/county-santa-clara-releases-
preliminary-results-2025-point-time-homeless-count
215
244 255
222
166
139 143
212 214
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 17
Figure 3. Homeless Inflow - First Time VI-SPDAT Assessment 2016-2024, illustrates the number
of first-time VI-SPDAT assessments during the corresponding years. It can be noted that the
number of assessments was lower during the height of the COVID pandemic but sharply
increased in 2023 to above the nine-year average of 201.
During the VI-SPDAT assessment, the homeless individuals or families are asked how long they
have been homeless. Figure 8., below, shows the West Valley cities saw a higher percentage of
individuals who are more recently experiencing homelessness than the remainder of the County.
It also shows that 51 percent have been homeless for two years or more. The U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines chronic homelessness as: "An individual who
has been experiencing continuous homelessness for a year or more or has experienced at least
four episodes of homelessness in the past three years, where each episode is at least 30 days in
length"28. While the exact percentage may vary slightly depending on the source, 20 percent of
the homeless population in the U.S. is a commonly cited figure for those experiencing chronic
homelessness. Also of concern is the high percentage of individuals becoming homeless
between one week and three months.
28 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.hud.gov/.
Figure 4. Demographics by Gender in 2024 (VI-SPDAT) Figure 5. Household Type in 2024 (VI-SPDAT)
50%50%
62%
38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Man Woman / Other
By Gender
West Valley Cities (n=382)
Non-West Valley Cities (n=7,943)
63%
19%19%
77%
17%
6%
Single Adult Families with Children Single Youth and
Young Adult
By Household Type (Based on
Type of VI-SPDAT Completed)
West Valley Cities (n=382)
Non-West Valley Cities (n=7,943)
18 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Figure 4. Demographics by Gender in 2024 (VI-SPDAT), indicates a much higher percentage of
women clients in the West Valley geography than the remainder of the County (50 percent
compared to 38 percent) while Figure 5. Household Type in 2024 (VI-SPDAT), indicates a
significantly higher proportion of youth and young adults relative to the remainder of the
County (19 percent compared to 6 percent).
Figure 9. Most Frequent Sleeping Location by Household in 2024, indicates West Valley
individuals were more likely to sleep in their car or couch surf than the remainder of the County
but less likely to utilize a shelter bed. It also shows 31 percent of households sleep outside and
28 percent in a car compared with 11 percent in shelters and 6 percent in transitional housing.
West Valley individuals were also more likely to be White and less likely to be Hispanic/Latino
than the remainder of the County. The largest homeless population in the West Valley identifies
as White and second largest as Hispanic, however, those who identify as Hispanic or Black are
Figure 6. Demographics by Age in 2024 (VI-SPDAT) Figure 7. Overall and Homeless Population in West Valley by
Race and Ethnicity in 2024 (VI-SPDAT, ACS)
20%19%
21%
16%15%
10%9%
21%
25%
19%18%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
Above
West Valley Cities (n=382)
Non-West Valley Cities (n=7,943)
0%
46%
1%
8%
5%
0%
39%
8%
6%
15%
52%
0%
3%
23%
7%
6%
14%
35%
1%
3%
42%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
American Indian, Alaska
Native, or Indigenous
Asian or Asian American
Black, African American, or
African
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Other
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander
White (Non-
Hispanic/Latina/e/o)
WV Homeless Individuals by Race and Ethnicity (2024 VI-
SPDAT)
Non-WV Homeless Individuals by Race and Ethnicity
(2024 VI-SPDAT)
Population Estimates (2023 ACS)
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 19
Figure 8. Time Since Lived in Permanent Stable Housing for
2024 First Time VI-SPDAT Assessment Households (VI-SPDAT) 2024 (VI-SPDAT)
Figure 10. By Self-Reported Disability/Vulnerability (VI-SPDAT)
Figure 11. By Level of Housing Intervention (Based on VI-
SPDAT Score)
60%
13%
9%
7%
9%
2%
51%
13%
7%
10%
16%
4%
2 years or more
1 - 2 years
6 months to 1 year
3 - 6 months
1 week - 3 months
Less than a week
West Valley Cities (n=382)
Non-West Valley Cities (n=7,943)
5%
7%
16%
8%
21%
41%
5%
8%
12%
16%
28%
31%
Transitional
Housing
Other
Shelters/
Safe Haven
Couch
Surfing
Car
Outdoors
West Valley Cities (n=382)
Non-West Valley Cities (n=7,943)
45%
27%
24%
19%
43%
34%
30%
26%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Domestic
Violence
Survivor
Mental
Health
Physical Drinking and
Drug Use
West Valley Cities (n=382)
Non-West Valley Cities (n=7,943)
7%
42%
51%
7%
33%
60%
Minimal RRH Range PSH Range
West Valley Cities (n=382)
Non-West Valley Cities (n=7,943)
20 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
substantially overrepresented relative to the general population. Overall percentages for each
race/ethnicity from the American Community Survey (ACS)29 are provided for comparison. The
race/ethnicity percentage is taken against the overall numbers from the ACS and VI-SPDAT,
which rely on different methodologies. The relative percentages should be considered as
indicative, but no inferences should be made at a granular level.
Figure 10. By Self-Reported Disability/Vulnerability (VI-SPDAT) indicates a higher domestic
violence survivor rate and lower mental, physical, and drinking/drug use rate than the
remainder of the County. Figure 11. By Level of Housing Intervention (Based on VI-SPDAT
Score) shows a higher share of clients appropriate for Rapid Rehousing and lower for
Permanent Supportive Housing than the rest of the County.
The VI-SPDAT data shows the homeless population in the West Valley cities is largely single
adults, unaccompanied youth and families with children make up 37 percent of homeless
households. An unaccompanied youth is defined as someone under the age of 21 who is living
either on the streets, in a youth shelter or “couch surfing” and has no adult relative
accompanying them. Also of note is that females make up 48 percent of the population, roughly
equivalent to the general population. However, women and families tend to be less visible.
Homeless women may be less visible on the local streets because women may be in domestic
abuse shelters and families avoid being seen on the street for fear that their children may be
taken away from them. Also, during the days, children attend school, and parents are often
working and remain less visible.
Existing Programs, Services, and Systems
Good City Company contacted the five West Valley cities to interview key staff members on
services that the cities were funding and providing and services being provided by other
community partners. Numerous participants, including service providers, local agencies, data
collectors, and strategy and program development support, are striving to address one or more
aspects of homelessness. The programs identified through the research to date are described
below.
29 United States Census Bureau. “2023 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, American Community Survey (ACS).” Accessed May 10,
2025. https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP05&g=160XX00US0610345,0617610,0644112,0648956,0670280.
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 21
Programs Identified
Table 2, below, is a brief overview of each of the services. A short narrative on each program
being offered is also provided, with information on the number of clients being served. In the
feasibility portion of this report, more details on the overall services will be provided, such as
hotel vouchers, rotating safe parking, safe parking programs, etc.
Jurisdiction Clients
Served
Annually
(approx.)
Provided Provider
Los Gatos 14 Hotel Voucher
Program Gatos/Los
Gatos Faith
based
during inclement weather
Clothing/Laun community lunches, laundry vouchers, clothing
Program Independent
Living Center
inclement weather, phase II will
expand to include older adults and
Safe Parking
Program, car
repair funding
and gas cards
Guadalupe/Fai
th based
community
management, workshops,
Community Nights, laundry cards,
showers, car repair funds, and gas
cards
Specialist
Staffing
Home Grant the salary for an unhoused specialist
for three years.
Sereno
The City has set aside $20,000 in
its budget to provide homeless
services in the West Valley region.
The Council has yet to identify a
project to support.
22 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Jurisdiction Clients
Served
Annually
x.
Provided Provider
Saratoga,
Cupertino
(portions of
Car Park community Saratoga and West San Jose at local
churches. Wi-Fi and food provided.
Saratoga,
Campbell,
Los Gatos
25 soft check-
ins for
Saratoga,
Campbell, Los
Gatos
meals,
clothing, vet
services, park-
it market, Case
management
Community
Services
Cupertino location and with its
mobile food pantry. Services include
case management, ready-to-eat
meals, clothing, veterinary services
for pets, and dental clinics.
Los Gatos,
Saratoga
management Services of the West Valley cities.
Santa Clara
County
Healthcare
Programs
Valley
Healthcare
team
Santa Clara
County
management,
transitional
housing, and
shelters in the
County
serve WV residents outside of those
jurisdictions
Santa Clara
County
housing and
support
services for
youth
Center cities, but services are offered to all
WV cities.
Los Gatos Hotel Voucher Program
In June 2023, the Town of Los Gatos Town Council approved $50,000 for unhoused services. Of
the $50,000, $10,000 was allocated to a shower ministry program, $20,000 towards a temporary
Table 2. Existing Programs and Services Overview
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 23
restroom and $20,000 for a hotel voucher program.
The program has provided 211 hotel nights booked during emergencies triggered by severe
weather conditions like extreme heat (100 degrees Fahrenheit), extreme cold (below 40 degrees
Fahrenheit), poor air quality (above 150 on the Air Quality Index), and/or medical situations
requiring a short-term stay. The hotel vouchers are only available to known members of the Los
Gatos’ homeless community. There are currently nineteen people on this known unhoused list
(14 have used the vouchers at places like Los Gatos Lodge, the Garden Inn, and the Best
Western). There have also been three qualifying “medical stays.”
Los Gatos Food Pantry, Clothing Closet, Laundry Voucher, and Showers
Los Gatos Methodist Church conducts a weekly outreach program on Thursdays from 2–3:30
PM at the church gym, offering showers, lunch, toiletries, and new socks and undergarments.
The program is primarily funded by the congregation and community donations, with the Town
of Los Gatos contributing funding to cover cleaning services for the showers. The program
serves 8–14 mostly senior, male regulars. St. Vincent de Paul provides laundry vouchers, and gift
cards to places like Subway and Togo's are also distributed.
Bill Wilson Cetner
The Bill Wilson Center (BWC) offers a range of services to the West Valley Cities,
including temporary housing, mental health care, supportive services, and advocacy, with a
focus on ending youth and family homelessness. They provide services to runaway and
homeless youth, young adults, and families, helping them develop self-confidence and personal
assets. The Bill Wilson Center provided services to 18 households affiliated with the West Valley
in 2024.
Abode
Abode is a major homeless services provider in the Bay Area and provides a variety of services,
including interim housing. Abode provided targeted street outreach services to 22 high
vulnerability individuals affiliated with the West Valley in 2024
Campbell Hotel Voucher Program
In December 2024, the City of Campbell City Council allocated $147,500 to the Silicon Valley
Independent Living Center (SVILC) to operate a hotel voucher program serving homeless
24 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
people. The two-year pilot program offers up to 30 nights a year in the city’s Motel 6 for
homeless individuals and families, as well as those on the verge of homelessness. In total, the
program could provide up to nine hundred overnight stays over the two-year period. SVILC will
provide support services during the stays, including mental health services, job support, case
management, referrals to substance abuse programs, and food.
Silicon Valley Safe Parking Program
The Silicon Valley Safe Parking Program (SVSP) partners with Amigos de Guadalupe, the City of
Campbell, and the City of San Jose, and operates in Campbell and Willow Glen/West San Jose.
The program provides rotating safe parking sites at local churches. Through a grant from the
City of Campbell, Amigos de Guadalupe offers a car repair program and gas cards. In addition, a
contract from the Santa Clara County’s OSH funds case management, workshops, community
meals, laundry cards, and free shower access. In addition to support services, such as referrals to
mental health and substance abuse programs, clients may receive assistance to pay for car
registration or minor car repairs.
Campbell Unhoused Specialist
The City of Campbell has a budgeted
Unhoused Specialist position that had been
filled throughout the first half of 2025 but was
recently vacated. The position is funded for the
next three years by a grant from Destination:
Home. The specialist proactively conducts
outreach in the streets and other publicly
accessible areas to connect individuals with
services and support. Key activities include
identifying homeless individuals, engaging in
conversations with them, and conducting a VI-
SPDAT intake survey to determine eligibility for
housing programs such as permanent
supportive housing, transitional housing, and
rapid rehousing. The specialist provides
information about available community
resources and services such as food pantries
and the shelter hotline phone number. They Figure 12. Hygiene Kit (Image credit: City of Campbell)
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 25
also distribute hygiene kits (soap, toothbrush, toothpaste, deodorant, shampoo, etc.), and has
bottles of water and other frequently needed supplies. The specialist also plays an important
role in providing feedback to City staff regarding the needs of homeless people in the
community.
Rotating Safe Car Park (RSCP)
The Rotating Safe Car Park operates in the West
Valley, mostly in Cupertino, West San Jose, and
Saratoga. The faith-based community commits
to serving up to sixteen vehicles for at least one
month and up to three months per calendar
year. Participants park overnight at the current
RSCP location and receive access to additional
supportive services. Each location offers a
hospitality hour where guests can socialize and
enjoy home-cooked meals or snack foods.
Personal items (e.g., socks, toothbrushes,
sleeping bags) are distributed, as needed.
Amigos de Guadelupe also provides case
management to some of the program
participants.
