Is it just me or does this list strike you as odd? When I think of homeless populations I usually think about big metropolitan areas... New York, Chicago, Boston... Seems very odd to me to see Nevade and Rhode Island on the list.

The Number One reason for our Homeless population is because we have substandard Mental Health Treatment Facilities in Oregon.

If Oregon wants to get serious about Homelessness then we better get serious about Mental Health.

If we will it, we can end homlessness. We have have the resources, the know how and the technology. Let's use them to get everyone sheltered.

And after reading the fine print -

That 16,000 estimate for Oregon is a low ball estimate.

In the Methodology addenda you will find that HUD does not count people who are "doubled up", meaning one family living with another, or as we used to call it the "living room couch family". When I worked at homeless shelters, we found that most of our people spend more than half of their time as homeless people on the couch, in the garage, or even on the front porch with a friend before they hit the streets or shelters. - So, 16,000 is more likely 30,000 people in trouble.

Homelessness is by in large a local problem. People who are homeless generally stick as close to home as possible. In a Richmond CA shelter I ran, we tracked the home town and last address of every client, and found that the vast majority were from right there in Richmond. In Oregon, the shelter I ran for women with children for the Volunteers of American had a similar experience. All of our clients came from the tri-county area (meaning the last place where they had a house or apartment), the vast majority were life long Multnomah County residents.

I do see something of a trickle down to Portland effect in Oregon. Some of our rural areas don't have enough services, so people travel to Portland for services (alcohol/drug, mental health) and sort of get stuck there. We are doing better than we did years ago with this, it is no longer the practice to give a homeless person a one-way ticket to Portland.

As far as the main underlying problem being lack of adequate mental health services - that is only partly true. To be sure there are people that fit that billing - but -

The real problem is that our Federal Government has a deliberate policy of keeping between 1 in 20 to 1 in 25 people unemployed to keep wages from "inflating". This is the key benchmark by which the Federal Reserve makes its decisions regarding monetary policy that either heats up or slows down the economy. Until we find a better way to manage our economy, one that does not involve keeping people in poverty, we will have homelessness.

People who are homeless generally stick as close to home as possible.

Interesting points, Steve. I would have assumed Multnomah Co. was more of a magnent, given the visibility of certain types of homelessness here. But it makes sense folks would stick closer to family & other networks when they're in trouble. I still hope county-by-county or even city-by-city stats are considered when the pies for mental health and housing services are divided.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are some contradictory assertions here:

1)The homeless stick "close to home". 2) The homeless gravitate towards warm climes.

Kinda doubt these are both valid.

BTW, even if the warm-climes argument IS in part valid...Hawaii? I kinda doubt that Hawaii is much of a draw for people who probably can't even afford a bus ticket.

Gordie at Rogue Pundit (which I found by way of Loaded Orygun) called out the incorrect headline on this article.

Two days ago.

You're welcome. :-)

As Carla pointed out, 12th still isn't good, but the AP and the Statesman-Journal did make a mistake in the headline.

This is not accurate. Oregon is sixth in the nation for per capita for homelessness. Michigan is sixth:

<h1>1 California - 170,270</h1> <h1>2 New York - 61,094</h1> <h1>3 Florida - 60,867</h1> <h1>4 Texas - 43,630</h1> <h1>5 Georgia - 27,161</h1> <h1>6 Michigan - 26,124</h1> <h1>7 Washington - 23,970</h1> <h1>8 Colorado - 21,730</h1> <h1>9 New Jersey - 19,385</h1> <h1>10 Illinois - 16,599</h1> <h1>11 Nevada - 16,402</h1> <h1>12 Oregon - 16,221</h1>

Please check out the excellent Saturday post over at http://roguepundit.typepad.com/roguepundit/ for a more detailed analysis. I repeat: this is ,i>not accurate.

Note to self - read comments before commenting. ht/brian

Both HUD, and the National Alliance to End Homelessness have stakes in the numbers of people who are homeless because they both dreamed up the "10-year plan to end homelessness."

