• December 18, 2023
• Housing

Homelessness in America is not new. During colonial times, people living on the streets were called ‘the wandering poor’, ‘sturdy beggars’ or ‘vagrants’[i] and were viewed by the Puritans as ‘morally deficient.’[ii] Fortunately, our views have evolved and our understanding of the factors contributing to homelessness has matured. Today we see it as a function of intersecting structural, institutional and individual forces. Similarly, we recognize that housing the unhoused requires a coordinated effort across sectors, institutions, and policy domains.

The contemporary era of homelessness emerged in the 1970s driven by a variety of factors, chief among them the steep decline in the availability of affordable housing, stagnating wages and uneven access to support systems. One of the ironies of the dramatic growth in wealth seen in many West Coast cities is that it has been accompanied by a corresponding rise in the number of unhoused individuals and families. Like other cities that make up the economic engine of the past several decades, Portland, Oregon, has seen an explosion in the size of its homeless population.

Houselessness challenges local governments, like that of Portland and the surrounding Multnomah County, on several fronts. Officials have an obligation to address the root causes of homelessness, to help shelter the unhoused and to assist individuals and families in finding health, mental health and other support services.

At the same time, municipalities are also responsible for keeping public spaces safe, clean and accessible. They must clear environmental health hazards such as garbage, human waste and drug paraphernalia, reduce the incidence of criminal activity and address unsanctioned encampments.

Meeting these multiple obligations effectively and efficiently requires street outreach. It requires the coordination of city and county public services. And it requires radical transparency so that the city’s stakeholders---the unhoused population, nearby residents, business owners, those using public spaces and rights of way alike---have a timely window into its efforts. With transparency comes credibility. And with credibility comes the public support necessary to address the many issues associated with homelessness.

Last month Data-Smart spoke with Diego Portillo, corporate geographic information systems and technology (GIS&T) manager, Lucas Hillier, IRP program manager and Kellie Gulden, GIS developer all affiliated with the city’s Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (IRP). Formed in 2015, IRP provides encampment assessment, clean-up and in high-risk cases, camp removal. IRP also coordinates with teams of outreach workers that visit encampments and offer resources and referrals.

The IRP team discussed the city’s commitment to responsiveness and transparency. They described their use of maps to inform residents about efforts to address the health and safety concerns associated with unsanctioned camps. As Portillo noted, “We want to be clear about what we are doing, to educate the public and to give people the opportunity to provide feedback and input.”

In fiscal year 2022-2023 the city of Portland received more than 120,000 campsite reports, up from 35,000 in fiscal year 2019-2020. Just five years before, the city received fewer than 200 such reports. The dramatic growth in encampment reports is one manifestation of the lack of affordable housing in Multnomah County and its precipitating effects on individual and family vulnerabilities.

Until 2018 unsanctioned campsite reports from concerned residents were tabulated manually, often in email form recorded on spreadsheets, too frequently out-of-date before action could be taken. The system frustrated both the city workers who needed to make sense of the information to act upon it, and the residents who expected the city to take immediate action. Now the IRP team uses spatial analytics and processes to bring order to the massive volume of encampment complaints it receives. To keep the public informed of the precise status of all camp evaluation, clean-up and removal activities, the team publishes an online dashboard.

The process begins when a community member files a concern about an encampment. Duplicate entries are scrubbed, and the reports plotted on a map of the city (Figure 1). Each unique site triggers a risk assessment work order. The city contracts with community-based organizations to engage with camp residents and conduct site evaluations. Skilled workers, often with lived experience, assess risk using standardized criteria such as the presence of garbage, drug paraphernalia, raw sewage and drug use. They determine whether sidewalks, passageways or accessible areas are being blocked. They look at proximity to schools, parks and businesses as well as the proximity of camp residents to moving traffic.

Risk assessment scores are captured in real time, color coded for severity and ultimately mapped on the IRP dashboard (Figure 2). So too are the locations where a high-risk assessment dictates the need for removal. Prior to removing a camp, the city posts a notice giving camp residents a three-day warning that the site will be cleared. The locations of ‘post notifications’ are shown on the dashboard as are the locations of ‘clean and removal’ sites (Figures 3a and 3b). Dropdown boxes with associated photos add to the dashboard’s transparency. Activity is available for the prior one year, six months, two months, one month and ten-day periods. Data by address is also searchable.

Also summarized on the dashboard (Figure 4) for the chosen period are data on:

1. The number of camp reports
2. The number of duplicate reports
3. The number of risk assessments conducted
4. The number of sites posted
5. The number of sites cleaned or removed
6. Average assessment response time in business days
7. Sites assessed and cleaned by month and the
8. Pounds of garbage removed

Why is this highly specific information shared publicly? The IRP team believes that “transparency reduces chaos.” Gulden tells us, “Prior to automating the process, sorting through reports was labor-intensive and hampered our ability to properly respond to all community reports. One benefit of using spatial analysis is that it has allowed us to identify duplicates, reducing inefficiencies and ultimately streamline which camps are delivered to workers’ mobile phones automatically. Thus, allowing workers to visit more sites more efficiently on any given day.”

IRP’s work represents just one element of a larger strategy to mitigate homelessness. Hillier observes, “To some extent we are a tourniquet. But when people are living in spaces not designed for human habitation, when people are living in squalid conditions and when other folks are living in neighborhoods next to some of these conditions, we need to act.” He continues, “The CDC put out recommendations in 2021 that cities should not remove homeless encampments but allow people to shelter in place. So, we did very few removals during 2020-2021. And what we learned is that this body of work: posting, removing camps, collecting personal property is a necessary evil. If you don’t do it, things can spiral out of control. We are interrupting a dynamic in certain areas and getting people out of incredibly dangerous locations.”

Transparency does more than reduce chaos. It builds credibility. Without it, cities risk failing to build the public trust and support they require to advance broader initiatives that attack the root causes of homelessness, such as investing in affordable housing. Encampments are a flashpoint issue. Says Lucas, this is “a litigious body of work. There is a lot of activist opposition to the work that we do. But being transparent, being able to say this is everything we're doing, here's all the information we're looking at. And here's why we're making the decisions we're making has lowered the temperature. It's been helpful all around.”