West Valley Community Services Programs
West Valley Community Services (WVCS) offers
services to Cupertino, Los Gatos, and Saratoga. WVCS has a mobile market which serves clients
living in Los Gatos, Saratoga, and West San Jose with barriers to transportation. The homeless
people in these communities can also receive ready-to-eat meals and fresh fruit or vegetables
from the mobile market. The organization offers pop-up dental and pet clinics at the WVCS site
in Cupertino. WVCS’s Haven to Home Program serves the homeless community by providing
supportive services and resources. The Haven to Home program offers homeless clients access
to food, bus passes, laundry funds, hygiene kits, shelter referrals, safe parking, and employment
resources. In addition to the services, the agency also partners with the Rotating Safe Car Park
to provide support services.
“It is a difficult and time-
consuming
to host safe parking sites.
Community members have
valid concerns. They can be
overcome, but it can take a
long time.”
Brian Link, Silicon Valley Safe Parking
26 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Santa Clara Valley Healthcare Homeless Healthcare Programs
The Valley Homeless Healthcare Program includes fixed location clinics and three mobile health
centers 30. This overall program operates at a much larger geography across Santa Clara County
that includes the West Valley cities. The Backpack Homeless Healthcare Program utilizes a
“street medicine” program to send trained professionals with medical supplies to provide
healthcare services to people where they are located 31. An after-hours nurse advice hotline is
also available.
Other agencies also provided services to households affiliated with the West Valley in 2024,
including emergency shelter beds. These include HomeFirst (125 households) LifeMoves (80
households), the Salvation Army (23 households), Family Supportive Housing - San Jose Family
Shelter (16 households), People Assisting the Homeless (9 households), and Willow Glen Studios
at Pedro Street interim housing (6 households), When available, the vast majority of emergency
shelter beds in the County are located within the City of San Jose, with additional shelter
locations in Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Gilroy, Santa Clara, and Palo Alto.
Systems and Supports
Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (CoC)
In 1995, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) introduced a new policy
requiring communities to submit a single application for McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Grants. This streamlined approach aimed at enhancing coordination among housing and service
providers on a local level and promotes the development of Continuums of Care (CoCs). By
mandating a single application, HUD sought to encourage a more structured and strategic
approach to both housing and service provision for homeless individuals. CoCs, in turn, offered
a strategic framework by providing homeless households with housing and services tailored to
their diverse needs. HUD distributes funding to Santa Clara County through the Continuum of
Care Program, and in turn, the Santa Clara County CoC distributes funding to programs serving
Santa Clara County.
30 Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. “Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP).” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://scvmc.scvh.org/hospitals-clinics/valley-homeless-health-care-program-vhhp.
31 Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. “Backpack Homeless Healthcare Program.” Accessed May 10, 2025.
https://scvmc.scvh.org/hospitals-clinics/valley-homeless-health-care-program-vhhp/backpack-homeless-healthcare-
program.
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 27
In Santa Clara County, the CoC is made up of a group of stakeholders committed to ending and
preventing homelessness in our community. CoC responsibilities include implementing
community-wide efforts to end homelessness and ensuring programmatic and systemic
effectiveness. Through CoC, the County has implemented a coordinated entry process to match
homeless people to community resources. The CoC is also charged with tracking and managing
homeless households in its area of coverage. This includes the biannual homeless counts
referred to as the Point-in-Time count.
In 2024, the County of Santa Clara received nearly $48 million in Continuum of Care grants to
provide rental subsidies and supportive services to vulnerable populations, including people
fleeing domestic violence, youth transitioning out of foster care, and to address homelessness
and those at risk of homelessness. These grants are the County’s largest source of federal
funding to address homelessness, ensuring people are housed and have necessary supportive
services. It also helps fund the HMIS system that tracks homelessness data.
Coordinated Entry
The coordinated entry system is designed to help homeless people find housing and support
services more efficiently. It creates a standardized, consistent process for accessing services,
assessing needs, prioritizing those most in need, and connecting people with appropriate
resources. In the County’s coordinated entry system, any homeless individual can complete a
standard assessment tool called the Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization Decision
Assessment Tool or VI-SPDAT. This assessment considers a household’s situation and identifies
the best type of housing program to serve you.
VI-SPDAT
VI-SPDAT (Vulnerability Index - Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool) is a survey used
to assess the needs and vulnerabilities of individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness. It
helps prioritize those most in need of available supportive, transitional, or permanent housing.
The VI-SPIDAT assessment is organized into steps. First, trained community partners conduct
the VI-SPIDAT assessment at shelters, support service locations, or while conducting outreach.
The gathered information is entered into the HMIS system, and the households/individuals
receive a vulnerability score. After receiving the vulnerability score, clients are placed in the
community queue, based on the score, for Rapid Rehousing (RR), Transitional Housing (TH), or
Public Housing and Supportive Services (PSH). Eligible households who are the most vulnerable
and the most in need will be connected to available housing programs first.
28 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
HMIS
HMIS is an acronym for Homeless Management Information System. It is a database that
collects and tracks data on homeless individuals and families or those at risk of becoming
homeless. HMIS coordinated entry gathers information on demographics, housing status,
service needs, and other relevant data points about individuals and families served by homeless
assistance programs. This database helps agencies coordinate services, track outcomes, and
improve the overall effectiveness of programs for homeless households. Participation in HMIS is
a federal requirement for agencies to access federal funding.
2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness
In 2015, community partners joined forces to create a roadmap for ending homelessness in
Santa Clara County. The plan centered around a collaborative response and the Housing First
model. The 2020-2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness, which was endorsed by every city
in the County, set an ambitious goal to create 6,000 new housing opportunities and identified
innovative strategies and programs for reducing homelessness. The 2020–2025 Community Plan
to End Homelessness, which serves as a roadmap for ending homelessness in Santa Clara
County, is organized around three main strategies:
1) Address the root causes of homelessness through system and policy change.
2) Improve the quality of life for unsheltered individuals and create healthy
neighborhoods for all.
3) Expand homelessness prevention and housing programs to meet the need.
An update to the Community Plan is underway, and additional information is expected to be
available around the time of publication of this report.
Destination: Home
Destination: Home, a public-private partnership, aims to end homelessness. Founded in 2008, it
emerged from a Blue-Ribbon Commission’s recognition of the need for a collaborative
approach to achieve collective impact in our community. In 2011, Destination: Home officially
became an initiative of the Health Trust and played a pivotal role in launching Housing 1,000, a
three-year campaign to house 1,000 of the most vulnerable chronically homeless individuals,
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 29
including men, women, and families. The
campaign’s success paved the way for the
adoption of a Housing First approach in Santa
Clara County and laid the foundation for the
2016 voter approval of a historic $950 million
investment in affordable housing in Santa Clara
County, Measure A. In 2017, Destination: Home
transitioned into a Supporting Organization
under the umbrella of the Silicon Valley
Community Foundation.
Destination: Home convenes and collaborates with stakeholders across our community to
advance strategies that address the root causes of homelessness and help ensure that all
community members have a chance for a stable home. The organization advocates policies,
develops ideas and programs, and invests in strategies that reduce and prevent homelessness.
West Valley Jurisdiction Homeless Services Collaboration
Since 2023, staff from the West Valley city’s Community Development and Housing
Departments have been meeting monthly to collaborate and share resources in addressing
homelessness and housing goals. The cities have collectively sponsored a housing fair, including
service providers with unhoused services, and have met with affordable housing developers to
discuss opportunities for development.
While there is a lack of dedicated homeless shelters in the vicinity of the five West Valley cities,
they have all agreed to collaborate on a feasibility study to explore the feasibility of a shelter
and other support services and programs that could be offered. A Memorandum of
Understanding among the five cities was developed in Fall of 2024. The cities also continue to
work with the County of Santa Clara and other organizations to provide resources and support.
Interviews and Insights of Homeless Individuals
Central themes from in-depth interviews with three homeless individuals in the West Valley area
are described below. Most of the individuals were raised in the West Valley area, while one had
moved to the Bay Area approximately three years prior. Note that these themes were all
“Not having housing is life
threatening.”
Local Homeless Resident
30 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
consistent with the conversations and interviews separately conducted by the Campbell
Unhoused Specialist in their interactions.
General Themes
• All expressed a notably elevated level of concern for others living on the street.
• All felt that broader community is not bothered by the existence of homeless
people within their own community, but that they are bothered when they must
see it.
Needs Identified by Homeless Individuals
A generally consistent set of needs was identified by the homeless individuals we spoke with.
Permanent housing was the top need, followed by several other needs, listed in approximate
order of priority:
• Permanent Housing (including permanent
supportive housing)
• Transportation access (specifically free or
discounted transit passes)
• Health care access (including doctors’
offices, pharmacy, and OTC meds)
• Lack of somewhere to safely store
possessions/things are regularly stolen
• Difficulty charging phones
• Difficulty of moving from one camping
site to another camping site
• Difficulty in participating processes to
address homelessness
Gap Analysis
A homeless services gap analysis is a tool used to identify unmet needs within a community's
system for addressing homelessness. It helps pinpoint areas where services are lacking or insufficient, allowing for better resource allocation and targeted interventions. It assesses the
current system and compares it to what is needed to effectively address homelessness.
“It is the government’s job
real solutions.”
Local Homeless Resident
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 31
Gaps in Services for Currently Homeless People
The gaps in service described below are informed by service providers and City and County staff
and an assessment of research and best practices. Most were also reinforced by conversations
held with homeless individuals.
Housing
Affordable housing, whether temporary or permanent, is a high need not just in the West
Valley, but throughout Santa Clara County and California. According to Destination:
Home, at least 75 percent of Santa Clara County’s homeless population are unsheltered.
This means they are living on the streets, in vehicles, tents or other places not suitable for
habitation. Although jurisdictions in the West Valley offer safe parking sites and hotel
stays, none of these are classified as transitional or permanent housing. Housing to serve
homeless households specifically includes the following:
Permanent affordable housing includes the construction of 100 percent affordable
developments, inclusionary units,, the provision of Section 8 vouchers, and the
rehabilitation of existing units to serve the extremely low-income. In addition, extremely
low-income (ELI) units can be provided in mixed-income housing developments.
Permanent supportive housing combines longer-term rental assistance with supportive
services and case management for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. In the
West Valley area there are presently six units of permanent supportive housing in
Cupertino and 23 that have been approved in Campbell.32
Temporary shelters, both congregate and non-congregate, include warming centers, cold
weather shelters, and shelters associated with navigation centers. Santa Clara County has
the largest total population of homeless individuals, the highest rate of unsheltered
homeless, and lowest shelter beds relative to individuals needing support of any of the
nine Bay Area counties. When shelter beds are available in other parts of the County,
barriers to connecting West Valley residents to those beds include transportation
challenges and the disruption of existing geographically rooted social, health, and
economic networks. Currently, the Town of Los Gatos offers hotel stays for inclement
32 County of Santa Clara, Office of Supportive Housing, Supportive Housing Development Update, January 28, 2025,
https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/exjcpb1571/2025-01/housing-bond-report-25.pdf.
32 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
weather to approximately 29 known unhoused individuals. The program has served 14
individuals over the last year. The City of Campbell recently started a hotel stay program,
which will offer up to 30 nights a year for unhoused individuals and families, as well as
those on the brink of homelessness. That could amount to as many as 900 overnight
stays over the two-year trial period. Silicon Valley Independent Living Center provides
support services during the stays, including mental health care, job support, connections
to housing programs, case management, substance abuse programs, and food.
Physically Coordinated Services
Service providers believe the homeless community could benefit from multiple service
providers being available at one location, whether it is a brick-and-mortar navigation
center like the San Mateo County Navigation Center or a mobile navigation center that
travels to various locations. Despite outreach workers’ best efforts, it is often more
effective for service providers to engage with households in their current living location
or encampments. Currently, physically coordinated navigation services are not available
in any of the West Valley jurisdictions.
Safety
Some people experiencing homelessness
may choose to sleep on the street instead
of in a shelter due to various factors,
including safety concerns, mental health
issues, and a preference for their routines
and independence. Shelters can feel
overwhelming due to crowded
environments, rules, and a perceived lack
of safety, even though sleeping on the
street may leave them more vulnerable.
Transience
Moving frequently is difficult for homeless people. They try to stay in areas where they
are comfortable living but are often asked to move by property owners or law
enforcement. This means that they must relocate several times a month or even during a
week. Moving can often be additionally destabilizing. This is a problem which will impact
“People steal stuff. They
will steal it right out from
asleep.”
Local Homeless Resident
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 33
nearly all unhoused individuals and families.
Transportation
Transportation has been mentioned multiple times by service providers as something
that is lacking for the West Valley unhoused. Often, major bus lines are only available
along the larger corridors. Transportation options are needed for the mobility-challenged
to access health care appointments and to access shelter opportunities. Interviews with
stakeholders and support service providers indicate that very few of the unhoused are
able to secure transit passes.
Healthcare, Mental Health, Substance Use Services
Many homeless people do not have access to sufficient medical, mental health, or
substance use services. Many service providers and homeless people who were
interviewed have expressed a need for bringing free dental and health care to homeless
people in addition to the mental health services and substance abuse programs offered
by support service providers.