These numbers are crap. We have way more than 750,000 people who are homeless in America. Don't be fooled by the spin... HUD and the National Alliance for the Homeless are lost at sea, while hundreds of local city governments are maning the decks.

Both HUD and the Alliance have been making big PR pushes along with city governments to show how many people they have housed in the first phases of the 10-year plan. It makes since for the Alliance to put out a report based on the definition created by none other than themselves, and HUD.

What they don't tell you is most individuals that have been housed are lacking jobs and healthcare and are living on 12 to 18 month vouchers provided by money allocated by HUD that will start running out soon enough. Not to mention people are still becoming homeless at alarming rates. Service providers are already waving flags for the oncoming trainwreck unless people are provided jobs, etc. Forgive any mispellings, I'm on the run and wanted to throw in my two cents.

Thanks for posting this Blue Oregon!

Oh, and Portland's first Homeless Count in two years officially begins next week. So Oregon's #'s are bunk anyway. Two years ago we had 16,000 people experiencing homelessness in Mult. County alone...

"End Homelessness"? How will this ever happen? Is the government van going to roll up to the campsite and force people to enter a shelter where they (1)can't drink or do drugs, (2) have to follow a bunch of rules, and (3) get beat up and robbed by other homeless people.

Vets make up a large percentage of the homeless. Mainly PTSD cases.

I think it's absolutely shameful that in a state where they waste billons on mass-transit and tram projects we cannot even take care of the homeless. Shame on Oregon, Shame on the liberals! Maybe it's time for the NGOs to step up to the plate because it's quit obvious the government isn't doing its job.

Greg Tompkins said:

Maybe it's time for the NGOs to step up to the plate because it's quit obvious the government isn't doing its job.

How likely is that?

NGO's are helpful and can improve policy making and implemenation but they are limited in their ability to solve a problem like homelessness at the scale of the problem without government funding.

Government has the ability to tax (progessively).

If government has not been doing the job, it's because WE'RE not voting for the right people or the right mix of taxes and spending.

We're simply not regulating for and putting enough money into affordable housing (close to efficient transit), rent subsidies and mental health services.

It is something we can solve and we should demonstrate solidarity with the homeless by demanding that the problem gets solved ASAP.

Greg:

First of all, there are a lot of NGOs doing a lot of good work helping Oregon's homeless. I guess that's one of the reasons we manage to shelter 48% of them. In any event, no one (especially not the liberals) are keeping NGOs out. Check it out; you'll be pleased.

Second, how can you lay this at the feet of liberals when conservatives have controlled the state budget (and through ballot initiatives, state revenue)? Are you kidding? Or do you reflexively blame every problem in the world on liberals?

Third, the lion's share of the money spent for transportation in Oregon comes from the federal government. Those dollars were designated by Pres. Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress -- ooh! those darned lib'ruls -- to be used for transportation. It's not legal to use that money to help the homeless.

So, basically, your post was wrong on every single point of fact. Zero for three. Ouch.

I do wonder, though, why are you so mad? It seems like you're much more intrested in shouting at liberals and blaming them for stuff than actually solving (or even understanding) the problem. What happened in your life that left you so angry?

Unfortunately, most non-profits who work with people experiencing homelessness couldn't exist without goverment funding. When those non-profits get their funding cut by conservatives (Bush) - foundations have to pick up the slack, pushing even more non-profits to scramble for funding. Thus, the foundations have to change their focus making it hard for organizations to follow their missions, and forcing groups to follow the money instead of doing the right thing.... More so, it takes away from the idea that homelessness can be solved by non-profits, or NGO's - really you solve homelessness when you create living wage jobs, provide healthcare, and affordable housing. Housing people is only one piece of the puzzle.

Israel Said:

- really you solve homelessness when you create living wage jobs, provide healthcare, and affordable housing. Housing people is only one piece of the puzzle.

Excellent point, I'd only add income support to your list ... especially given Steve Buckman's point above regarding unemployment.

