Open Letter to the Sacramento City Council and Brian Pedro, Director of the Department of Community Response

Dear Sacramento City Council Members and Director Brian Pedro,

We are writing to express appreciation for the City of Sacramento’s ongoing efforts to address homelessness, especially through initiatives such as the Roseville Road shelter-and-service campus and its recent expansion with additional tiny homes[4][3]. The commitment to providing shelter and services to people experiencing unsheltered homelessness remains a crucial endeavor for our community.

In alignment with the “Data Driven” guiding principle outlined in the “All In Sacramento” framework—which emphasizes using robust data to inform decisions and drive continuous improvement in policy development and resource allocation—we formally request comprehensive and open access to raw data concerning the Roseville Road tiny home project[4]. Currently, the City provides a data dashboard for the Incident Management Team (IMT) and weekly progress reports, while Sacramento Steps Forward is expected to publish quarterly reports and a public-facing data dashboard for “All In Sacramento” implementation. However, we believe that access to unaggregated, raw data is essential for thorough, independent analysis and to foster greater public trust and accountability[3][5].

To facilitate independent evaluation and enhance public understanding of the project's impact, we urge you to address the following, with detailed, publicly accessible raw data and program documentation:

On Cost-Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

• What are the itemized costs for the Roseville Road tiny home project, distinguishing between purchase/construction of “Boss Cubez” units, major infrastructure (such as electrifying units), ongoing operational expenses (staffing, security, sanitation), and the full scope of support services[4][3]? The city received a $12.35 million Encampment Resolution Funds grant in October 2024, specifically to purchase and construct additional tiny homes—including 135 Boss Cubez units—improve infrastructure at the campus, and fund two years of operations[4][3].
• How does the “real cost” per unit at Roseville Road compare to the Mayor’s previously cited $15,000 per tiny home, and the estimated $1 million for permanent supportive housing, after accounting for all infrastructure and operational expenses[3]? Past reporting has referenced $15,000 as an average cost for tiny homes; the $12 million grant for this expansion implies a significantly greater per-unit investment when services, infrastructure, and staffing are included[3][4].
• What is the projected operational cost per person per year at Roseville Road, including all services and overhead, and how does this compare to estimates of leaving individuals unsheltered ($20,000 annually) and costs of Housing First programs elsewhere (e.g., $10,000-$12,000 annually in Utah, $25,000 in Santa Clara County)[5][3]?

On Resident Outcomes and Program Effectiveness

• What metrics are collected at Roseville Road about resident outcomes: average length of stay, number/percentage of successful exits to permanent housing, rates of return to homelessness, and engagement with on-site support (mental health, job placement, case management)[5]?
• How do outcomes for Roseville Road residents compare to “All In Sacramento” plan targets, particularly the goal to increase exits to permanent housing to at least 42% in 2024[3][5]?
• What is the longitudinal data on individuals initially housed at Roseville Road: how many moved to permanent housing, and what are the follow-up data on their stability[4]?

On Operational Challenges and Support Services

• What protocols and data collection methods address fire risks from improvised cooking, shared bathroom facility concerns, and instances of drug use or trafficking in tiny homes or on campus[5]?
• What comprehensive support services (mental health care, substance use disorder treatment, job placement, case management) are consistently available onsite, and what raw engagement data are being collected[3][5]?
• How are the “Person-Centered” and “Lived-Expertise Voice” guiding principles from “All In Sacramento” explicitly woven into daily management and continuous improvement, including mechanisms for direct resident feedback[3][4]?

On Transparency and Future Data Accessibility

• In line with the City’s commitment to “Data Driven” transparency, when will the comprehensive raw data from the Roseville Road tiny home project—including all performance, demographic, and operational metrics—be made publicly available for independent scrutiny[3][4]?
• What mechanisms will guarantee ongoing, detailed data transparency for Roseville Road, enabling the public and researchers to continuously evaluate cost-effectiveness, long-term impact, and compliance with stated goals[4]?

Providing this level of transparent, raw data is vital for clear and independently verifiable understanding of the Roseville Road project’s outcomes. This transparency fosters informed public discourse and ensures public resources are utilized in the most impactful and equitable ways possible[5][3].