Outreach and Case Management
Lighter-touch outreach reaching more individuals and more intensive casework were
identified as needs. There is a call for more coordinated case management at some
rotating safe parking sites and the faith-based service locations. This would mean a case
manager who works with the clients to put together comprehensive goals and plans to
secure housing and a job. This can be accomplished through a service provider like
Abode or Amigos de Guadalupe, a County Office of Supportive Housing (OSH) assigned
caseworker or through the mobile/brick and mortar navigation center. The case manager
would be able to provide the VI-SPDAT intake, which would not only provide
demographics to the County, but may lead to the individual receiving much-needed
services, including housing.
Connectivity
Often, homeless individuals need a means of communication to sign up for support
services. It can also be exceedingly difficult for homeless individuals to receive or submit
paperwork due to lack of access to a mailbox. Technology also plays an important role in
improving health and well-being. It can be used to reach out to loved ones, access
resources, and a way to access medical assistance. However, technology can often
34 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
exclude those at the greatest risk. Even for those with a smart phone, using websites to
apply for services can be difficult on a phone and some people who have been homeless
for an extended period of time may not have strong skills navigating complex websites.
California LifeLine offers low-cost and free monthly telephone services to eligible, low-
income California residents. Participants can qualify for the program if they receive public
benefits or meet household income limits, however, the phones must often be mailed to
a mailbox. Phones are also frequently lost, stolen, or broken. Additionally, access to
electricity to charge the phone is difficult and there are data limits on the devices.
Funding
The overall lack of funding to support the programs identified in this report is a central
challenge. Experts generally agree that homelessness prevention, extremely low-income
housing, and other programs and services have been underfunded for decades. The
current public funding context makes it even more challenging to sustain current levels
or strengthen such services.
Systems Gaps
Some gaps relate more to the system of services, knowledge, and logistics of connecting people
with services. These gaps are described below.
Knowledge Gaps
Existing available services provided by others are sometimes not known to other
providers. Similar gaps between public agencies and departments within a city
can also be an issue, e.g., coordination between housing and police departments
instead of a “whole of government” approach.
Scaling Impact
There remain questions regarding how to scale and make existing services more
effective and efficient at achieving impact instead of creating something new.
Geography
Location of available services: many services are located where people would be
required to travel long (or difficult) distances or to locations they do not want or
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 35
would have great difficulty in traveling to. This contrasts with an approach of
“meeting people where they are at” and offering services in a location where they
are more likely to be matched with those who need them.
Conclusion & Next Steps
Feasibility Analysis
In the next phase of this project, we will analyze the feasibility of programs to prevent
homelessness and serve homeless individuals and households. Some services may be
appropriate for one segment of the homeless population, but not another segment. Below is a
list and a brief explanation of the programs that are likely to be analyzed and discussed in detail
in the next phase. Some services respond directly to a need discussed above, while others
address multiple needs.
Permanent Affordable Housing
Permanent affordable housing can come in a multitude of varieties. For this
report, we are exploring permanent affordable housing that serves extremely low
income households by either construction of the units, provision of Section 8
vouchers, rehabilitation of existing units to serve the extremely low income. In
addition, Extremely Low Income (ELI) units can be provided in a mixed-income or
100 percent affordable housing development. These developments are highly
subsidized through a combination of municipal, Low Income Housing Tax Credits,
and commercial loans.
Interim Housing
Interim Housing, exemplified by Project Homekey, was a statewide effort to build on the
success of the COVID-era success of Project Roomkey, where the State of California
rented vacant rooms at hotels to house homeless people or those at risk of
homelessness. Homekey was an opportunity for jurisdictions to develop a broad range of
housing types by converting hotels, motels, hostels, single-family homes and multifamily
apartments, adult residential facilities, manufactured housing, and commercial properties
to permanent or interim housing for homeless households. It should be noted that the
program is being replaced by Homekey+ which is focused exclusively on Permanent
36 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Supportive Housing, not interim housing. Tiny home villages are another recognizable
form of interim supportive housing to address homelessness, providing a pathway to
stable housing and self-sufficiency. They focus on rapid construction of modular units,
offering private spaces with support services and case management.
Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing
Supportive housing and transitional housing are both housing options for
homeless individuals and families, but they differ in their goals and duration of
support. Transitional housing offers temporary housing with support services to
help people move to permanent housing within a set timeframe, while supportive
housing provides long-term affordable housing with ongoing support to help
residents maintain tenancy.
Rapid Rehousing
Rapid rehousing is often part of the low barrier approach which emphasizes
providing housing first paired with support services. Rapid rehousing typically
provides housing subsidies, heavy case management and support services.
Navigation Center
A Navigation Center for homeless individuals and households is a short-term,
low-barrier housing program that provides a safe, temporary place to stay, along
with intensive support services, to homeless individuals. It is designed to help
people transition to stable, permanent housing by offering resources such as case
management, connection to public benefits, health services, and employment
opportunities.
Shelters
Homeless shelters offer a range of options, from emergency shelters for
immediate needs to more long-term solutions. These include emergency shelters,
women's shelters, youth shelters, family shelters, cold weather shelters, and
warming centers. There are congregate, non-congregate types of shelters as well.
A congregate shelter is a type of emergency shelter that provides communal
spaces where individuals sleep in shared areas, offering minimal privacy. These
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 37
shelters are often established in large, open settings like schools, churches, or
community centers, designed for emergencies. A non-congregate
shelter provides private, individual, or family units for shelter, such as hotel
rooms, tiny homes, or apartments, instead of a large, shared space.
Safe Parking
Safe parking sites are sanctioned sites where individuals and families living in
their vehicles can register and park overnight. Support services like case
management and meals are sometimes offered as well. There are rotating
shelters where the location moves every 30 days, and shelters that are more
long-term and established.
Day Center
A day center is a facility that provides daytime support services to homeless
people, offering a safe space to access resources, receive assistance, and
potentially transition out of homelessness. Unlike shelters that offer overnight
accommodation, day centers focus on daytime services, such as meals, showers,
laundry, counseling, job training, and access to case managers. They serve as
drop-in centers and can be tailored to those with additional needs like substance
abuse or mental illness, providing a space to connect with services and support.
Showers and Laundry
Homeless households need a convenient location to bathe and do laundry. Often
this is a mobile shower and laundry service. Other times a fixed location, or
vouchers for laundromats or showers at gyms are provided.
Meals
Warm prepared meals can be provided to serve the unhoused. They are often
provided by service providers, community- based organizations, and grassroots
initiatives. Food pantries can also provide homeless individuals with packaged
food that can be eaten at a later time.
38 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Training for Law Enforcement Agencies
Many jurisdictions in California have programs that train law enforcement
personnel to handle situations involving homeless people. These programs often
focus on de-escalation tactics, mental health crisis intervention, and
understanding the underlying causes of homelessness. Some agencies have
designated officers who specialize in working with the homeless
population. These officers often receive specialized training, are familiar with local
resources, and aim to connect individuals with appropriate support.
Lockers
Some cities offer storage lockers for homeless individuals specifically in public
spaces such as libraries and community centers.
Transportation Support
Homeless individuals often need transportation that is convenient to access and
affordable. Free transit passes and vouchers for rides to doctor appointments,
etc., can also be provided.
Sanctioned Camping Sites
Sanctioned camping sites, also known as safe sleeping sites or safe stay
communities, are designated areas where homeless individuals can stay in tents
or other temporary shelters without fear of being arrested or cited for
camping. These sites often provide basic services like sanitation, food, and access
to case management.
Expanded Outreach and Casework
Broader proactive outreach efforts and more intensive casework have been
identified as a need. Outreach workers can identify and engage people over time,
which can eventually lead to connecting an individual with a caseworker or other
services. Expanding casework for homeless individuals could involve increasing
access to personalized, consistent support services that address both immediate
and long-term needs. This can be achieved by hiring and deploying trained case
managers with specialized knowledge in housing navigation, mental health, and
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 39
substance use treatment. Effective casework requires establishing and
maintaining trust which typically takes time and repeated engagement.
Connectivity
Additional support to help homeless people have access to phones, Wi-Fi,
charging, technology skills, and somewhere to receive physical mail could be
explored.
40 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
List of Materials Consulted and Supporting Documents
Baggett, Travis P., and Stefan G. Kertesz. “Addressing Unsheltered Homelessness—Time for an All-In Approach.” JAMA, vol. 330,
no. 18, November 14, 2023, pp. 1723–1724. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2830616.
Baggett, Travis P., James J. O’Connell, Jesse M. Yedinak, and Thomas J. Stopka. “Illicit Substance Use and Treatment Access
Among Adults Experiencing Homelessness.” JAMA 331, no. 12 (2024): 987–997. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.27922.
Bassuk, Ellen L., M. Beardslee, and J. Bassuk. “The Prevalence of Mental Illness in Homeless Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271536943.
Bay Area Council Economic Institute. Bay Area Homelessness: A Regional View of a Regional Crisis. San Francisco: Bay Area Council Economic Institute, June 2021. https://www.bayareaeconomy.org/files/pdf/HomelessnessReportJune2021.pdf.
Ben-Moshe, Leah Simon-Weisberg, and Janey Rountree. Five Trends in California Homelessness. Terner Center for Housing
Innovation, October 2023. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Five-Trends-in-CA-
Homelessness_Oct-2023-5.pdf.
Bielenberg, Joseph E., Maren Futrell, Benjamin Stover, and Annette Hagopian. “Presence of Any Medical Debt Associated With Two Additional Years of Homelessness in a Seattle Sample.” INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing 57 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0046958020923535.
California Department of Housing & Community Development. Addressing a Variety of Housing Challenges. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-and-research/addressing-variety-housing-challenges.
Clark, Robin E., Marguerite E. Tracy, William B. Whitmore, et al. “Infants Exposed to Homelessness: Health, Health Care Use, and
Health Spending from Birth to Age Six.” Health Affairs 38, no. 5 (2019): 721–728. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00090.
Community Solutions. “The Costs and Harms of Homelessness.” Accessed May 1, 2025. https://community.solutions/research-
posts/the-costs-and-harms-of-homelessness/.
Community Solutions. “The Costs and Harms of Homelessness: A Learning Brief Examining the Costs Borne by Individuals, Communities, Systems, and Society.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://community.solutions/research-posts/the-costs-and-harms-of-homelessness/.
County of Santa Clara, California. “County of Santa Clara Releases Preliminary Results of 2025 Point‑in‑Time Homeless Count.” County News Center, June 20, 2025. Accessed July 17, 2025. https://news.santaclaracounty.gov/county-santa-clara-releases-preliminary-results-2025-point-time-homeless-count
Desmond, Matthew. “Homelessness in US Cities and Downtowns.” Brookings, April 12, 2023.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/homelessness-in-us-cities-and-downtowns/.
Fazel, Seena, et al. “The Prevalence of Mental Illness in Homeless Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” The Lancet, vol. 379, no. 9810, 2012, pp. 220–227. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271536943_The_Prevalence_of_Mental_Illness_in_Homeless_Children_A_Systematic_Review_and_Meta-Analysis.
Finnigan, Ryan. “Five Recent Trends in Homelessness in California.” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. October
2023. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Five-Trends-in-CA-Homelessness_Oct-2023-5.pdf.
Freimarck, Annalise. “West Valley Cities Team Up to Consider Homeless Shelter.” San José Spotlight, April 19, 2025.
https://sanjosespotlight.com/west-valley-cities-campbell-cupertino-los-gatos-saratoga-monte-sereno-team-up-to-
consider-homeless-shelter/.
Fuller, Thomas. “San Jose Considers Arresting Homeless People Who Refuse Housing.” The New York Times, April 20, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/20/us/san-jose-homeless-arrest.html.
Gordon, Sophie. “Talking about homes: What we can learn from homelessness and poverty research” Frame Works UK https://frameworksuk.org/wp-content/uploads/talking_about_homes.pdf
NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT 41
Himmelstein, David U., Robert M. Lawless, Deborah Thorne, Pamela Foohey, and Steffie Woolhandler. “Medical Bankruptcy: Still Common Despite the Affordable Care Act.” American Journal of Public Health 109, no. 3 (2019): 431–433. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304901.
Housing California. “Causes of Homelessness.” Accessed May 1, 2025. https://www.housingca.org/policy/focus/causes/.
Karlinsky, Sarah. Structured for Success: Reforming Housing Governance in California and the Bay Area. SPUR, January 2024.
https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/SPUR_Structured_for_Success.pdf.
Kober, Eric. “The Bay Area: The Land of Many Jobs and Too Few Homes.” Manhattan Institute. Accessed May 10, 2025.
https://manhattan.institute/article/the-bay-area-the-land-of-many-jobs-and-too-few-homes.
Koseff, Alexei. “Homelessness Study Flips Commonly Held Beliefs About Causes.” The Mercury News, March 7, 2025. https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/03/07/study-california-homeless-drugs/.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. Homeless Mortality in Los Angeles County: CHIE Brief. Accessed May 1, 2025. http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/chie/reports/HomelessMortality_CHIEBrief_Final.pdf.
