Promising Signs for Portland's Homeless
At the end of January two years ago, outreach agencies took part in a count of Portland's homeless and found 2,355 people. The count was a part of the city's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness, led by Commissioner Erik Sten. They repeated the experiment again this year, and guess what?
City Commissioner Erik Sten, who spearheaded the plan in December 2004, said last month’s unduplicated count of people sleeping outside in Multnomah County and the cities of Portland and Gresham came to 1,438.... That’s a drop of 917 people, or 39 percent.
Both counts were taken during the last week of January. Fifty-seven outreach agencies took part in the count two years ago, tallying everyone who slept on the street, in a vehicle or an abandoned building.
Even more impressive is the drop in those termed "chronically homeless"--being homeless for more than a year or more than three times during the last three years--where the decrease was 70%, from 1,284 to 386. What's more, the number of agencies participating in the count this year represented a nearly four-fold increase to 200--evidence that the 2007 count was more comprehensive.
The pilot programs cost $3 million, and Sten plans to seek permanent funds to continue funding for the effort.
Discuss.
(Hat tip to LoadedOrygun, who posted on this earlier today.)
|
February 27, 2007 |
in the news 2007 | Comments (31 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Feb 27, 2007 4:57:33 PM
Christine, I relied on the Portland Tribune story when I posted this, and the language they used was "four or more times during the last three years." For brevity, I used "more than three times"--sorry if this was not clear.
Posted by: Roxanne Bruns | Feb 27, 2007 8:53:18 PM
Hmmm, Im not confident in the count. 1) it certainly fails to meet any sort of scientific criteria and 2) it doesnt seem true to my experience. I've been in the metro area for seven years now and it seems to me that there are more people on the streets than when I came.
Posted by: sigmund seamonster | Feb 27, 2007 11:30:54 PM
[insulting and meaningless comment removed. -editor]
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 28, 2007 12:13:25 AM
Hmmm, Im not confident in the count. 1) it certainly fails "to meet any sort of scientific criteria and 2) it doesnt seem true to my experience. I've been in the metro area for seven years now and it seems to me that there are more people on the streets than when I came."
that wasn't the question--the comparison is to two years ago, not seven. Seven years ago the dam hadn't burst yet.
Posted by: Phil Jones | Feb 28, 2007 8:31:08 AM
I don't think Portland's civic leaders have quite awakened to the fact that feeding, housing and coddling transients only leads to more of them coming for the comforts of free support. Anyone who doesn't believe there is a network of communication among homeless people is deceiving themselves. The word gets around fast all over the country as to where the best place to live at the public's expense is accomodated.
I'd bet if such a thing as a 'transients guide to best free living' existed, Portland would be rated #1.
Posted by: Israel Bayer | Feb 28, 2007 8:40:56 AM
Smoke and mirrors.
The count has been administered differently ever time they count. The funny thing about a homeless count and government wheels are they put this stuff out as fact. They counted people on a cold, shitty night. There were hardly any outreach workers counting in North, and NE.
40% decrease in homelessess - that's a joke and one that will bite people in the butt when they can't explain why homelessness has increased in the coming years.
Posted by: Israel Bayer | Feb 28, 2007 8:44:23 AM
Phil - you're full of it! Do you think it's fun to sleep in the rain and the cold? Give me a break!
Posted by: Phil Jones | Feb 28, 2007 9:21:29 AM
Israel - Of course it's no fun to sleep outside in Portland's winters, but most southern cities have dealt with transients much better than Portland has done.
Go to Phoenix, San Diego or Houston and see if homeless people are allowed to accost downtown citizens as they are here in Portland.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 28, 2007 9:53:59 AM
If that's the case, God bless Portland. In Phoenix as recently as 2000 they simply arrested homeless people for being homeless, and they are woefully short on beds in Maricopa County as I understand it--only a bit over 10% of needed capacity.
The same is true in San Diego--they're arrested for "illegal lodging." Well, DUH.
Both Houston and Phoenix are on the Nat'l Coalition for the Homeless' "Meanest Cities" list.
There's no evidence I know of that supports the claim that directly links homeless policy to the number of homeless. If you have some, bring it on. "It's only common sense" does not qualify.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Feb 28, 2007 10:26:11 AM
Israel, I heard you make that comment in the Trib about the poor process, but you haven't cited any real data. You're one of the experts--can you give any reason why this group failed to find the homeless?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 28, 2007 10:28:10 AM
Go to Phoenix, San Diego or Houston and see if homeless people are allowed to accost downtown citizens as they are here in Portland.
