Inclusive Counting: Addressing Portland’s Homelessness Data Gaps
Homelessness in Portland is not just a persistent crisis but an urgent one, fueled by escalating housing costs and an inadequate social safety net. The need for accurate data is pressing, as it is crucial for assessing and implementing practical solutions. However, current methodologies, particularly HUD's Point-in-Time (PIT) count, use a limited scope that results in a significant undercount of the populations needing help.
Currently, the PIT count only includes those living in shelters or on the streets, excluding many who are "doubled up" (meaning those living temporarily with friends or family due to economic hardship) and those in institutions like hospitals or jails. This narrow definition leads to significant undercounting, meaning that including doubled-up individuals and those in unstable circumstances is crucial. These groups represent a hidden portion of the homeless population, often cycling in and out of unstable housing. For instance, a 2008 study found that 15.3% of jail inmates were homeless before incarceration. Ignoring these individuals skews data and misdirects resources.
A comparison of the total homeless population count Hennepin Co., MN conducted by Wilder Research with the HUD PIT. (Source: Wilder Research, Homeless Study Detailed Data– Counts) |
While not without use, the PIT count as it is should not be the sole source of information in any policy. Prospective researchers are also encouraged to note any changes in methodology or classification, particularly when analyzing year-to-year trends. Other data sources, such as the Department of Education (ED) report on homeless students or Wilder Research’s expanded PIT methods, can be beneficial. Although these reports have limitations, they offer a broader indication of the issue due to their more expansive definition of homelessness and annual estimates.
These comprehensive approaches promise better resource allocation and policies, offering hope for a brighter future. Expanding the definition is not just a methodological improvement but a moral obligation. It's time to ensure no one is left out of the count or the solutions, speaking to our commitment to social justice.
For more information, read DON’T COUNT ON IT, The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty’s report on the shortcomings of the PIT count. Additionally, visit Wilder Research’s MINNESOTA HOMELESS STUDY for an example of improved PIT survey methodology in action.
Comments
Post a Comment