In Their Own Words: Californians' Journeys From Encampments to Housing
Encampments are one of the most urgent housing challenges in California
Nearly two-thirds of people experiencing homelessness in California are unsheltered, living in places not meant for human habitation. Encampments are the most visible expression of this crisis—and one of the hardest to address. In response, federal and state governments have made unprecedented investments to help communities move people from encampments into housing.
This study examines what works — and what doesn't.
This research explores how encampment resolution strategies are being implemented across four California communities—and how those strategies are experienced by the people most affected. Through interviews, data analysis, and document review, the study asks:
- What strategies help people move to permanent housing?
- What barriers get in the way?
Listening to both systems and residents
The study draws on 125+ interviews with encampment residents, service providers, and system leaders, alongside HMIS data and policy analysis. Research was conducted before, during, and after encampment closures, offering a rare view across time and perspectives.
Promising strategies and persistent barriers
Across communities, leaders identified strategies linked to better outcomes: coordinated partnerships, sustained outreach, flexible funding, and clear encampment protocols. At the same time, severe housing shortages, mismatched housing types, workforce instability, fragmented data, and pressure to enforce camping bans continue to limit impact.
Trust, dignity, and follow-through shape outcomes
Resident experiences converged around key takeaways that influence participation and success. Clear communication, reliable follow-through, fairness in housing offers, coordinated services, and respect during closures all shaped whether people engaged. Interim housing mattered—but long-term stability required ongoing support.
Key takeaways
These core themes came up repeatedly in interviews with encampment residents.
1. Clear, consistent communication builds trust.
Residents emphasized that timely, accurate, and consistent information about closure timelines, housing options and expectations is fundamental to gaining trust.
"We want dignity, agency, and clear and respectful communication. We don’t wait to be displaced and policed under the guise of housing support.”
2. Reliability and follow-through motivate participation.
Many residents come to the housing conversation with a history of broken promises, displacement and lost belongings. Outreach teams build engagement by showing this effort is different through consistent follow-through and tangible results.
3. Residents value fairness and inclusion in housing selection.
Residents expressed a strong desire for transparent criteria to determine who was offered housing and a seat at the table to make program-wide decisions.
4. Reliable service access and coordination matter.
Residents often encountered fragmented services, unclear or inconsistent eligibility rules, and gaps in follow-up, sometimes with disastrous consequences. Access to documentation assistance, transportation, healthcare and employment support was particularly critical during transitions from encampment to housing.
5. Dignity, autonomy and respect shape participation.
The way in which closures were carried out affected resident perception and willingness to engage sometimes as much as the housing offer itself.
"A lot of us don’t have emotional support, but I receive that here. I feel heard and supported.”
6. Housing and programs should be designed for safety and comfort.
While residents consistently valued the safety and stability of being indoors, many described interim housing environments as overly restrictive, institutional or lacking basic amenities. Privacy, reasonable rules, and spaces that felt appropriate for an autonomous adult were central to resident’s sense of success.
7. Interim Housing is an important step, but stability requires longer-term support.
Residents viewed interim housing as a foundation, not an endpoint. Moving inside from an encampment should be viewed as the first, foundational step on a supportive path to permanent housing, but continued case management, supportive services, and assistance are essential to long-term success.
"We have trauma in shelters, we don’t trust the systems [...] when people experience abuse in establishments, they prefer to live outside.”
Four focus communities
We partnered with four California communities to understand their encampment resolution process. To capture both lived experience and system implementation perspectives, we employed the following data collection methods across Alameda, Los Angeles, Contra Costa and Santa Clara Counties.
1. Interviews with system and service providers
2. Fieldwork and interviews with unsheltered residents
3. Document review
4. Quantitative Analysis (when available)
Alameda
Population: 1.6 million
57 unhoused people per 10,000 residents
Alameda County demonstrated strong cross-sector collaboration, particularly between homelessness service providers and healthcare systems. A key highlight was the development of coordinated discharge planning practices to reduce returns to homelessness from hospitals and other institutions. The community has invested in data-sharing improvements to better track client outcomes and system performance. Alameda also emphasized culturally responsive services and equity-driven strategies to better serve disproportionately impacted populations. Ongoing efforts focus on scaling permanent supportive housing and strengthening prevention interventions to reduce inflow into homelessness.