Well maybe there wouldn't be so many homeless people here if people could afford to pay their taxes! Also, maybe more people would give money to the NGO's (who could manage the funds) if the government wasn't helping themselves to everyone's paychecks. These self-serving government employees live high off the hog while many others are struggling and some don't even have a place to live. This should be criminal! As for the "the feds didn't provide any funding" line, why do these liberals have this idea that the federal government is some big giant money tree up in the sky that can just drop money out for every whim? They can afford to build gargantuan transit projects, even fund highly controversial "public art" throughout the city, along the max lines, etc. but then come up short when it comes to vital services (i.e. housing for the homeless, sewers, fixing potholes, etc.). Where are their priorities? As far as me placing blame on "the liberals", last I checked Portland/Multnomah county has long been a liberal bastion. Why place blame on the conservatives in State or Federal government when this is a LOCAL problem.

Greg:

Are you seriously suggesting that a sizeable chunk of the homeless were taxed into homelessness? That's, um, interesting.

I can't tell if you're a real conservative or a progressive who is trying to give conservatives a bad name by acting, well, crazy. To hedge my bets, I'm going to make two troll donations.

One to the Bus Project and one to JOIN, a Portland-based organization that helps the homeless into housing.

Honestly I don't know what I am - "conservative" or "progressive" as I have real differences with BOTH camps. Thank You for listening to my seemingly "crazy" rants. I just wish they could do something truly progressive and instead of spending money on art projects spend on homeless instead. Also, thank you for telling me about Bus Project and JOIN. I will research them and maybe I, too, will donate!!

--GREG--

Greg said:

Why place blame on the conservatives in State or Federal government when this is a LOCAL problem.

Because it is not just a local problem. Any city or state that tries to solve the problem on their own will: a) attract poor people to their jurisdiction b) face resistance of local tax payers who pay for services. It's a classic reason for federalism.

I'll agree many Oregon Democrats are not progressive enough to commit our resources to solving the problems of those most in need. But Reaganomics, Bushes compassionate conservatism or his crony capitalism have not come close to offering viable solutions. The opposite is true. They've reduced the progressivity in taxation such that income transfers and public spending on housing and services are more difficult to acheive. Let's not even get into spending for Iraq.

It's a false dichotomy to say that it is either transit or homes.

We need to cut the excuses.

Years ago I couldn't get to a good paying job that was offered to me because the bus didn't run to the address, so I took a smaller wage at a downtown job. Lack of transit cause many to do without and then the city government in Portland has added to the problem with the amount of SRO,( single room occupancy ) housing torn down. Then there are the zoning laws that outlaw, or restrict boarding houses and one probably go on, but it isn't worth it. MW

What I find striking is the disparity between the various areas of the state itself. Even if the data is skewed (underreported) - as I know it is - it's telling. Take a look at page 34 of the report - the part of Appendix A that lists the counts by "CoC".

OR-500, Eugene/Springfield/Lane Co. had 1184 sheltered, 109 unsheltered. Almost 92% sheltered.

OR-501, Portland/Gresham/Mult. Co. had 2749 sheltered, 2355 unsheltered. About 53% sheltered.

OR-506, Hillsboro/Beaverton/Wash. Co. had 360 sheltered, 1653 unsheltered. About 18% sheltered.

OR-507, Clackamas County had 167 sheltered, 1601 unsheltered. About 9% sheltered.

Are Portland and Salem getting the lion's share of these funds? If so, why? I know people who've been waiting for Section 8 for over five years in Clackamas County. Caseworkers there actually DO tell their clients to move to Multnomah County if they want these services.

Why is there such disparity even among the three largest populated counties (Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington) for ALL services? There IS life outside of Portland, you know?

Home-Less,...Unshetered or Jobless ?

Figure the potential homeless are now living in an apartment and have a Job for now. They loose their job and may become homeless in less than 8 weeks. Where are the numbers, from our Land-Lords,....or in some cases you have to call them Land-Lizards, who have kicked out previous renters,...that went begging or became homeless ? Without a job then, anyone becomes unsheltered as well and without health or mental care ? I'm sure there are not any real statistics or willing Landlords or Property Managers that are going to cooperate in producing that information.