There's a downtown in Phoenix and in Houston?
Posted by: Phil Jones | Feb 28, 2007 11:01:36 AM
http://www.coppersquare.com/downtown-phoenix-parking.html
Posted by: Israel Bayer | Feb 28, 2007 12:31:40 PM
Jeff,
First off, the BHCD and outreach workers are doing an amazing job. I don't mean this to be a bad reflection on the great work people are doing.
It's my educated guess, my opinion. Saying that, without naming names I was told they didn't have a lot of outreach workers counting in North and NE where a lot of people are camping out. Also, I think it's fair to say anytime you have a government agencies pusing a political agenda like the 10-year plan to end homelessness and it comes out with a 2-page press release (no report as of yet) saying they have seen a 40% decline in something we should be able to question that - especially when you work on the front lines of something and you haven't noticed the lack of madness, nor the people sleeping out on the street.
More so, just because you have outreach workers and agencies counting people doesn't mean it's an accurate count and should be taken as fact. You're talking about a population that is forced to hide 364 days of the year, and then all of the sudden on that one day we are suppose to know where they all sleep out. While I don't disagree with the #'s counted, nor the amount of people that have been housed - I still find it hard to believe, 40%...
Concerning "chronic homelessness" - check these out.
The NPACH has a great perspective on the chronic homeless definition.
Posted by: K Fish | Feb 28, 2007 12:32:57 PM
Giggle.
In his bio he writes, "...and of course I went to Reed College."
Posted by: K Fish | Feb 28, 2007 12:34:38 PM
*That was meant for an entirely different conversation. Damn tabbed windows.
Posted by: ws | Feb 28, 2007 12:36:30 PM
Phil, what exactly is your idea of an alternative? If people don't have the means to provide for themselves, somebody else has to so shoppers don't have to deal with being accosted. That's what it's really all about. Fortunately, some people in this world actually do have a genuine sense of justice and compassion for those that have to struggle to for something so small as common decency from others.
What the city should also be reporting, is how much money it's saving via fewer emergency room admissions, etc, through the successful reduction of chronic homeless persons on the street as a result of this most recent effort to end homelessness.
Posted by: Phil Jones | Feb 28, 2007 1:32:27 PM
If we took a fraction of the budget for the Iraq War, we could have a federal jobs program similar to the one in the 1930's. The new CCC could rebuild and repair the crumbling roads, bridges and other infrastructure.
Since we don't have such a Federal program, perhaps a State program to employ homeless people in ability-rated jobs that would help rebuild and beautify our State's Parks, buildings or roads could be instituted. Those on State welfare could be made to work at least part time for nonprofit organizations doing "volunteer" type work. Housing could be built that would provide basic shelter and food.
IMO, anyone under the age of 60 who refuses to work an easy job part time should be given a one-way bus ticket to another state and told not to return unless they wish to work.
I think there are many solutions to homelessness and unemployment if legislators would start seriously discussing the issue.
Posted by: ws | Feb 28, 2007 2:21:21 PM
"...could be made to work..." Phil Jones
Made to work? Why would you want to make, as in coerce or force somebody to work? That's an almost guaranteed way to get the worst performance from somebody unless you're going to make the alternative something on the order of imprisonment, torture, or death. Up for that Phil?
Make safe, decent work, or in some cases, something slightly less than that an opportunity, a priveledge to be respected, and many people would be surprized to find just how many people would love to have such work.
Work's good. In the absence of abuse and exploitation, work gives those that have it, health and self esteem, even help towards a little happiness.
Posted by: Madam Hatter | Feb 28, 2007 9:07:50 PM
"Those on State welfare could be made to work at least part time for nonprofit organizations doing "volunteer" type work."
Not sure what you mean exactly by "State welfare." But what is commonly referred to as "welfare" is the TANF program - and recipients ARE already made to work 30 hours per week to receive it. With a monthly TANF grant of $420/month (Oregon's standard for a mother and a child), that works out to about $3.25/hour. Is that fair enough for you?
It's pretty difficult to find or keep a job when you're homeless. Getting people into stable housing is usually a crucial first step to getting those that are capable of working back on their feet.
I'm really sick and tired of the attitude that ALL homeless (or the poor) don't want to work - that they thrive on "sucking off the system." We really need to get past this blame-the-victim mentality. Sure, there are some scammers - just like in every walk of life - but all people who aren't well off aren't that way simply because of some character flaw.