Love, Hanna, and Tracy Hadden Loh. “Homelessness in US Cities and Downtowns: The Perception, the Reality, and How to
Address Both.” Brookings Institution. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/homelessness-in-us-
cities-and-downtowns/.
Murran, Sarah, and Emma Brady. “How Does Family Homelessness Impact on Children’s Development? A Critical Review of the
Literature.” Child & Family Social Work 28, no. 2 (2023): 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12968.
National Health Care for the Homeless Council. “Premature Mortality in Homeless Populations.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://sbdww.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PrematureMortalityFinal.pdf.
National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Unsheltered Homelessness Associated with Increased Emergency Department Visits.” Accessed May 1, 2025. https://nlihc.org/resource/unsheltered-homelessness-associated-increased-emergency-department-visits.
Olivet, Jeff, et al., SPARC/Destination: Home. “Race and Homelessness In Santa Clara County, California.” January 31, 2020.
https://destinationhomesv.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/RacialEquityReport0131020.pdf?mc_cid=06a7865957&mc_eid=53a9a53ca3
Phillips, David, and James X. Sullivan. “Do Homelessness Prevention Programs Prevent Homelessness? Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial.” The Review of Economics and Statistics (2023). https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01344.
Powell, Alvin. “Why It’s So Hard to End Homelessness in America.” Harvard Gazette. January 2024. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/01/why-its-so-hard-to-end-homelessness-in-america/.
Reid, Carolina, Ryan Finnigan, and Shazia Manji. California’s Homekey Program: Unlocking Housing Opportunities for People
Experiencing Homelessness. Terner Center for Housing Innovation, March 2022. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2022/03/Homekey-Lessons-Learned-Final-March-2022.pdf.
Reid, Carolina. “On the Edge of Homelessness: The Vulnerability of Extremely Low-Income Households in the Bay Area.” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, December 2, 2021. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/edge-of-homelessness-extremely-low-income-bay-area/.
Reilly, Johanna, Angela Greenfield, Rebecca Gillam, and Peter L. H. Barrett. “A Systematic Review of the Effect of Stigma on the Health of People Experiencing Homelessness.” Health & Social Care in the Community 30, no. 6 (2022): 2128–2141. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13884.
Rhoades, Harmony; Wenzel, Suzanne; Rice, Eric; Winetrobe, Hailey; Henwood, Benjamin. “No Digital Divide? Technology Use
Among Homeless Adults
Riley, Elise D., Jennifer Cohen, Kelly Knight, et al. “Violence and Emergency Department Use among Community-Recruited Women Who Experience Homelessness and Housing Instability.” Journal of Urban Health. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7010900/#CR5.
Santa Barbara County Public Health Department. Premature Mortality Among the Homeless Population in Santa Barbara County. April 2011. https://sbdww.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PrematureMortalityFinal.pdf.
42 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2025
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. “Backpack Homeless Healthcare Program.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://scvmc.scvh.org/hospitals-clinics/valley-homeless-health-care-program-vhhp/backpack-homeless-healthcare-program.
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. “Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP).” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://scvmc.scvh.org/hospitals-clinics/valley-homeless-health-care-program-vhhp.
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. “Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP): Backpack Homeless Healthcare Program.”
Accessed May 1, 2025. https://scvmc.scvh.org/hospitals-clinics/valley-homeless-health-care-program-vhhp/backpack-
homeless-healthcare-program.
Shonkoff, Jack P., Andrew S. Garner, et al. “The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress.” Pediatrics 129, no. 1 (2012): e232–e246. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/129/1/e232/31628/.
State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development; https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-and-funding/homekey/program-background; Accessed April 28, 2025
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.hud.gov/.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Understanding Encampments of People Experiencing Homelessness and
Community Responses: Emerging Evidence as of Late 2018. Accessed May 10, 2025.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Understanding-Encampments.pdf.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Understanding Encampments of People Experiencing Homelessness and Community Responses: Emerging Evidence as of Late 2023. Office of Policy Development and Research, 2023. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Understanding-Encampments.pdf.
United States Census Bureau. “2023 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, American Community Survey (ACS).” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP05&g=160XX00US0610345,0617610,0644112,0648956,0670280.
Vohra, Neha, et al. “Homelessness and the Use of Emergency Department as a Source of Healthcare.” International Journal of
Emergency Medicine. https://intjem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12245-022-00435-3.
West Valley Homeless Services
Feasibility Study
Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno,
and Saratoga, and Town of Los Gatos
January 26, 2026
Prepared by:
Acknowledgements
West Valley Jurisdictions
City of Campbell: Rob Eastwood, Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Chris Miranda
City of Cupertino: Nicky Vu, Benjamin Fu
Town of Los Gatos: Joel Paulson, Katy Nomura
City of Monte Sereno: Diana Perkins
City of Saratoga: Bryan Swanson, Cindy McCormick
With Special Thanks to
County of Santa Clara, Office of Supportive Housing: Hilary Armstrong, Diana Castillo, Michelle
Covert, Laura Urteaga Fuentes, Kathryn (KJ) Kaminski, Tina La Perle, Leila Qureishi
Destination: Home: Ray Bramson
Good City Company
Nicholas Hamilton, AICP, Public Policy Lead
Aaron Aknin, AICP, Principal
Vera Gil, Housing Specialist
Cover image credits: Top left, bottom left: West Valley Community Services; top right, bottom
right: South County Community Services.
Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Homelessness Response Programs Summary ........................................................................... 6
Background ................................................................................................................................... 7
FEASIBILITY STUDY METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 7
SELECT FINDINGS OF NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT ........................................................................................................... 7
2025 POINT-IN-TIME HOMELESS COUNT .................................................................................................................... 9
Feasibility Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 11
HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE PROGRAMS OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 11
PREVENTION PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................................... 14
OUTREACH AND CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................................................................... 17
IMMEDIATE NEEDS PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................... 22
SHELTER AND PARKING PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................. 26
INTERIM AND TRANSITIONAL PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 30
PERMANENT HOUSING PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................. 32
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 33
List of Attachments .................................................................................................................... 42
ATTACHMENT A: HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE PROGRAMS – DETAILED METRICS TABLE
ATTACHMENT B:EXAMPLE HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE STRATEGY SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT C:EXAMPLE PRINTED RESOURCE HANDOUTS
ATTACHMENT D:NAVIGATION CENTER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY PHOTOS
ATTACHMENT E:WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT (JULY 24, 2025)
4 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
West Valley Homeless Services
Feasibility Study
Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno,
and Saratoga, and Town of Los Gatos
January 26, 2026
Executive Summary
The West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study analyzes potential policy and program
responses to address homelessness in the West Valley area, including the Cities of Campbell,
Cupertino, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno and the Town of Los Gatos. While homelessness is a
complex problem, investing in proven strategies can have considerable positive impact on
people experiencing homelessness and the community at large.
Key Recommendations
1. Adopt a formal implementation plan: Develop and adopt a West Valley Area
homelessness response implementation plan that includes an aspirational vision, clear
goals and objectives, programs tailored to population segments, plans for near- and
long-term outcomes, and leverages existing programs.
2. Sustain and strengthen what works: Use the tools available to local governments to
ensure the continuation of existing services with a proven track record, including
homelessness prevention and expanding affordable housing.
3. Prioritize additional investments in programs with high feasibility and impact.
These include homelessness prevention and rental assistance; case management; rapid
rehousing; permanent affordable housing; health and mental health care; food, showers,
and laundry; opportunity funds; and reunification programs.
FEASIBILITY STUDY 5
4. Cultivate partnerships at all levels: Deploy a “whole of society approach” to engage
governments, the private sector, civil society, individuals, and communities. Establish a
formal West Valley homelessness response task force to set goals and monitor progress.
5. Engage with people who have experienced homelessness: Identify ways for
individuals who have experienced homelessness to meaningfully participate in program
design, implementation, and evaluation.
6. Align with the Community Plan to End Homelessness: Demonstrate alignment with
the plan’s goals to address the root causes of homelessness, improve the quality of life
for unsheltered individuals, create healthy neighborhoods for all, and expand
homelessness prevention and housing programs.
7. Identify funding: Explore creative funding approaches to support homelessness
response programs.
8. Support neighborhood health, safety, and cleanliness: Address quality-of-life issues
for the entire community.
6 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Homelessness Response Programs Summary
The Feasibility Study categorizes the overall program landscape into six categories:
homelessness prevention, outreach and case management, immediate needs, shelter and
parking, interim and transitional housing, and permanent housing. When implemented specific
programs may span multiple categories or may be more narrowly tailored than the general
program typologies presented here. A summary of a potential homelessness response
environment for the West Valley area is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Homeless Response Programs Summary
Homeless Prevention
Homelessness Prevention & Rental Assistance
Tenant Protections
Opportunity Fund & Reunification
Hotlines and Information
Outreach & Case Management
Case Management
Health, Mental Health & Substance Care
Navigation Centers
Outreach
Mobile Navigation Centers
Job Training
Law Enforcement Coordination
Immediate Needs
Food, Showers & Laundry
Safe Storage
Transportation
Neighborhood Health & Cleanliness
Safe Sleeping and Sanitation
Phone, Internet, & Mail
Shelter & Parking
Temporary Shelter
Safe Parking
Hotel Vouchers/ Rentals
Interim & Transitional Housing
Rapid Rehousing
Transitional Housing
Interim Sites
Permanent Housing
Affordable Housing Development (Including Permanant Supportive Housing)
FEASIBILITY STUDY 7
Background
Following a brief description of the Feasibility Study methodology and an overview of the key
findings from the Needs Analysis report, this document provides an analysis of the feasibility of
several potential expanded service options and a set of additional strategy and policy
recommendations and options.
Feasibility Study Methodology
The Feasibility Study relies upon interviews with key stakeholders, a review of existing
homelessness response plans, and is complemented by insights on best practices and other
research. More than thirty-five interviews with service providers, public agency representatives,
subject matter experts, and currently unhoused individuals were conducted as part of the
needs analysis and feasibility study phases of this project. Additional community input was
received during the August 4, 2025, Campbell City Council Meeting regarding the needs
analysis.
Select Findings of Needs Analysis Report
The West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study builds directly upon the needs and gaps
identified in the associated Needs Analysis report, which is attached to this study and available
on the City of Campbell’s website 1. Both phases of the project were developed following the
City of Campbell’s allocation of $100,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to conduct
a homeless needs analysis and feasibility study for the West Valley area. In December 2024, the
City contracted with Good City Company to conduct a needs analysis and feasibility study, and
in Spring 2025, the West Valley jurisdictions entered into a memorandum of understanding,
recognizing that homelessness is a regional challenge and best addressed collaboratively.
The Needs Analysis report summarized the status of homelessness in the West Valley area
using available quantitative data, a literature review, and outcomes of interviews with key
stakeholders. Key findings of the needs analysis:
• Homelessness is a serious problem: At least 524 individuals across 322 households
were counted as unhoused in the West Valley area in 2024. About 40% of the
1 West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study - Needs Analysis Report. City of Campbell, California, July 24, 2025.
https://www.campbellca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08042025-3124#page=228.
8 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
population (214) sought shelter or services for the first time in 2024 while 51% have
been unhoused for two or more years.
• Homelessness is not one size fits all: While there are many unhoused individuals who
visibly live on the street, there is also a large population who are living in their cars or in
transitory sleeping arrangements that are hidden and not visible.
• Families and youth: At least 38% of the unhoused population in the West Valley area
consists of unaccompanied youth and families with children.
• Homelessness affects us all: Homelessness impacts all members of the community, not
just those who are unhoused. The effects on housed residents, the economy, and local
government services are substantial.
• Services and housing work: Permanent housing is critical and saves funds in the long
run, although expensive and time-consuming up front. Immediate services can be as
important as housing.
The Needs Analysis report also provides an overview of the state of homelessness today,
analysis of policy context, quantitative needs analysis, description of existing programs,
services, a gap analysis, conclusions, and an extensive list of resources and materials consulted.
Key gaps are identified below. The Needs Analysis report provides a detailed assessment of
gaps in services and programs.
• Affordable permanent housing
• Shelter capacity and location
• Interim housing and safe parking
• Case management and outreach capacity
• Healthcare, mental health, and substance use
• Other: Safety, Geography, Transportation, Connectivity, Secure Belongings
A high-level summary of the existing services in the West Valley area is provided in the table
below. Please see the Needs Analysis report for additional information regarding each of the
programs noted in the table.
FEASIBILITY STUDY 9
Service Type Jurisdiction Served Annually
Cupertino 75
Campbell, Los Gatos, Saratoga 22
Saratoga, Campbell, Los Gatos 25
Campbell 133
Los Gatos 14
Campbell 12 (see notes)
Campbell 20 (13/night)
Saratoga, Cupertino 20
Los Gatos (29) 29
Countywide Temporary Housing
and Services for Youth
Countywide Homeless Healthcare
Programs
Table 1. Existing Homelessness Response Services Summary. Notes: descriptions of the services are included in the Needs Analysis
report and summarized in the homelessness response programs descriptions in the following feasibility analysis section.
Campbell’s new inclement weather hotel voucher program was used for a total of 57 individual room nights by approximately 12
clients during its initial six-week operation. *In some cases, a couple or family with dependents are considered a single client in
the data available.