There is a very simple SOLUTION to the Unsheltered however, and you only have to take a serious and solid LOOK at the now, very longterm unoccupied business Parks ! Some of these have never been occupied by a business since they were NEW! Everyone should be asking themselves how these vast square footages of unoccupied realistate can exist? We the tax payers are certainly cutting the owners of these properties tax breaks of some sort for holding these buildings unused, or they could not exist at all by other means ! You see where I'm going with this,...as some correct Legislation from Salem,....could well dictate that either these buildings become occupied with Job Providing businesses,....or via their vacancy can and should be temporarily taken over by the State or Local City governments and for the sole purpose as being controlled shelters for the homeless indeed ! That's right you pitiful Capitalists! You can finally start paying we Tax Payers back,....for the Tax Write Offs we're paying you,... for holding these hundreds of millions of square feet of prime and unprime business space, as Unoccupied Business Dwellings and yet sucking up a portions of our Electricity and Gas for heat and lighting ! Too, they shed massive amounts of run-off water into our streams from the parking lots and roof tops. Some of that water adds to our local flooding problems too,..and we tax payers have to pay for that as well, in ever higher water runoff fees.

So,...if your looking for spaces to shelter the deserving homeless, then look no further than the unused and sometimes neglected Commercial properties,that are not serving their intended purposes ! We can then simply call them "Blighted Property," as property developers or City planning commisions will consider your own home if need be!
The Homeless can at least be kept out of the elements and not found in our Emergency Clinics half dead. Once housed in large enough distributed properties,...both their physical and mental health can be accurately determined by volunteer Doctors. And volunteer Police and be there as well. The homeless can be fed there and we can finally get a REAL COUNT, of exactly how many and what kinds of people we're needing to support.

How many millions of square feet of empty business space are there now in Portland and Washington County ? Why there are thousands of acres of it,..and it's not serving the purpose it was intended, nor any other service either. Too,....we the taxpayers are supporting these EMPTY business havens,..because they are sucking up on a portion of our Tax supported infrastrucer, while other unidentified Corporations, Lawyers, Managers and investors such as Insurance Companies and the Catholic Church, that live outside the State of Oregon as well, force us Tax Payers to help pay for these properties and supply the vast quantities of water that keep these business Parks lawns GREEN.
Power, gas and indeed Fire and Police protections are all part of that Tax Money Consumption. These many EMPTY buildings now serving not their intended purposes to business and certainly not any substance to the communities they inhabit, or to some degree the Business Taxes that are not collected, are all a part of OUR Greater Tax Burdon!

As to the actual,real Tax incentives these providers of Commercial Business spaces are given by City, State and Federal governments,

is still a partial mystery to me of course,....so if anyone can add to the fuel on a fire that needs to be started here,then I welcome any and all comments.
I know too little, but suspect much about these now, many Empty Commercial Properties and how they continue to exist unoccupied for YEARS ? There must be great tax incentives and diversions to the owners and investors of these properties,...and from who's pockets but the real workers, can this subsistance money flow ? What other hidden taxes are we paying to support them and why aren't the supposed thousands of Terrorists that hate capitalism, that our Federal Government tells us have already infiltrated our countries borders,...why are they not busy burning these empty business parks to the ground ?

Brent Davis

Homelessness will cease to be an issue when a Democrat is elected President. Like when Clinton was in there, the media and others will not say anything lest people think Democrats are causing it or not doing anything about it. Then it will suddenly return when a Repub is elected.

Don't you just hate double standards?

Bob Tiernan

Torrid Joe,

While I'm not defending any Republican agenda, to say poverty went down under Clinton is wrong. Clinton did little to nothing to repair the damage done by the Reagon/Bush slashing of public housing funds - and lets not forget NAFTA which has contributed to homelessness a great deal happened under Bill's watch. In fact homelessness rates increased during the 1990's after the flood gates were opened in the 80's of course...

torrid joe:

When Clinton was President, poverty went down. Maybe that's why they didn't talk about it so much.