Posted by: nina | Mar 2, 2007 11:11:50 AM
all of this talk about homelessness and still there is no real discussion (at least from our business and political leaders) about wages and how they have failed to keep up with the cost of living. no real discussion about the outlandish price of housing. and certainly not enough hard talk about reigning in the greed that has tarnished and all but ruined the health insurance industry.
there is no reason why we cannot house everyone in need of housing. it's not done because of this "rugged individualism" mentality. it's not done because we think it's more important to fight in wars and dominate the world with our values of "democracy" and "freedom". it's not done because corporate profit has moved up on the value scale, above and beyond human decency and worth. it's not done because if you are mentally ill and homeless and do not have the money or insurance, you will be turned away at private hospitals and county mental health agencies (happens here in corvallis at least).
we really want to fix our social ails? we need to get out of our heads and egos for awhile. that's right--that means get in touch with our "touchy/feely" side....redefine our values and remember that we are all equally worthy of having our basic survival needs met irregardless of what is our income/bank account balance.
Posted by: nina | Mar 2, 2007 4:59:49 PM
i forgot to include an article (published in february 2006) that discusses how the census bureau comes up with its poverty statistics. i forwarded it to freedomworks (i agree with you kari--they are slimeballs). afterall, they claim poverty stats are down and for the rest of the downtrodden, all they need to do is try harder! http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2513/
and to the poster who said if you are under 60 and you refuse to work an easy (who, by the way, defines "easy"?) part-time job, you can leave the state. i have a better idea. how about if you support the policies that have eliminated living wage jobs, if you support the policies that have allowed the slow dismantling of the middle class, if you support the policies that have allowed the wealthiest to increase their wealth while the middle and lower incomes have seen a stagnation or decline in their real income and if you support the policies that have allowed corporate ceo's see their profits rise drastically while jobs are cut and workers salaries and benefits fall into the toilet, YOU can leave the state.
just kidding of course (about you leaving the state) but hopefully you see the point.
Posted by: Israel Bayer | Mar 2, 2007 9:55:21 PM
I know it's a little late in the string, but here is Street Roots take on the count.
Posted by: GT | Mar 3, 2007 1:36:20 AM
Hey, if they hadn't built the tram so the rich doctors can ride from their multimillion $ condos up to their work, they would have been able to spend approx. $27,343 to take care of the bum problem in this town. Way to go, progressives!! Now go pat yourselves on the back, give yourself a bigger salary and better PERS benefits.
Posted by: gotanidea | Mar 3, 2007 1:43:38 AM
Hey, I have a progressive idea.... Why don't they make the homeless sign an agreement not to harass and panhandle and require them to wear some type of identification so violators can be turned in. In exchange, if they finish a certain period of time without violating the terms of their agreement, they get a car and 6 months of free housing in some other locale far far away? Offer only applies to current homeless, relocation disqualifies. It's really too bad they built that tram for the rich doctors!
Posted by: ws | Mar 3, 2007 11:49:52 AM
nina, re; minimum wage jobs not keeping up with the cost of living. The minimum wage should be automatically inflation index price adjusted. If this were done, the wage would still always be comparatively minimum, but at least the workers wouldn't have to take the hit during the long periods between government's gestures of magnanimity; finally getting around to kicking down an increase in the minimum wage.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 3, 2007 1:55:34 PM
"Hey, I have a progressive idea.... Why don't they make the homeless sign an agreement not to harass and panhandle and require them to wear some type of identification so violators can be turned in. In exchange, if they finish a certain period of time without violating the terms of their agreement, they get a car and 6 months of free housing in some other locale far far away? Offer only applies to current homeless, relocation disqualifies. It's really too bad they built that tram for the rich doctors!"
Must...resist...urge to...invoke Godwin's Law...
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 3, 2007 1:57:21 PM
Israel--the editorial says the count was CoP; my understanding is it was the entire county, including Gresham.
Posted by: Israel Bayer | Mar 3, 2007 3:45:46 PM
Torrid Joe - you are right. We got that wrong!