2025 Point-in-Time Homeless Count
The 2025 Point-in-Time (PIT) Count, conducted by volunteers and coordinated by OSH, was
carried out on the mornings of January 22 and 23, 2025, with the countywide PIT numbers
being released in June 2025. The count shows that the number of people experiencing
homelessness rose by 8.2% when compared to the 2023 PIT count. The number of unhoused
individuals in Santa Clara County has risen from 9,903 in 2023 to 10,711 in 2025. This trend of
increasing homelessness aligns with the observations made by the County of Santa Clara Office
of Supportive Housing and County homelessness experts over the past few years. The Bay Area
continues to experience an increase in people entering homelessness compared to those
exiting. Factors such as the limited availability of affordable housing, wage disparities, and
10 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
structural inequalities (poverty, wealth inequality, stigmatization) all contribute to
homelessness in the Bay Area, including in Santa Clara County.
The table below compares the 2025 PIT count totals for each of the five West Valley
jurisdictions to the 2023 PIT count numbers, along with the corresponding increase or
decrease. Only the Town of Los Gatos saw a decrease in the number of unhoused. Other
jurisdictions, such as Cupertino and Saratoga, have seen a measurable increase in the number
of unhoused individuals, while the City of Campbell has seen a 15% increase.
Jurisdiction 2023 PIT Count 2025 PIT Count % Increase
92 108 15%
48 101 52%
81 27 -200%
0 0 0%
0 19 100%
Table 2. 2025 and 2023 Point-in-Time Counts
Statewide, preliminary data shows that the number of unhoused individuals has decreased by
4.3%, with a 4% decrease in total homelessness and a 9.5% reduction in unsheltered
homelessness. Results vary by region; as mentioned earlier, Santa Clara County saw an 8.2%
increase from 2023 to 2025, while Sonoma County reported a 22.6% decrease.
FEASIBILITY STUDY 11
Feasibility Analysis
Homelessness Response Programs Overview
The overall program landscape is broken into six categories in this study: homelessness
prevention, outreach and case management, immediate needs, shelter and safe parking,
interim and transitional housing, and permanent housing. The following sections describe the
categories, and the potential services provided within each. The following sections describe the
categories, and the potential services are provided within each.
Each potential program is ranked with a feasibility score and an impact score as indicated in
the table below. The impact score is a composite of three indicators: scale of the current gap,
short-term impact, and long-term impact. The feasibility score is a composite of five indicators:
cost savings, cost, external funding likelihood, level of difficulty to implement, and the level of
established implementation partnerships. In addition to the composite scores in the table
below, a detailed table including each program and indicator is included as an attachment.
12 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Programs by Type Impact Score Feasibility Score
Prevention
Outreach & Case Management
Immediate Needs
Shelter & Parking
Interim & Transitional
Permanent Housing
Table 3. Homeless Response Programs and Scores by Program Type
FEASIBILITY STUDY 13
The diagram below provides graphic representation of each of the potential programs
organized by its respective impact score and feasibility score. Programs with a higher feasibility
score are in the greener shaded columns toward the right-hand side. Programs with a higher
impact score are in the greener shaded rows toward the top.
Figure 2. Homelessness Response Programs Matrix by Impact and Feasibility Scores
14 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Prevention Programs
Prevention Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Programs Impact Score Feasibility Score
Figure 3. Prevention Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Prevention programs provide financial aid and support services to individuals and families at
risk of losing housing to avoid homelessness and its negative impacts. Services often include
one-time rent or utility assistance, help with move-in costs such as security deposits, legal
assistance for evictions, and referrals to other community resources. These programs provide
stability and prevent long-term homelessness.
Homeless Prevention and Rental Assistance
Homeless prevention programs assist those at risk of becoming homeless. This can
come in the form of emergency rental assistance to help the tenants meet their rent for
a short period of time, help with moving costs and rental payments to move to a more
affordable unit , and free legal assistance for evictions The Santa Clara County
Homelessness Prevention System (HPS) program assists low-income families or
individuals who are at risk of losing their housing in the form of flexible rental
assistance, case management, legal services, and other support services through a
network of approximately twenty community-based providers.
Free or low-cost tenant legal services are also available throughout Santa Clara County
to help with impending or wrongful evictions. Project Sentinel, the Law Foundation of
Silicon Valley. Bay Area Legal Aid, and the Santa Clara County Superior Court Self-Help
Center offer these services to eligible tenants. However, resources are limited and not
sufficient to meet the needs.
FEASIBILITY STUDY 15
Opportunity Fund and Reunification
An Opportunity fund would allow for “just-in-time” small grants to unhoused individuals
or families for rental application fees, bus or airline fare for family reunification, gas
money, or a hotel night stay. The ability for a case manager, service provider, or agency
to use such funds was raised by several stakeholders as an important resource. It is
important that the funding be easily accessible and that there be established rules for
the use of the funds and disbursement. The South Bay Cities Council of Governments in
Los Angeles County successfully established a similar fund allowing local jurisdictions to
help with small costs. Jurisdictions could create their own fund, administered by a non-
profit, or participate in a similar program funded by the County of Santa Clara and
administered by the Bill Wilson Center called the Here4You hotline. Interested
jurisdictions could provide funding to the Here4You hotline specifically for its residents
and specific situations.
Hotlines and Information
Many communities maintain homelessness hotlines and publish online and printed
informational resource guides with phone numbers, websites, and physical locations of
available services printed. The Here4You hotline matches callers to emergency shelters,
including transportation to the shelters. In addition to referrals for openings at
emergency shelters, the staff will also help those seeking rental assistance by directing
them to additional Homeless Prevention Services in the Santa Clara County region. The
Here4You hotline can be accessed at (408) 385-2400. from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM, seven
days a week. The Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System maintains a
county-wide website, https://preventhomelessness.org, and flyer, as well as a centralized
hotline for accessing services (408) 516-5100. An example of their flyer is included as an
attachment to this document.
The United Way of Santa Clara County also offers assistance through its Emergency
Assistance Network (EAN), which brings together local nonprofits to deliver coordinated
support for those facing urgent needs. The Emergency Assistance Network (EAN)
provides a variety of services to prevent homelessness and act as a safety net for
residents facing eviction, utility disconnection, and hunger. The EAN helps families and
individuals recover from emergencies, often providing case management and financial
education along with referrals for food, rent and mortgage assistance, utility assistance,
medical, and transportation aid. The network refers people to the closest local agency
16 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
based on zip code, ensuring faster, more personal support. The United Way leads this
collaborative network by coordinating fundraising and advertising the program. Four of
the West Valley cities use West Valley Community Services (WVCS) as the network
coordinator while Campbell’s network coordinator is Sacred Heart Community Services.
Tenant Protections
Tenant protections are tools cities can use to prevent homelessness. Several Bay Area
jurisdictions go above and beyond the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB
1482) and the State Density Bonus Law to provide protections. The California Tenant
Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) is a statewide law that limits annual rent increases to
5% plus the regional CPI (or 10% maximum) and requires a landlord to have "just cause"
to evict tenants after one year of tenancy. The law applies to most properties in
California but has several exemptions, including newly built housing (under 15 years
old), single-family homes owned by individuals, and owner-occupied duplexes or units.
The Cities of Redwood City, Mountain View, and San Jose all have tenant protection ordinances
or programs, which provide displaced tenants with relocation assistance if the tenant is of low
or very low income. The programs are all administered by city staff with additional contracts
with relocation specialists, who interview the tenants and decide the relocation benefits. The
costs for relocation benefits are paid for by the property owner or developers, and the cities
usually have housing staff administer the program. These tenant protections have been
successful and prevent homelessness in these cities by providing relocation for displaced
tenants. The tenants are assisted by relocation specialists who provide them with a list of
available units and assist the displaced tenants in securing relocation funds from the property
owners displacing them.
FEASIBILITY STUDY 17
Outreach and Case Management Programs
Outreach & Case Management Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Programs Impact Score Feasibility Score
Figure 4. Outreach and Case Management Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Outreach programs connect with individuals experiencing homelessness in the community to
assess their needs, while case management provides personalized support, goal planning, and
referrals to services like shelter, housing, healthcare, and benefits. Outreach teams engage and
build trust with unhoused individuals, often those living in unsheltered locations, to link them
to the broader coordinated system and essential resources, while case managers then work
with those individuals to develop a plan, set goals for finding employment and housing, and
achieving self-sufficiency.
Permanent housing has long been seen as the best way to end homelessness. Methods of
providing permanent housing can be found in the permanent housing section of this report.
Case management is a core component of homelessness prevention and is discussed in the
outreach and case management programs section below.
Case Management
Case management helps unhoused people and families by providing individualized
support and resources to achieve housing stability. The case manager works with the
unhoused client to set goals with the ultimate aim of being housed. This means they
may work with individual clients on employment opportunities, mental health stability,
addiction recovery, etc. Currently, the West Valley cities rely primarily on “soft-touch”
case management from West Valley Community Services, services provided by Amigos
de Guadalupe (funded by OSH) at safe car parking sites, and some housing focused case
management from OSH at certain faith-based locations during the housing screening
process. The City of Campbell’s Unhoused Specialist performed outreach to the
Campbell unhoused population and was able to perform some additional services that
18 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
bridged into what would typically be considered be case management for
approximately twenty individuals, including HMIS data entry for any unhoused person
interested. There is no proactive plan to provide case management and support services
to unhoused individuals or families living on the streets.
Healthcare, Mental Health, and Substance Care
Access to health and dental care remains a high need for unhoused people and families
in the West Valley cities. Santa Clara Valley Healthcare provides health services to
unhoused individuals through its Valley Homeless Health Care Program (VHHP). While
Santa Clara Valley Healthcare services are available to unhoused people who can travel
to physical clinic locations located outside the West Valley area, the VHHP has not
recently served any of the West Valley cities through their mobile health care or
backpack health care programs. The VHHP program presently serves Sunnyvale, Santa
Clara, Mountain View, South County, and San Jose. Mobile clinics include custom
vehicles that are brought to a designated site according to a fixed schedule, such as the
first Saturday of each month, and can be paired with pop-ups of other service providers
to form the backbone of a mobile navigation center concept. There may be an
opportunity for interested cities to contact the VHHP and OSH to request services for
individuals or develop plans for more robust mobile or backpack health care programs
to serve the West Valley area. A once-a-week visit to one or two specific sites may
provide effective support to the unhoused populations in the West Valley.
Navigation Center
Navigation centers are typically physical locations where trained staff provide case
management, centralized services, and transitional housing units or other forms of non-
permanent housing are located. The case management provided is not just for the
transitional housing residents living on-site but is also made available for “walk-in”
clients. The goal is to provide a location where the unhoused client can receive case
management and access other resources and support services in one place. They could
receive food, help with applying for benefits, showers, and do laundry. Navigation
centers are also sometimes paired with other types of places for people to sleep, such as
indoor or outdoor safe sleeping sites, safe parking facilities, etc. Some communities in
California have created navigation centers by either purchasing and rehabbing existing
buildings, rehabbing underutilized public buildings, or through new construction.
FEASIBILITY STUDY 19
• The San Mateo County Navigation Center, located in Redwood City is a recent
example of a new construction navigation center. The center can house up to 260
people, either families or individuals, and cost about $57M to construct. All
rooms are non-congregate, meaning families and individuals have access to
private sleeping quarters, most with private bathrooms. Residents can also bring
pets to the center and have access to a garden. The County of San Mateo
believes this is their first step to achieving “functional zero” homelessness. The
County of San Mateo defines functional zero as every unsheltered homeless
person in San Mateo County who chooses assistance can be sheltered in an
emergency shelter or in temporary or permanent housing. The center offers
dental services, medical services, case management and access to laundry.
Outreach Services
Homeless outreach involves skilled teams who meet people living in unsheltered
locations to build trust and connect them with essential services like shelter, housing,
healthcare, and counseling. Outreach workers assess individual needs, provide survival
aid, and guide individuals through the process of obtaining benefits and finding
permanent housing. Typically, outreach workers do not provide the level of detailed
case work that an assigned case manager provides. For example, the City of San Jose
contracts with PATH and HomeFirst for outreach within its borders, OSH contracts with
the Bill Wilson Center and Abode for countywide outreach and the City of Campbell
Unhoused Coordinator provided outreach services in Campbell.
Mobile Navigation Center
Mobile navigation centers are focused on providing immediate, accessible resources
such as hygiene and outreach. They act as a stepping stone to the more comprehensive
services available at a brick-and-mortar navigation center, with the specific services
offered ranging from limited to more extensive. They can come in the form of a
“resource fair” where several service providers gather in a parking lot of a faith-based
organization or a community center and provide laundry facilities, showers, food, health,
dental, veterinary services, and case managers or a retrofitted vehicle, similar to a food
truck, that travels to different sites and provides case management, showers, laundry
and food.
20 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
• South County Community Services provides services for unhoused people and
families at its Church Street Gilroy location, such as a food pantry and laundry
facility. They also provide unhoused people and families with a permanent
mailing address at their facility. They do not accept packages and require
unhoused people to sign a liability release, but it will provide unhoused clients
with a mailing address for benefits and correspondence. In addition, once a
month, the facility hosts a
resource fair for unhoused
people and families where they
can access essential services
such as case management, food,
laundry, showers, and health
services. The South County
Community Services program
costs about $925,000 a year to
operate and receives financial
support from the County of
Santa Clara of $725,000 in the
form of grants.