Los Angeles
Population: 10 million
73 unhoused people per 10,000 residents (highest rate of homelessness)
Los Angeles County highlighted the scale and complexity of its homelessness response system, emphasizing regional coordination across a vast geographic area. A major strength is its use of data to drive system improvements, particularly through coordinated entry refinements and performance monitoring. LA has made substantial investments in interim housing and permanent supportive housing, while also prioritizing encampment resolution strategies. The county is working to streamline processes between outreach, housing navigation, and placement to reduce time from identification to housing. Equity and racial disparities were central themes, with targeted efforts to address disproportionate impacts on Black residents experiencing homelessness.
Contra Costa
Population: 1.16 million
24 unhoused people per 10,000 residents (lowest rate of homelessness)
Contra Costa County stood out for its focus on prevention and diversion as key strategies to reduce inflow into homelessness. The community has prioritized strengthening landlord partnerships and flexible financial assistance to quickly stabilize households at risk. Cross-agency collaboration, particularly between behavioral health and housing services, was identified as a major asset. Contra Costa is also refining its coordinated entry system to better match people to appropriate housing resources. Data-driven decision-making and a focus on measurable outcomes were emphasized as foundational to the county’s strategy.
Santa Clara
Population: 1.93 million
54 unhoused people per 10,000 residents
Santa Clara County highlighted its strong commitment to permanent supportive housing and data-informed system management. The county has invested significantly in housing development and innovative funding approaches to expand supply. System performance improvements, including reductions in length of time homeless and returns to homelessness, were noted as key achievements. Santa Clara emphasized healthcare and housing integration, including partnerships designed to better serve high-need individuals. The community continues to prioritize equity, with intentional strategies to address racial disparities and improve access to housing resources.
How do people move through the homelessness system?
As a part of our study we analyzed HMIS data from the City of Berkeley. We studied 201 encampment residents and 5 unique encampment locations.
This diagram traces resident pathways from their home location prior to encampment, through encampment residence, and to their most recent housing exit.
On the left is the city where the person called home prior to their most recent episode of homelessness. 78% of residents lived in Berkeley most recently.
The center shows the encampment(s) people were a part of. About 7% of residents appeared in more than one encampment.
The right shows the most recent housing exits for all 201 residents. 55% of residents exited to either permanent or interim housing.
Housing outcomes varied by encampment. Housing connection rates were highest at Old City Hall, People’s Park, and 2nd Street, where 60 percent or more of residents were in emergency shelter or permanent housing. Civic Center Park showed moderately lower housing engagement, with 54 percent of residents connected to shelter or permanent housing, while Harrison Street had the lowest rate, with 41 percent of residents connected to emergency shelter or permanent housing.
The table below shows the number of residents in each encampment and their outcomes after encampment closure.
|
Encampment name |
Total residents |
% to Interim Housing |
% to Permanent Housing |
% to homelessness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2nd street |
57 |
56% |
12% |
32% |
|
Harrison Street |
75 |
33% |
9% |
57% |
|
Civic Center Park |
39 |
49% |
5% |
46% |
|
People's Park |
37 |
46% |
16% |
39% |
|
Old City Hall |
8 |
37.5% |
25% |
37.5% |
Why do we see variation in housing outcomes across encampments?
Our analysis suggests that:
1. Larger, older encampments were associated with less successful housing outcomes.
2. Residents with more documented services and program enrollments had more success with connecting to housing.
3. People's vulnerability - as measured by a housing needs assessment tool - did not seem to be predictive of housing outcomes.
To explore how access to programs and services corresponded to better housing outcomes, explore the dashboard below.
Above is a live Tableau dashboard showing a portion of the quantitative findings from our study on encampment resolution. View "Introduction" tab to learn more about the data.
Conclusion
Thank you to the 65 encampment residents, 43 system leaders/service providers, and our partners at the National Alliance to End Homelessness for making this research possible.
Progress does not hinge on one perfect formula. Rather, successfully transitioning people inside requires many smaller, intentional actions, each one making the path to stable, permanent housing clearer and more certain.
Built with Shorthand