Bob T:

It's not poverty we're talking about, but homelessness. As soon as Clinton took the oath of office, there were no more homeless people to talk about. And they magically reappeared as a major issue when Bush took the oath of office.

torrid joe:

Homelessness curiously is more of an issue under Republican governance than Democratic. I wonder why that is? Hmmmm......

Bob T:

Because homeless advocates want it to be a big issue under Repubs, not Democrats. In the black and white world of Dems and Repubs, players must convince themselves that one is Bad, and the other is made of sugar and spice and everything nice.

By the way, were you aware that one major reason why homelessness went up during the Reagan years was because of a court decision (or set of decisions) in favor of people in mental hospitals that the ACLU said were being held against their wishes, and that thousands were then released?

That wasn't Regean, and it wasn't "poverty".

Bob Tiernan

A huge problem I have been watching is the impact of bad, hostile, uncaring management on renters. Even NGO's , nonprofit landlords, have plenty of this. In clackamas county even. The main thing is , being callous, uncaring and hostile in handing out "violations" to renters of apartments, renters not passing inspections etc. Especially disabled people, or working single parents who have no time for perfect housekeeping, etc. No longer required by law, is the 72-hour notice to enter, for inspections: now they can tape a 24-hour notice onto your door, that you only see when you arive home from work, and the inspection is the next day at 8 am. Whoops!!! you have been running yourself ragged with the kids and work, so your place is a mess. Not terrible, just not perfect. You FAIL your inspection. You might not get it quite perfect enough for whatever subjective reason, after they re-inspect 2 weeks later either. Bad management will not help you understand before, or after they inspect. So... guess what. Even nonprofit housing, without any tenant advocacy, does this to its renters. Threatens them with becoming, or makes them homeless. This, and all kinds of other scenarios: "You have too many boxes. Throw them out into this big dumpster. Then you'll MAYBE pass your inspection". (Not really a HUD regulation, but they like to pretend you can't have lots of boxes). So they expect you to throw away your personal possessions due to someone's opinion of what's too many boxes in your apartment. No, you don't get to take your time and sell your stuff instead. no, they weren't blocking anything. No, they weren't by the heater. Just being arbitrary about it. Making poor and disabled and families homeless because of boxes. Right in the housing owned by the very nonprofits that supposedly help the poor or homeless. WHAT A SICKENING JOKE. Occasionally, a good and caring manager might give at least a few days' notice, and a list of expectations; that is helpful: but the bad ones don't. A good manager institutes a nicer policy of warnings first, then violations if not compliant; a bad manager next comes along and wipes out that policy, without telling any of the renters that-- umm, --standards have changed. Result: massive violations all around. Potential result: Several homeless disabled and seriously impoverished people/ families. And these are not serious violations, surely not worthy of kicking someone out of their low-cost housing. Drug dealers, on the other hand, get to stay and keep on dealing. There is no manager living onsite, so it's just your word and they didn't see it themselves. Too bad. Meth and coke flowing freely on nonprofit and HUD property, or so I hear. Oh heck why not? keep the dealers housed, but kick out the disabled and working moms because the management has draconian standards on housekeeping ( not even normal ones). I'm so disgusted I could literally puke. These things are happening right now, I am personally watching this and other awful stuff happen at a complex owned by a clackamas county nonprofit. SHAME ON THEM!!!!

If these nonprofits do not advocate for and protect their own renters, they leave them at the mercy of management companies they have hired to do this filthy work in their name. Maybe the NGO's don't realize what is going on. But that is because they are not paying attention, and have no real tenant advocacy ongoing. No one quite knows how to protect themselves from this stuff, they need to have advocacy. These are vulnerable people, and if even the organizations which are paid to attend to their special issues don't care, then who will? No wonder clackamas county has such low percentage of SHELTERED homeless. There's some sort of vacancy of care, and caring; not much of a continuum of care, or caring, here.

Have they ever thought of this? Give the homeless a $10k check and send them on a plane somewhere far far away and make them sign an agreement to never return to Oregon again. Problem solved.