Job Training
Job training programs for people experiencing homelessness provide skills for stable
employment and offer wraparound support for success, addressing challenges like gaps
in employment and negative employer stereotypes. Programs include vocational
training, apprenticeships, and transitional jobs, and are usually offered by government
agencies and nonprofits like the Salvation Army, Destination: Work, the State CalFresh
Employment Training program, and some local nonprofits. Training covers job readiness,
soft skills, resume building, and interview preparation, often alongside life skills such as
financial literacy, and is most effective when combined with housing and other support
services.
Law Enforcement Coordination
Although many Santa Clara County law enforcement agencies currently receive crisis
intervention and de-escalation training, it is important that cities continue to support
Figure 5. Popup food distribution (image credit: South County
Community Services)
FEASIBILITY STUDY 21
the partnership among law enforcement, mental health service agencies, and homeless
response agencies to handle interactions with individuals experiencing homelessness,
including mental health crises. Many cities have found it particularly helpful to form
interagency task forces that include law enforcement, public works, parks and
recreation, and housing staff to meet quarterly to discuss challenges and successes in
the fight to eliminate homelessness. Other jurisdictions assign officers as designated
homeless outreach officers to work directly with unhoused people after they have
received specialized training.
22 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Immediate Needs Programs
Immediate Needs Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Programs by Type Impact Score Feasibility Score
Figure 6. Immediate Needs Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Immediate needs response programs provide short-term assistance to help individuals and
families facing homelessness or a housing crisis overcome a temporary barrier, offering
services like temporary shelter, food, storage for belongings, transportation assistance, access
to internet service or a cell phone, showers, and laundry services. Emergency warming and
cooling centers are discussed in the subsequent shelter and parking section.
Food, Showers, and Laundry
Food distribution is one of the oldest programs provided to people experiencing
homelessness and is provided in the area by service providers and volunteer groups,
including faith-based community groups. Showers and laundry services for unhoused
people are essential for restoring dignity, improving hygiene, and positively impacting
mental health. These services are typically provided by non-profits through stationary
drop-in centers and mobile units like WeHope's Dignity on Wheels, which travel to
different locations. Project WeHope, currently has contracts with the cities of Sunnyvale
and Santa Clara to provide not only portable showers and laundry service, but case
management, and overnight hotel stays during inclement weather, Overall, the City of
Sunnyvale has budgeted about $900 thousand a year for these services, while the City of
Santa Clara has budgeted $850 thousand to serve slightly fewer people. Many faith-
based communities in the West Valley cities currently offer showers and laundry facilities
to unhoused people as part of their homeless services programs, specifically, in the town
of Los Gatos. They rely on donations from the congregation and volunteer assistance
with minimal cost to the town. Some communities include mobile shower and laundry
services with homeless services pop-ups or mobile navigation center schedules. Other
communities have also installed temporary or semi-permanent toilet facilities.
FEASIBILITY STUDY 23
Safe Storage
Safe storage facilities or lockers have been provided in some California communities as
a way of offering dignity and compassion to unhoused people.
• For example, the City of Burbank uses a combination of Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) and special measure funding to provide a safe storage
location for unhoused people. The program is run by the Salvation Army and
uses plastic rolling bins similar to recycling carts to store the belongings for
unhoused people. The facility is open daily from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM and serves
about 40 unhoused individuals at any given time.
• Madison, Wisconsin, provides lockers scattered throughout the city in groups of
4-10 lockers. The City pays the provider $10,000 to purchase the lockers and the
provider works with local businesses to place the lockers on their property.
Transportation
Public transportation is underprovided for the West Valley unhoused. Often, major bus
lines are only available along the larger corridors. Transportation options are needed for
people with mobility-challenges to access health care appointments and to access
shelter opportunities. Interviews with stakeholders and support service providers
indicate that very few of the unhoused people can secure transit passes on their own.
• One potential solution is the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Mobile
Assistance Program (MAP). MAP is designed to address transportation gaps and
barriers for Santa Clara County’s older adults, individuals with disabilities, and
low-income residents. The program aims to enhance access to employment,
education, travel training, healthcare, and essential support services while
encouraging public transit use and healthy living. The program provides direct
transportation resources (through partnerships with local community
organizations. These resources include transit and paratransit fares and gas
vouchers. Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) and Catholic Charities
are two of the community organizations that have been working with VTA to
provide these transit resources to those in need. If these organizations are
working with any of the West Valley cities, the possibility of partnering with these
organizations to assist unhoused people with transportation needs exists.
24 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Neighborhood Health and Cleanliness
In July 2024, the Supreme Court sided with Grants Pass in the case Grants Pass v.
Johnson. Previously, in many western states, including California, cities were unable to
remove encampments in many circumstances (e.g., without providing an equal number
of shelter beds). Following this case, many cities, including San Jose and San Francisco,
are beginning to clear encampments, and other cities along the peninsula are beginning
to implement policies on when encampments should be cleared and how much notice
should be provided. Typically, at least 72 hours of notice is provided to encampment
residents when a site is going to be cleared, unless it is close to a sensitive area, such as
a river or creek, in which case less notice may be given. Costs for clearing encampments
vary based on the area and items being cleared.
Efforts to clear, prevent, and manage San Jose’s homeless encampments cost the city
and partner agencies almost $8.6 million in 2019, according to a report entitled,
“Exploring Homelessness Among People Living in Encampments and Associated Costs,”
published in February 2020. The report analyzed spending in four cities, including San
Jose, and found that clearing encampments is a major undertaking for cities and can be
quite costly.
In addition to encampment cleanups,
some cities have hired service providers
that employ unhoused people to
ensure that the city streets are clean
and safe. These service providers make
sure used needles and garbage are
kept off the streets and waterways. The
program services two purposes, it helps
formerly homeless individuals by
providing employment, while making
sure the streets and waterways remain
clean and safe. Other cities have
provided free toilets and trash services
to promote cleanliness, sanitation, and
public health.
Figure 7. Prefabricated free public restroom in Redwood City
(image credit: Good City Company)
FEASIBILITY STUDY 25
Safe Sleeping and Sanitation
Safe sleeping sites are sanctioned tent encampments that provide tents and services for
unhoused residents, these are sometimes referred to as safe tent or designated camping
sites. These typically have a low barrier for entry and require unhoused individuals or
families to agree to be good neighbors and abide by certain rules, such as no alcohol or
drugs. Cities, such as San Jose and Santa Cruz, have navigation centers or other jointly
located services adjacent to or at safe sleeping sites to assist in transitioning unhoused
people into shelters or transitional housing. The navigation centers also assist with
helping unhoused people secure services such as Social Security benefits, Veterans
benefits, health care, food, and sanitary services. Tents and sanitary facilities are
provided onsite at most sites, but there are a few sites nationwide that allow unhoused
people to bring their own tent.
• The City of San Jose recently opened its first safe sleeping site. Initial costs are
estimated at $2.4 million per year to operate. This includes services such as
security, meals, showers, laundry, case management, and garbage collection for
its 56 tents. In addition to locations where tents are pitched outdoors, some cities
have facilities located in permanent structures, such as an armory or vacant
commercial building, or temporary structures, such as a sprung structure (large
event-style tent).
Phone, Internet, and Mail
Mobile phones are necessary for people experiencing homelessness as they provide a
lifeline for accessing crucial services, staying in contact with support systems, ensuring
personal safety, and improving overall well-being. California LifeLine offers low-cost and
free monthly telephone services to eligible, low-income California residents. Participants
can qualify for the program if they receive public benefits or meet household income
limits. However, the phones must often be mailed to a mailbox. Phones are also
frequently lost, stolen, or broken. Additionally, access to electricity to charge the phone
is difficult, and there are data limits on the devices. A common barrier is the unhoused
person must often have a mailing address to receive the phone. Local libraries also offer
computer and internet access.
26 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Shelter and Parking Programs
Shelter & Parking Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Programs by Type Impact Score Feasibility Score
Figure 8. Shelter and Parking Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Emergency shelters and safe parking programs both provide temporary shelter to unhoused
people. An emergency shelter provides a temporary indoor place to sleep, offering beds,
bathrooms, and meals, typically for individuals or families facing homelessness due to weather
or other reasons. A safe parking program offers a designated, monitored outdoor lot for
people living in their vehicles, providing safety from vehicle break-ins and access to basic
amenities and supportive services to help them transition to stable housing. While shelters
offer more structured spaces, safe parking programs focus on providing a stable and secure
place to park overnight and access services.
Temporary Shelters
Temporary shelters can be provided in a range of forms, both congregate and non-
congregate. These can also include warming and cooling centers, cold weather shelters,
domestic violence shelters, and shelters associated with navigation centers.
• Warming and cooling centers are facilities that are temporarily made available to
the general public during extreme temperature conditions. Centers are not
overnight shelters. They are open for a limited number of hours and for a limited
number of days and provide limited services. They can be provided in libraries,
community centers, and other public buildings that have heat or air conditioning
and are only activated during extreme heat or during extreme winter storms.
There is little cost to activate these shelters except for staffing and food costs.
• Cold-weather shelters can be provided in public buildings such as community
centers and underutilized public facilities. These are typically for the duration of
the winter and provide unhoused people with safe and warm sleeping facilities.
Typically, the unhoused people arrive in the early evening and may be provided
with dinner, shower facilities, and warm bedding. The facilities are almost always
congregate in nature. In the morning, the unhoused people leave the facility and
return to work or find a place to spend the daytime hours. In some cases,
FEASIBILITY STUDY 27
breakfast and laundry facilities may be provided. HomeFirst, operated through an
OSH grant, provides cold weather shelter in Mountain View. The site provides
services from November through April, serving women and families and works in
conjunction with the Hope’s Corner program which provides meals, showers and
laundry to a broader unhoused population. The cold weather shelter is supported
by a grant from OSH and costs about $60,000 a year to run out of the Trinity
United Methodist Church.
• Overnight warming locations are similar to cold weather shelters. However, they
are set up every evening and broken down the following morning, allowing the
locations to serve a different purpose during the day. For example, HomeFirst has
partnered with the City of San Jose, San Jose Public Libraries, and San Jose Parks
and Recreation to offer Overnight Warming Locations (OWLs) across San Jose.
These sites activate in November and close in April. The City has a contract with
HomeFirst to provide the overnight staffing, bedding, and clean-up. These
services are not currently being provided in the West Valley cities.
• Congregate shelters are temporary housing facilities where people sleep in
shared or communal spaces, providing little to no individual privacy. All shared
spaces are communal as well. These shelters have fallen out of favor with
homeless service advocates because many unhoused prefer moderate privacy
and protection for their belongings. Examples of congregate shelters in Santa
Clara County include the HomeFirst Boccardo Reception Center and HomeFirst
Gilroy Shelter, which serve hundreds of adults with a bed, shower, and meals in a
shared living environment. These sites offer case management, housing problem-
solving, including the exploration of family reunification, and housing search
assistance.
• Non-congregate shelters allow for private spaces for sleeping, bathing, and
storing of personal possessions while still utilizing communal spaces for
gathering and, in some cases, meals. Examples of non-congregate shelters
include the LifeMoves Mountain View tiny home facility and the San Jose Family
Shelter on King Road in San Jose. New shelters are generally non-congregate in
nature and many use modular construction or are hotels leased for sheltering
unhoused people.
• Domestic violence agencies operate 24/7 in Santa Clara County and are
accessible either online via chat or through a phone hotline. Next Door Solutions
28 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
continues to be the largest provider of services to victims of domestic violence
and operates shelters throughout Santa Clara County. Locations for shelters for
domestic violence victims are confidential, but they serve the entire County. Many
cities fund these types of activities with General Fund or CDBG funding for
approximately $10,000/ year.
Safe Parking
Safe parking programs offer temporary, legal places for people living in vehicles to park
overnight, providing access to basic needs like restrooms and security and helping them
transition into more stable housing. Sites provide a temporary, safe location to park for
individuals and families living in vehicles, while also providing access to needed services,
helping transition them into stable housing. Site managers connect participants with
supportive services, including case management, employment search assistance,
housing locator assistance, healthcare referrals, and behavioral health services. Some
locations provide two meals a day along with restrooms, water, wash stations, and other
basic services.
• As an example of this type of program, the City of Mountain View operates four
safe parking sites throughout the city, two on city-owned property which operate
24 hours a day and two at faith-based locations. In total, the program provides
105 safe parking sites and additional parking for commuter vehicles for those
living in RVs. The City budgets $700,000 a year in general fund monies to MOVE
MV to operate the sites. In addition, MOVE MV receives $2,155,238 in funding
through OSH to provide support services at these sites. The program has been
successful at helping resolve the on-street RV parking issues in the city and
providing a safe living environment.
• Safe parking exists in the West Valley cities in the form of Rotating Safe Parking
at faith-based communities and has been effective. Case management and
operation of the Rotating Safe Parking is provided by Amigos de Guadalupe
through a grant from OSH. The budget for the entire program, including San Jose
locations, is approximately $800,000. However, the budget for servicing
Cupertino, Campbell, Saratoga, and Santa Clara is closer to $200,000.