Posted by: CD | Jul 13, 2007 12:12:49 PM
I just stumbled upon this discussion and would like to make a few comments. Due to unusual circumstances, and for safety reasons for all, (additionally, because I am a woman) I do not want to tell where I have spent time with homeless individuals, except that, recently, over the last few weeks, I have spent mornings at a park, in a small/medium sized town, outside of Portland's city limits. While it's not an ordinary thing to do, during this time, I made myself familiar with many of the homeless population, in the area. While I don't recommend this to just anyone, and particularly to any women, particularly alone, I would not trade this time or experience for anything. During this time, I learned many things regarding the homeless. Examples: While, traditionally, most are scene as individuals with addictions and other negative habits (and this is true for many) homelessness is not limited to circumstance at all. Many of those that I met have educational limitations, mental limitations/disabilities, social disorders, among just a few things. While many are homeless by choice, some are not, as one of the men that I met, who's situation was that he was unable to work, so his wife was the employed one of the pair. But, a sudden illness, that put her into ICU has caused them to lose their home, most of their possessions, and now he is living out of a car, hoping that he will not soon become a widower, with no hope, as far as he can see. Yes, many homeless people are colorful people, just as there are many "homed" people who are colorful, as well. Most of these people are friendly, when they feel they can trust you and they are certain that you aren't there with an agenda of your own. What I observed in the area, where I spent time, is that, while these individuals are fed and given services, the meals and the services are limited. Yes, it makes their lives, easier. No, they do not make their lives easy. I, personally found a good balance. Enough help to keep those who are homeless, whether by choice or circumstances, from being forced to commit crimes to survive. And no, as far as I have seen, none of these individuals "pan-handle." This, probably due to the limited services. Again, just enough, without providing a posh life-style. Yes, I do think that many of these, afforded the right help and opportunity would choose not to live on the streets. At the same time, no matter what anyone wants to believe, we will always have some who will remain homeless, by choice. No, we may not understand it, fully. It might not make much sense to us. But, it's the reality and will continue to be, no matter what we may want.
Posted by: CD | Jul 13, 2007 12:25:51 PM
Let me add this note to my post, that appears above. I did not choose to spend time with the above mentioned individuals, as a "social experiment." I simply found myself in a place, where I had the true and real opportunity to meet real people, who's circumstances are different than my own. I came to genuinely like most of these individuals. Liking or disliking, not being dependent on their circumstances, in any way. I saw the full variety of individuals, some that I would trust fully, some partially, and some not at all. Hmm. Just like I find with traditionally "homed" people. I found many who have had difficult pasts, that no doubt played a part in why they are homeless, probably, even more particularly for the women and girls. Yes, while they are a minority, they are out on the streets and in the woods, the same as the men are. Homeless people, truly are real people. I hate to use the term homeless, because it creates a category in the mind of most, that lumps them together, and doesn't allow most to see homeless people, as true individuals, each with different reasons for where they have found themselves, each person, a valuable person, or at least potentially valuable person, even if they may not be living in such a way that their value is visible to most.
Some may read my posts and go, "Oh, brother. What does she know." To those, I would ask, when was the last time you took the time to truly know a homeless person (or persons) and see, and even respond to their real needs, whether physical or emotional. Until you find yourself in the place that I have been, you can't really see what I have seen.
I don't say this as a criticism. And, truly, most people do not have a way to have the experience that I have had, and most people, probably shouldn't try to have this experience, either.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Christine Newkirk | Feb 27, 2007 4:52:53 PM
Point of accuracy: chronic homelessness, as defined by HUD, is limited to unaccompanied disabled individuals who have either been homeless for a year or more or had four (not three) episodes of homelessness over the past three years.
Portland was not the only city in Oregon to conduct a homeless count in January. In fact, these counts are required in all communities which receive HUD funding to address homelessness. Sadly, not all of the communities in the state have the support of local elected officials or the network of service providers needed to be able to show such sharp drops in numbers of chronically homeless people. Rural communities in particular face challenges in providing long-term affordable housing solutions--it's not just a Portland problem, and federal funding priority is given to areas with higher population density.
Anecdotally, one of the rural homeless counts I was involved in this year showed a 300%+ increase in homeless individuals and families from 2006. Has the problem of poverty and lack of support networks grown that much in a year? I sincerely hope not. What I have seen is that rural communities are becoming more aware of homelessness, thanks in no small part to the success of 10-year plans such as Portland's and others around the nation, and in some cases, momentum and interest is building to a point that there is greater community participation in the actual process of counting, and thus more complete numbers.
I'd like to see permanent funding for Portland's homeless programs; I'd also like to see permanent funding for homeless programs in smaller communities that are tackling similar challenges, but with a lot fewer resources and a lot less fanfare.