FEASIBILITY STUDY 29
Hotel Vouchers/Rentals
Hotel voucher/rental programs for unhoused people and families are another form of
temporary shelter, often provided through local jurisdictions. This program offers
immediate housing to unhoused people or individuals and families in crisis, such as
those fleeing domestic violence, medically vulnerable unhoused, youth fleeing family
conflict, or youth transitioning out of the foster program. Currently, Los Gatos and
Campbell offer hotel rooms to vulnerable unhoused people during severe weather.
Interim or temporary housing at hotels is another example of how jurisdictions can
provide a safe, stable environment for unhoused people after clearing an encampment
or when medically necessary. The City of San Jose has a $7M budget to rent hotel rooms
in ten hotels throughout the city to provide interim housing to unhoused people. The
hotels have agreed to rent the hotel rooms to the City, and the City refers unhoused
people to the various hotels. The hotels are currently being used to house those
displaced during encampment clearings. HomeFirst operates the program and provides
case management and support services.
30 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Interim and Transitional Programs
Interim & Transitional Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Programs by Type Impact Score Feasibility Score
Figure 9. Interim and Transitional Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Interim and transitional housing programs provide temporary shelter and supportive services
for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Both serve as a bridge to permanent
housing, but the programs may differ in length of stay, level of services, and target
populations.
Rapid Rehousing
Rapid rehousing quickly connects unhoused people to housing and services by
providing temporary rental assistance. Generally, rapid rehousing is funded through
federal sources like the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program
(HPRP), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), and the HOME program, as well as state
funds and local initiatives such as the 2016 Measure A Affordable Housing Bond. These
programs are available County-wide. Eligibility is determined through the HMIS intake.
Transitional Housing
Transitional housing provides temporary housing with supportive services to individuals
and families experiencing homelessness for up to two years. Transitional Housing
requires the program participants to pay a portion of their monthly income for rent and
usually provides a temporary rent subsidy for the duration of the program. The rental
subsidies can be provided through a Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program
funded with Federal HOME funding. In the case of HOME funding, the subsidy is not
tied to a rental unit but is provided directly to the household.
Transitional housing programs are also used for youth who have aged out of the foster
care program and those fleeing domestic violence. The Bill Wilson Center's Transitional
Housing Program provides comprehensive services for homeless youth ages 18-24,
including young single parents and their children. Clients live in shared, supervised
apartments or houses throughout the County while receiving counseling, independent
FEASIBILITY STUDY 31
living skills training, parenting classes, and employment services. The goal of the 12-18
month-long program is to help the youth become self-sufficient adults with strong
connections to the community.
Some Santa Clara County domestic violence support agencies provide transitional
housing at confidential sites throughout the County. An example of this type of program
is Maitri, which operates the Anjali Transitional Housing Home for survivors of domestic
abuse. The program offers support services and training.
Interim Sites
Interim sites, including “Tiny Home Villages,” are also being used in surrounding
communities to quickly provide shelter to unhoused people. Communities will build
modular small homes, either pallet or preconstructed structures, to quickly provide
shelter. All the tiny homes come with electricity and plumbing. Each tiny home has a
small common area that will double as a sleeping area, a small kitchen, and a private
bathroom. Some tiny homes are constructed so that they can easily convert from a
single unit to a multigenerational unit.
• An example of a tiny home community can be found on Leghorn Drive in
Mountain View. The City used prefabricated homes to quickly build 100 units on
a recently purchased site. Overall costs for the site purchase and development of
the 100 units were $25M, with much of the funding coming in the form of a grant
from HomeKey and funding from the City and County of Santa Clara.
32 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
Permanent Housing Programs
Permanent Housing Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Programs by Type Impact Score Feasibility Score
Figure 10. Permanent Housing Programs by Impact and Feasibility
Permanent affordable housing programs provide long-term housing solutions and supportive
services to individuals and families who have recently or are currently experiencing or at risk of
homelessness. The level of services provided varies based on the type of affordable housing.
Family housing will provide support services for the children and light support services to the
heads of household, whereas permanent supportive housing is a more intensive program.
Permanent Affordable Housing
Affordable housing, whether temporary or permanent, is a high need not just in the
West Valley, but throughout Santa Clara County and California. According to
Destination: Home, at least 75 percent of Santa Clara County’s unhoused people are
unsheltered. This means they are living on the streets, in vehicles, tents or other places
not suitable for habitation. Although jurisdictions in the West Valley offer safe parking
sites and hotel stays, none of these are classified as transitional or permanent housing.
Cupertino has several 100% affordable housing developments in its jurisdiction and
Campbell is looking to provide 100 affordable units at the Santa Clara County Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) Winchester park and ride lot. Housing to serve homeless
households specifically includes the following:
• Permanent affordable housing includes the construction of 100 percent
affordable developments, inclusionary units, the provision of Section 8 vouchers,
and the rehabilitation of existing units to serve the extremely low-income. In
addition, Extremely Low-Income (0-30% AMI) and Acutely Low-Income (0-15%
AMI) units can be provided in mixed-income housing developments.
• Permanent supportive housing combines longer-term rental assistance with
supportive services and case management for individuals experiencing chronic
homelessness. In the West Valley area, there are presently six units of permanent
supportive housing in Cupertino and 23 that have been approved in Campbell.2
2 County of Santa Clara, Office of Supportive Housing, Supportive Housing Development Update, January 28, 2025,
https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/exjcpb1571/2025-01/housing-bond-report-25.pdf.
FEASIBILITY STUDY 33
Recommendations
The project team offers the following recommendations to support prioritization of potential
future homelessness services programming. While there are clear advantages to prioritizing
programs with both the highest feasibility scores and highest impact scores, ensuring a holistic
overall program landscape is also important.
The needs analysis also underscored the higher prevalence of specific subpopulations. Many
programs described above, such as permanent affordable housing, temporary shelter, and
hotel voucher programs, can be used to support targeted subpopulations of unhoused
individuals and families. In addition, such programs may also support housing-vulnerable
populations at high risk for homelessness including youth and families with children, domestic
violence survivors, youth aging out of the foster care system, LGBTQ+ youth, veterans, post-
incarceration/reentry populations, and housing insecure community college and university
students. Cities may want to partner with local community colleges and domestic violence
service providers to create permanent housing, temporary shelters, or other services for these
populations.
1. Develop a West Valley area homelessness response implementation plan
While this study identifies programs and actions the cities could take to address
homelessness, it requires the cities to take the next step to focus on implementation. An
implementation plan would establish clear goals and tracking metrics to understand
progress is a hallmark of successful strategies to address homelessness. A plan tailored
to the five jurisdictions of the West Valley area could include the following elements:
a. Vision: Establish an aspirational vision for the plan over a multi-year time
horizon. Consider aligning with the Housing Element cycle.
b. Goals and objectives: Write Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and
Time-bound (SMART) goals and objectives for the West Valley area and for each
jurisdiction.
c. Mind the gap: Ensure programming addresses each step along the
homelessness services continuum and supports individuals to move toward
stable housing.
34 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
d. Priority segments: Develop a common definition of priority segments of the
population for the West Valley area and develop services tailored to their specific
needs.
e. Near- and long-term outcomes: Include near wins and activities with longer-
time horizon impacts.
f. Leverage existing programs: Wherever possible, strengthen or expand existing
services rather than building a parallel system.
A template including examples of relevant SMART goals and objectives are included in
the text box below. While not intended to be a comprehensive implementation plan, the
following could serve as inspiration for such a plan. An effective plan would be
developed in conjunction with a community engagement process and engagement
among the jurisdictions and other key stakeholders. An example summary from the City
of Mountain View is also included as an attachment to this document. The process used
to develop the Santa Clara Valley Agricultural Plan can also serve as a model for how the
West Valley jurisdictions could come together through a task force to develop a shared
homelessness response implementation plan.
FEASIBILITY STUDY 35
Figure 11. Example SMART Goals and Objectives
Example Goals and Objectives*:
1. Ensure no family with children or youth sleep outdoors by 2027.
a. Establish agreement with County to provide X family and youth beds with priority for West
Valley homeless residents by 2027.
2. Cut unsheltered homelessness across the West Valley Area by ~40% by 2028 and by 60% by 2031.
a. Secure X number of priority access beds for homeless West Valley residents by 2028.
b. Make X permeant housing placements per year by 2028 and X permanent housing placements
by 2031.
3. Reduce first-time homelessness by ~25%, by 2028.
a. Provide X of financial support to Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System by
2028.
b. Provide financial support to tenant protection service providers (e.g. as indicated in each
jurisdiction’s Housing Element)
4. Provide targeted services to 75% of individuals who have been homeless for 2 months or less by 2027.
a. Expand safe parking options by an additional 30 spaces by 2027.
b. Establish an oversize vehicle safe parking for at least 20 spaces by 2027.
5. Provide intensive formal case management to 50% of unhoused population by 2027.
a. Implement a West Valley case management contract with a service provider (e.g. four FTE case
managers and one FTE outreach worker) by 2026.
b. One jurisdiction to hire a program manager to manage the shared program by 2026.
6. Remove barriers to health, mental health, and substance use care to 50% of unhoused population by
2028.
a. Provide transportation to 100 individuals per year by 2027.
b. Provide mobile services at least once per month by 2028.
7. Provide coordinated services to at least 50 individuals per month by 2028
a. Establish a pop up based or mobile event on a fixed schedule (e.g. First Monday of each
month) that includes multiple service providers, community-based programs (e.g. food
distribution), and health care by 2028.
8. Establish Homelessness Action Teams by 2026 and publish quarterly scorecard by 2027.
a. Formalize West Valley Homelessness Response Task Force by 2026.
b. Establish each Jurisdiction Homelessness Action Team by 2026.
c. Adopt shared tracking metrics aligned with the Community Plan to End Homelessness and
publish quarterly scorecard by 2027.
* Note: all quantitative figures included in the above example goals and objectives are provided for illustrative
purposes only. Specific numbers would be developed by the West Valley homelessness response task force.
36 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
2. Sustain and strengthen what works
While there is increasing evidence demonstrating the positive impact of a wide range of
homelessness services and prevention programs, at present, the expected loss of
funding for the Continuum of Care, federal programs, and the potential service cuts
caused by these funding cuts remains a reality.
a. Ensure the continuation of existing ongoing services with a proven track record.
Homelessness prevention and permanent affordable housing are critical
bookends to an effective homelessness response strategy. Identify ways to
support and expand these efforts using the tools available to local governments.
These include but are not limited to:
i. Direct subsidy of permanent housing development and preservation and
homelessness prevention programs, including the Santa Clara County
Homelessness Prevention System.
ii. Leveraging land use authority to incentivize or require the development of
new units, including inclusionary housing programs, commercial linkage
fees, and development agreements.
3. Prioritize programs with high feasibility and high impact
Programs with both the highest feasibility scores and highest impact scores should be
prioritized while still ensuring a holistic strategy that tailors programs across the
spectrum of needs.
a. Programs with high feasibility and high impact include: homelessness prevention
and rental assistance; case management; rapid rehousing; permanent affordable
housing; health and mental health care; food, showers, and laundry; and an
opportunity fund and reunification program. These programs are described in
greater detail in the above feasibility analysis section.
b. Prevention: Every $1 spent on prevention returned $2.47 in public benefits,
according to one recent study.3
c. Permanent Supportive Housing developments, such as the Mary Avenue Villas in
Cupertino, are more cost-effective in the long run than temporary shelter.
3 Jeff Olivet and Susan Ellenberg, “Homelessness Is Preventable. Ending It and Saving Lives Is a Policy Choice,” Governing,
November 15, 2023. https://www.governing.com/housing/homelessness-is-preventable-ending-it-and-saving-lives-is-a-
policy-choice
FEASIBILITY STUDY 37
Nationally, the annual cost for temporary shelter beds to temporarily shelter
three people is about $56,000 over twice as costly as the average permanent
supportive housing unit for a family of three at about $25,000 per year.4
d. As described in the Needs Analysis report, the public costs to other public
services, including public safety, emergency room visits, EMS, and other health
costs are associated with considerably increased use among unsheltered
homeless individuals.
4. Cultivate partnerships at all levels
The scale of the homelessness challenge is such that a “whole of society approach” is
generally considered a best practice. This involves proactively engaging governments,
the private sector, civil society, individuals, and communities.
a. Invest to coordinate with Santa Clara County, the lead government agency
responsible for coordinating responses to homelessness, the Office of Supportive
Housing, Continuum of Care, and Community Plan to End Homelessness.
b. Target local investments to strengthen homeless services where such services will
complement or strengthen the work of others, wherever possible.
c. Establish a formal West Valley homelessness task force that includes the five
jurisdictions, County representatives, and other key stakeholders (e.g. community
college district representatives and select service providers) to develop the West
Valley area homelessness response implementation plan. Establish a formal
purpose, goals, objectives, membership, and meeting schedule. Consider
quarterly meetings of elected representatives and staff from each jurisdiction and
monthly manager-level meetings, along with other key stakeholders. Each
jurisdiction would share the progress against established metrics with the full
group at least quarterly. Variations of such an approach could include informal
collaboration with regular meetings, establishing a memorandum of
understanding among jurisdictions to share implementation responsibilities for
specific services, and creation of a joint power authority among jurisdictions to
4 Hannah Chimowitz and Adam Ruege, “The Costs and Harms of Homelessness: A Learning Brief Examining the Costs Borne by
Individuals, Communities, Systems, and Society,” Community Solutions, September 25, 2023,
https://community.solutions/research-posts/the-costs-and-harms-of-homelessness/
38 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
oversee sub-regional implementation of unhoused services as South Bay Cities
Council of Governments has done in areas of Los Angeles County.
d. Within each jurisdiction: Establish a regular Jurisdiction Homelessness Action
Team consisting of representatives from all relevant departments such as city
manager’s office, community development, police, parks and recreation, libraries,
and where applicable: housing, human/social services. Consider monthly
meetings or no less frequent than every other month.
e. Identify opportunities for local agency procurement policies that can allow for
one jurisdiction to piggyback on the procurement of one of the others to expand
a program or contract to their own. This can expedite the delivery of services,
reduce administrative burden for public agencies, and reduce the operational
burden for service providers who are servicing multiple adjacent jurisdictions.
f. Explore creative solutions to remove barriers to community-led programs,
including faith-based programs where appropriate.
g. Leverage local governments’ convening power to bring key stakeholders together
to shape homelessness response efforts and become more educated about the
work of other agencies and organizations.
5. Engage people who have experienced homelessness
Identify ways for individuals who have experienced homelessness to meaningfully
participate during the overall strategy visioning and design phase and additional ways
to engage during the development and implementation of specific programs on a
recurring basis. Consider adding representatives who have experienced homelessness
to housing advisory boards or other structured bodies, which would align with
recommendations of the Community Plan to End Homelessness. The Lived Experience
Advisory Board (LEAB) may be a helpful resource or partner in this work.
6. Align with the Community Plan to End Homelessness
Demonstrate alignment with the current plan’s three goals: address the root causes of
homelessness through system and policy change, improve the quality of life for
unsheltered individuals, create healthy neighborhoods for all, and expand homelessness
prevention and housing programs to meet the need. An update of the Community Plan
FEASIBILITY STUDY 39
to End Homelessness is underway and is an opportunity for West Valley jurisdictions to
provide input.
7. Identify funding
Explore creative approaches to identify funding to support homelessness response
programs. Engage affordable housing developers to understand what can be done to
remove barriers to affordable housing development, particularly barriers to affordable
housing finance.
a. Programs to address homelessness are primarily funded through a combination
of federal grants, state and local government initiatives, private foundations, and
corporate and individual donations. Federal grants are a critical source of funding
but are often administered by state and local agencies rather than directly
distributed to individual programs. In almost all cases, when jurisdictions apply to
the state or federal government for grants for homeless services, they must do so
through the local Continuum of Care (CoC), which will administer the distribution
of the funding. There are other funding sources such as the public service portion
of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and the HOME
Investment Partnership Program (HOME) which are Federal entitlement grants
that would not need the CoC partnership.
b. Local and regional funding to support a variety of permanent housing and other
homeless services programming is often an effective, if challenging approach to
bring additional funding to the table. In many cases, local funding to support the
initial capital and startup costs of a program can be helpful in securing additional
outside funding. This is often achieved through support from the general fund or
through voter approved measures to establish dedicated revenue in the form of
sales tax, property transfer tax, bond, or business or lodging taxes. School
districts, including community college districts, can also support permanent
housing and other homeless services programming. Partnerships with districts to
raise funds, especially districts who may also serve as implementation partners,
can be an effective way to raise bond funds.
c. In addition, California cities with the Prohousing designation are eligible to apply
and receive Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP) funding. These funds can be used
to address homeless services as well as affordable housing development. With
the small sizes of the five West Valley jurisdictions, it is unlikely that any of the
40 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
jurisdictions can apply for the State’s Homeless Housing, Assistance and
Prevention (HHAP) program funding or funds set aside for encampment removal.
This funding is often reserved for larger cities, the CoC, and Counties.
d. Some cities that dissolved their redevelopment agencies (RDA) have successfully
used a portion of “boomerang” funds to fund homeless services. Boomerang RDA
funds are local tax increment funds that return, or "boomerang", to cities for
affordable housing after the RDAs were dissolved in 2012. These funds replace
the prior tax increment dollars that RDAs used to finance projects, providing a
local source for affordable housing development and other programs. However,
the overall amount is less than the previous RDA funding.
8. Support neighborhood health, safety, and cleanliness
Address quality of life issues for the entire community by contracting with a service
provider who would provide case management, outreach, sanitary services and street
clean up. This could be similar to what the Cities of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara are
currently providing with WeHope contracts.
9. Consider a Functional Zero Homelessness Approach
Functional zero homelessness is a concept used to establish a defined goal regarding
the frequency and length of homelessness in the community. The County of Santa Clara
defines functional zero as the overall homelessness response system’s ability to
consistently house more unhoused families than the number of families experiencing
homelessness for the first time each year, and the ability to maintain housing
placements at a level sufficient to assist all families currently experiencing homelessness
(i.e. those in the Community Queue). This does not mean literal zero instances of
homelessness but ensuring sufficient temporary and permanent housing opportunities
that are effective at preventing and quickly resolving unsheltered homelessness.
The County of Santa Clara does not include temporary shelter in how it defines meeting
functional zero. While some communities define functional zero as including temporary
shelter, existing when the number of people experiencing homelessness is consistently
fewer than the number that can be housed within 90 days, or use other definitions, this
report recommends using the County of Santa Clara definition.
FEASIBILITY STUDY 41
a. Recently, the City of Redondo Beach made the news for having achieved
functional zero homelessness. They still have a homeless population, but they can
offer housing to those who want housing, and residents who become unhoused
can be housed within 90 days of their becoming unhoused. Redondo Beach used
strategies like tiny home villages, leasing hotel rooms, using existing interim and
permanent housing, and collaborating with local nonprofit organizations and
government entities to attain its goal.
42 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
List of Attachments
Attachment A: Homelessness Response Programs – Detailed Metrics Table
Attachment B: Example Homelessness Response Strategy Summary
Attachment C: Example Printed Resource Handouts
Attachment D: Navigation Center of San Mateo County Photos
Attachment E: West Valley Homeless Services Needs Analysis Report (July 24, 2025)
FEASIBILITY STUDY 43
West Valley Homeless Services
Feasibility Study
Attachment A: Homelessness Response Programs – Detailed Metrics Table
feasibility score. Component metrics that underly the composite impact and feasibility scores are also provided.
44 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
West Valley Homeless Services
Feasibility Study
Attachment B: Example Homelessness Response Strategy Summary
Figure B-1. Example Homelessness Response Strategy Summary (Source: City of Mountain View)
FEASIBILITY STUDY 45
West Valley Homeless Services
Feasibility Study
Attachment C: Example Printed Resource Handouts
Figure C-1. Santa Clara County Prevention System Handout
Available: https://preventhomelessness.org/
Figure C-2. City of Mountain View Handout
Available: https://www.mountainview.gov/our-
city/departments/housing/homelessness
46 WEST VALLEY HOMELESS SERVICES JANUARY 26, 2026
West Valley Homeless Services
Feasibility Study
Attachment D: Navigation Center of San Mateo County Photos
Figures D-1 to D-3. Navigation Center of San Mateo County (Photos courtesy of San Mateo County Health Department)
FEASIBILITY STUDY 47
West Valley Homeless Services
Feasibility Study
Attachment E: West Valley Homeless Services Needs Analysis Report (July
24, 2025)
3.3.26 Draft 1
Santa Clara County: Community Plan to End
Homelessness
Focus Area 1
Prevent people from becoming homeless.
Strategy A – Expand programs and investments to prevent people from becoming
homeless.
Sub-Strategies
A1: Increase public and private funding for homelessness prevention programs.
A2: Strengthen and sustain a high-impact homelessness prevention system.
A3: Align policy and affordable housing investment to improve housing stability
for households at-risk of homelessness.
Strategy B – Ensure services are effective to prevent people from becoming homeless.
Sub-Strategies
B1. Prevent evictions through early identification, tenant protections, and system
coordination.
B2: Enforce fair housing protections and increase access to legal services to
combat housing discrimination.
B3: Leverage health care resources to prevent homelessness.
Strategy C – Enhance coordination across systems to prevent people from becoming
homeless.
Sub-Strategies
C1: Prevent homelessness at discharge or system exit through coordination with
health care or behavioral health institutions, foster care, or criminal legal
systems.
Draft 3.3.26 2
C2: Establish partnerships to increase income and employment for those at-risk
of homelessness.
C3: Strengthen partnerships with safety net services for a community-driven
approach to preventing homelessness.
Focus Area 2
Continue to house people and support them in retaining their housing.
Strategy A – Increase and maintain a continuum of housing options that meets the
need.
Sub-Strategies
A1: Increase public and private funding to build more permanent housing and
implement system improvements.
A2: Increase public and private funding to expand temporary housing capacity
and implement system improvements.
A3: Prioritize development of housing for extremely low-income individuals
and families making 30% of Area Median Income or less and set joint targets.
A4: Build up programs and services to reach geographically underserved areas
of the county.
A5 Strengthen and diversify permanent housing capacity and options to meet
varied needs and acuity levels.
A6: Strengthen and diversify temporary housing capacity and options, including
Emergency Interim Housing (EIH), to meet varied needs and acuity levels.
A7: Co-design innovative and inclusive housing and service models with people
with lived experience that expand access to diverse, permanent housing
solutions.
Strategy B – Increase consistency, diversity, and quality of housing and services for
people accessing the housing continuum.
Sub-Strategies
B1: Standardize high-quality service delivery and individualized care across the
housing continuum.
Draft 3.3.26 3
B2: All housing continuum programs are safe, healthy, and accessible to
everyone.
B3: Improve tenancy support for participants in permanent housing programs.
B4: Invest in equitable workforce development programs for people with lived
experience within the homeless system.
B5: Promote skill-building and career advancement opportunities for people
with lived experience within the homeless system.
B6: Support the development and implementation of programs led by people
with lived experience that provide peer support, housing navigation, and
mentorship.
Strategy C – Improve system coordination throughout the housing continuum.
Sub-Strategies
C1: Reduce returns to homelessness and program exits.
C2: Increase coordination between property management and service providers
to ensure housing stability.
C3: Reduce housing search time and expand landlord capacity for scattered site
housing programs.
Focus Area 3
Strengthen access to care and services for people experiencing
unsheltered homelessness.
Strategy A – Build capacity and expand access to trusted, culturally responsive, and
coordinated services and resources throughout Santa Clara County.
Sub-Strategies
A1: Identify sustainable funding for increased access to care and services for
people experiencing unsheltered homelessness.
A2: Prioritize peer-led and community-driven outreach and communications
models to effectively serve underserved regions and populations who are
historically underserved or overrepresented in the homeless system.
A3: Improve system-wide access to real-time, understandable, and
comprehensive resource information and availability.
Draft 3.3.26 4
Strategy B – Increase consistency, variety, and quality of outreach, basic, and essential
needs services.
Sub-Strategies
B1: Expand service delivery offerings for basic and essential needs and to
support stability.
B2: Ensure that service providers are equipped with the skills, capacity, and
ability to effectively serve those in unsheltered situations.
B3: Create a consistent, person-centered approach to address vehicular
homelessness.
B4: Connect impacted populations to culturally responsive services.
Strategy C – Invest in approaches that improve outcomes and reduce harm for
people living unsheltered and the community at-large.
Sub-Strategies
C1: Strengthen coordination between behavioral health, homeless service
providers, and public safety partners to divert non-violent homeless-related calls
away from law enforcement.
C2: Expand re-entry and behavioral health services as alternatives to arrest or
emergency room admission.
C3: Decrease the number of people residing in encampments and reduce
criminalization of homelessness for those who are unsheltered
Focus Area 4
Center and invest in people with lived experience to lead and transform
the homeless system.
Strategy A – Expand the representation of people with lived experience in leadership
roles and decision-making bodies.
Sub-Strategies
A1: Build capacity of local jurisdictions and organizations to increase lived
experience in leadership roles and decision-making bodies
A2: Create accessible and flexible leadership opportunities that consider varying
interests, availability, and backgrounds
Draft 3.3.26 5
A3: Reduce structural barriers to participation.
Strategy B – Build leadership capacity and advancement pathways for people with
lived experience.
Sub-Strategies
B1: Provide opportunities such as mentorship and education for people with
lived experience to establish pathways for leadership advancement.
B2: Support transitions from advisory roles to formal decision making and
leadership positions.
B3: Advance equity in hiring, advancement, and retention of people with lived
experience.
Strategy C – Equip homeless system partners to effectively partner with people with
lived experience.
Sub-Strategies
C1: Establish standards and best practices to support authentic lived experience
engagement
C2: Formalize processes to regularly evaluate the quality and depth of lived
experience engagement and use findings to drive improvement.
C3: Develop clear accountability measures to transparently demonstrate how
lived experience input informs decisions and system change.